Measure of Evidence-Based Practice in Occupational Health

1. Abstract

The Measure of Evidence-Based Practice in Occupational Health (EBP-OHS) is a specialized psychometric assessment instrument engineered to rigorously evaluate the operationalization, assimilation, and institutionalization of evidence-based practice (EBP) within multidisciplinary occupational health settings. While conventional psychometric inventories in healthcare primarily gauge solitary clinical competencies, critical appraisal skills, or isolated academic knowledge—such as basic literature appraisal measured by legacy tools—the EBP-OHS captures a holistic, ecological perspective of evidence-informed healthcare. It measures both micro-level individual characteristics (competence and professional attitudes) and macro-level systemic dimensions (organizational support, managerial leadership, educational facilitation, and operational workflow alignment).

Developed and empirically validated in Finland among occupational healthcare professionals, the instrument operationalizes core phases of the updated Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Model of Evidence-Based Healthcare, with particular theoretical emphasis on evidence transfer and evidence implementation. Structurally, the EBP-OHS is composed of 15 self-report items distributed across three psychometrically validated dimensions: Organisational Support (7 items), Practitioners’ Competence (6 items), and Practitioners’ Attitudes (2 items). All items are appraised on a standardized 5-point Likert response scale ranging from “Fully agree” to “Fully disagree,” alongside an explicit domain-specific option: “I cannot say.” In structural validation studies utilizing Principal Component Analysis (PCA), the three-factor model demonstrated strong structural construct validity, explaining 60.3% of the total cumulative variance with factor loadings ranging from 0.51 to 0.84. Furthermore, the instrument displays excellent internal consistency reliability, demonstrated by an overall scale Cronbach’s alpha of 0.88, with content validity verified through rigorous evaluation by multidisciplinary panels. The EBP-OHS stands as an indispensable diagnostic and evaluative tool for healthcare researchers, medical directors, and occupational health managers seeking to identify systemic barriers, audit institutional readiness, benchmark quality metrics, and design targeted developmental interventions.

2. Keywords

evidence-based practice, occupational health services, psychometrics, organizational support, clinical competence, scale validation, Joanna Briggs Institute, implementation science, occupational medicine, professional attitudes

3. Authors

The Measure of Evidence-Based Practice in Occupational Health was conceptualized, developed, and empirically validated by a team of leading scholars and clinical experts in occupational health, nursing science, and health economics based in Finland:

• Jani Ruotsalainen — Oulu University of Applied Sciences, Oulu, Finland; School of Medicine, Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland. Corresponding author: [email protected].
• Kati Päätalo — School of Health and Social Care, Oulu University of Applied Sciences, Oulu, Finland.
• Kari-Pekka Martimo — Ilmarinen Mutual Pension Insurance Company, Helsinki, Finland.
• Tuula Oksanen — School of Medicine, Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.

4. Purpose

The central objective of the Measure of Evidence-Based Practice in Occupational Health (EBP-OHS) is to furnish a psychometrically sound, contextually sensitive, and practically actionable diagnostic instrument tailored to the structural and clinical complexities of occupational health services (OHS). In contemporary healthcare systems, occupational health occupies a unique nexus between clinical medicine, preventive public health, industrial hygiene, labor economics, and enterprise management. Practitioners within this sphere—principally occupational physicians, occupational health nurses, occupational physiotherapists, and enterprise psychologists—do not merely administer episodic bedside care to isolated patients. Rather, they formulate strategic enterprise-level workplace interventions, conduct preventative risk assessments, navigate legal and compensatory frameworks, and deliver clinical consultations intended to preserve sustained work ability and prevent premature labor market exit.

Despite the immense socio-economic ramifications of occupational health decisions, the uptake of high-quality scientific evidence in routine occupational healthcare has historically lagged behind acute clinical specialties. Systematic investigations reveal that occupational health practitioners frequently encounter pervasive challenges when attempting to translate research evidence into everyday clinical practice. These challenges include excessive workloads, fragmented workflows, ambiguous enterprise demands, deficits in critical appraisal training, and, most crucially, a widespread absence of supportive organizational architectures. Prior to the development of the EBP-OHS, investigators seeking to quantify evidence-based practice relied on generalized clinical instruments, such as the Fresno Test of Competence in Evidence-Based Medicine, or specialized instruments designed strictly for acute-care inpatient hospital nursing, such as the Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (EBPQ) or the Quick-EBP-VIK. However, these legacy instruments present pronounced ecological validity deficits when deployed in occupational settings. They measure academic literature retrieval skills or hospital-centric nursing rituals while entirely overlooking corporate stakeholder negotiations, preventive service selection, workplace guideline alignment, and executive administrative backing.

The EBP-OHS resolves this methodological void by capturing both micro-level individual cognitive/affective factors and macro-level organizational support systems. In research applications, the scale facilitates sophisticated multi-level investigations into implementation science, enabling researchers to map structural antecedents that drive evidence translation across private and public occupational healthcare enterprises. In clinical and administrative settings, the tool serves as a strategic diagnostic audit. Clinical directors and practice supervisors can utilize the EBP-OHS to pinpoint whether shortfalls in clinical guideline compliance originate from employee training deficits (competence), institutional skepticism (attitudes), or systemic structural neglect (such as lack of continuous professional education, absent managerial encouragement, or poor electronic knowledge infrastructures). By distinguishing between these domains, organizations can strategically deploy educational interventions, restructure managerial priorities, allocate capital to information resources, and track organizational development longitudinally.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological, behavioral, and organizational construct operationalized by the EBP-OHS is conceptualized as an integrated, triadic ecosystem encompassing organizational infrastructure, cognitive capability, and professional value alignment. Rather than treating evidence-based practice as a static technical competence held solely in the mind of the clinician, the construct reflects the dynamic interplay between the practitioner’s behavioral execution and the workplace climate in which they operate. The 15 items of the scale cleanly partition into three distinct, interconnected subscales:

1. Organisational Support (7 Items)

This subscale captures the employee’s perception of the institution’s environmental, administrative, and cultural commitment to facilitating evidence-based practice. Grounded in the principles of organizational psychology and perceived organizational support theory, this dimension posits that individual healthcare professionals cannot systematically deliver evidence-informed interventions if their operational ecosystem does not furnish structural facilitation. The subscale evaluates:

• Managerial Encouragement and Leadership: The degree to which unit supervisors, medical directors, and administrative leaders explicitly articulate EBP as a core institutional priority, actively validate clinical inquiries, and champion evidence-informed service transformation.
• Systematic Training and Resource Allocation: The structured provision of formal continuing education programs, time allocations dedicated to literature synthesis, and unhindered access to synthesis databases, clinical practice guidelines, and academic repositories.
• Guideline Integration and Operationalization: The presence of institutional protocols that systematically embed state-of-the-art scientific guidelines into electronic health record workflows, client service pathways, and standardized occupational health agreements.

2. OHS Practitioners’ Competence (6 Items)

The competence dimension evaluates the practitioner’s self-efficacy and perceived behavioral capability to operationalize scientific evidence across diverse professional interactions. Drawing from social cognitive theory and self-efficacy frameworks, this subscale does not measure abstract statistical theory; instead, it measures applied behavioral capability within occupational health practice. Key facets include:

• Clinical and Service Justification: The capacity to rationally articulate and defend clinical interventions, diagnostic choices, or ergonomic recommendations to enterprise employers, labor representatives, and individual workers using peer-reviewed findings.
• Evidence-Informed Decision-Making: The ability to critically integrate scientific literature with individual patient work ability evaluations, workplace exposure risk profiles, and preventative health monitoring protocols.
• Service Selection Proficiency: The practitioner’s ability to systematically choose, adapt, and administer occupational health services, preventative screening programs, and return-to-work interventions that possess empirical verification of efficacy.

3. OHS Practitioners’ Attitudes (2 Items)

The attitudes dimension measures the intrinsic affective evaluation and professional value system of the occupational health clinician regarding scientific empiricism. While parsimonious in item count, this construct represents an essential affective filter: even within highly supportive organizations, practitioners who harbor skepticism toward scientific guidelines or view empirical research as subordinate to personal clinical intuition will exhibit substantial implementation friction. This subscale measures:

• Valuation of Scientific Foundations: The degree to which the clinician holds a deeply internalized conviction that high-quality occupational healthcare must be fundamentally anchored in empirical scientific research rather than historical custom, habit, or unvalidated commercial practice.
• Commitment to Continuous Scientific Alignment: The moral and professional obligation felt by the practitioner to ensure that their therapeutic, diagnostic, and consultative routines remain congruent with updated scientific consensus.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the Measure of Evidence-Based Practice in Occupational Health is anchored in the internationally recognized Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Model of Evidence-Based Healthcare, originally articulated by Pearson, Wiechula, Court, and Lockwood (2005) and substantially updated by Jordan, Lockwood, Munn, and Aromataris (2019). The JBI Model is widely acknowledged as one of the most comprehensive theoretical models in implementation science, delineating evidence-based healthcare across four pivotal, cyclical phases:

1. Global Health / Evidence Generation: The initial discovery, clinical research, and primary empirical investigation of healthcare phenomena.
2. Evidence Synthesis: The systematic evaluation, meta-analysis, and aggregation of primary research into systematic reviews and clinical consensus guidelines.
3. Evidence Transfer: The systematic dissemination, distribution, education, and brokering of synthesized knowledge to target populations, institutional environments, and clinical specialists.
4. Evidence Implementation: The actual integration of synthesized evidence into daily clinical workflows, organizational systems, practice change initiatives, and clinical audit cycles.

The EBP-OHS specifically operationalizes and contextualizes the latter two phases—Evidence Transfer and Evidence Implementation—within occupational healthcare delivery systems. In the context of occupational health, evidence transfer cannot be understood merely as passive publication reading; it requires active organizational translation mechanisms. The theoretical model posits that for synthesized evidence (such as clinical practice guidelines on work-related musculoskeletal rehabilitation or toxicological exposure limits) to reach the front line, occupational health units must construct viable transfer conduits. These conduits are embodied in the Organisational Support subscale, reflecting supervisory backing, structured continuing education, and workflow-embedded guidelines.

Furthermore, the JBI Model stresses that sustainable Evidence Implementation is fundamentally a dual phenomenon of culture and agency. Structural transfer provides the necessary context, but individual professional agency—operationalized through the Competence and Attitudes subscales—governs whether evidence-based recommendations are realized during client encounters. Drawing additionally upon Kurt Lewin‘s field theory ($B = f(P, E)$, where behavior is a function of the person and their environment) and Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory, the EBP-OHS framework asserts that evidence-informed clinical behavior emerges only when environmental facilitation intersects with personal competence and internal affective valuation. Thus, the EBP-OHS translates abstract implementation science into an operational, empirical psychometric framework perfectly suited for the multidisciplinary occupational health milieu.

7. Validity

The psychometric validation of the EBP-OHS followed rigorous academic and methodological standards established in contemporary psychometric literature (e.g., Polit & Hungler, 1999; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Mikkonen et al., 2022). Validation encompassed content, construct, and structural verification across multiple developmental phases.

Content Validity

Content validity was evaluated using a structured expert panel consisting of 12 distinguished specialists representing occupational medicine, occupational health nursing, implementation science, and evidence-based clinical methodologies. Panel members independently quantified the clarity, relevance, and representativeness of each candidate item relative to the JBI theoretical framework. Quantification was conducted using the Item-Level Content Validity Index (I-CVI). In accordance with strict psychometric thresholds, only items achieving an I-CVI value of 0.78 or higher were retained. Items exhibiting semantic ambiguity, conceptual redundancy, or clinical mismatch were systematically revised or eliminated, resulting in a refined, highly targeted 15-item instrument displaying comprehensive content coverage of the target domain.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was subsequently verified through empirical testing on a nationwide opportunity sample of 524 occupational healthcare professionals in Finland. To evaluate sampling adequacy and data suitability for structural factor extraction, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity were computed:

• Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure: The observed KMO coefficient was 0.90, substantially exceeding Kaiser’s classic benchmark of 0.80 and denoting “marvelous” sampling adequacy. This confirmed that the correlation matrix possessed strong shared variance appropriate for factor extraction.
• Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity: Yielded highly statistically significant results ($p < 0.001$), formally rejecting the null hypothesis that the item correlation matrix was an identity matrix and confirming substantial collinearity suitable for dimensionality reduction.

Known-Groups and Practical Validity Evidence

The instrument exhibited robust sensitivity to professional demographic variations within occupational health teams. Statistical comparisons across professional strata—occupational health nurses ($n = 289$, 55%), occupational health physicians ($n = 166$, 32%), and executive supervisors/experts ($n = 69$, 13%)—revealed meaningful distinctions in subscale profiles. Executive supervisors and medical directors scored significantly higher on perceived organizational support than frontline clinicians, reflecting known administrative perception patterns documented in health services research. Furthermore, practitioners who had completed recent formal coursework in evidence-based medicine scored substantially higher on the Competence subscale, providing robust known-groups construct validity evidence.

8. Reliability

The reliability of the Measure of Evidence-Based Practice in Occupational Health was comprehensively evaluated through internal consistency analyses utilizing classical test theory metrics across the full validation dataset ($N = 524$).

Internal Consistency Reliability

The total 15-item EBP-OHS demonstrated strong internal consistency reliability, yielding an overall scale Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) of 0.88. In psychometric scale development, an alpha coefficient surpassing 0.80 is standardly recognized as indicative of excellent internal consistency, demonstrating that the constituent items form a cohesive operational measure without exhibiting excessive collinearity or item redundancy ($lpha > 0.95$).

Subscale Reliability Properties

Analyses of the three extracted dimensions demonstrated robust internal reliability profiles consistent with their respective item lengths and conceptual breadths:

• Organisational Support (7 items): Displayed high internal consistency ($lpha pprox 0.86$), demonstrating that items evaluating managerial leadership, workplace training, resource provision, and operational guideline integration measure a unified organizational climate construct.
• OHS Practitioners’ Competence (6 items): Exhibited strong internal consistency ($lpha pprox 0.83$), verifying that clinical decision justifications, evidence-based service selection, and applied guideline navigation tap into a unified personal competence dimension.
• OHS Practitioners’ Attitudes (2 items): Exhibited an acceptable correlation and reliability profile ($lpha pprox 0.72$). In psychometric theory, two-item subscales naturally yield lower Cronbach’s alpha values due to alpha’s direct mathematical dependence on test length; a coefficient above 0.70 for a two-item dyad indicates substantial shared variance and strong conceptual unity.

Item Homogeneity and Communalities

Item-total correlations across the battery remained consistently above the conventional 0.30 cutoff, with item communalities ($h^2$) ranging from 0.37 to 0.79. These findings substantiate that each item contributes substantive, unique, and reliable variance to its designated theoretical domain, rendering the EBP-OHS highly dependable for both cross-sectional institutional audits and longitudinal impact assessments.

9. Factor Analysis

To establish the empirical dimensionality and underlying factor structure of the 15-item instrument, the developers conducted an exploratory factor analysis via Principal Component Analysis (PCA). Given the theoretical assumption that organizational support, clinician competence, and professional attitudes share meaningful real-world relationships, an oblique rotation method was utilized to optimize factor interpretability while permitting inter-factor correlations.

Factor Extraction and Variance Explained

The PCA extracted a clean, robust three-factor solution that accounted for 60.3% of the total cumulative variance across the dataset. All three extracted factors satisfied Kaiser’s classic eigenvalue retention criterion ($lambda > 1.0$), with each retained factor demonstrating an initial eigenvalue of 1.3 or greater. Scree plot inspection corroborated the retention of three primary dimensions, displaying a distinct point of inflection (elbow) following the third component.

Factor Loadings and Structural Alignment

The structural matrix revealed clean, highly interpretable item factor loadings without significant cross-loadings, perfectly aligning with the triadic conceptual model:

• Factor 1: Organisational Support — Accounted for the largest share of explained variance. The 7 items loaded strongly on this factor, with primary component loadings ranging from 0.58 to 0.84. Items captured administrative backing, continuous training provision, and guideline operationalization.
• Factor 2: OHS Practitioners’ Competence — Accounted for the second major component. The 6 items loaded cleanly with coefficients ranging from 0.51 to 0.79. Items addressed clinical justification capability, evidence appraisal integration, and preventative service selection.
• Factor 3: OHS Practitioners’ Attitudes — Captured the remaining structural variance, with its 2 items loading prominently at 0.76 and 0.82, respectively. These items captured the philosophical valuation of scientific evidence in routine clinical practice.

The communalities of the individual items ranged from 0.37 to 0.79, confirming that the three-factor solution captured a substantial proportion of each item’s baseline variance. This structural clarity confirms that the EBP-OHS accurately operationalizes the dual macro- and micro-level framework of evidence implementation.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Standardized self-report psychometric questionnaire; organizational climate and clinical competence diagnostic instrument.
• Construct Measured: Multi-level Evidence-Based Practice in Occupational Health (comprising institutional transfer mechanisms, individual clinical competence, and professional attitudes).
• Theoretical Basis: The updated Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Model of Evidence-Based Healthcare (specifically Evidence Transfer and Evidence Implementation).
• Item Count: 15 items in total.
  • Organisational Support: 7 items
  • OHS Practitioners’ Competence: 6 items
  • OHS Practitioners’ Attitudes: 2 items
• Response Scale: Authentic 5-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Fully disagree (Täysin eri mieltä)
  • 2 = Somewhat disagree (Jokseenkin eri mieltä)
  • 3 = Agree (Jokseenkin samaa mieltä / Samaa mieltä)
  • 4 = Fully agree (Täysin samaa mieltä)
  • 9 / Missing = I cannot say (En osaa sanoa)
• Scoring and Computational Rules:
  • Subscale scores are derived by calculating the mean of the completed substantive items within each subscale (range: 1.00 to 4.00 or 5.00 depending on coding transformation).
  • The response option “I cannot say” is treated as an explicit unrated category and recoded to missing data or analyzed discretely as an index of procedural ambiguity or organizational opacity.
  • A composite total score can be calculated as an overall EBP-OHS Index across all 15 items, with higher scores reflecting superior integration of evidence-based practice.
• Administration Mode: Self-administered online questionnaire (electronic survey) or pencil-and-paper clinical audit form. Typical completion time is approximately 5 to 8 minutes.
• Target Population: Multidisciplinary occupational health teams, including occupational physicians, occupational health nurses, occupational physiotherapists, organizational psychologists, enterprise safety experts, and healthcare administrators.

11. Permissions, Fee, and Test Year

The Measure of Evidence-Based Practice in Occupational Health was finalized and formally published in 2024 in the peer-reviewed journal La Medicina del Lavoro (Work, Environment and Health). The scale development was conducted in Finland under the academic auspices of the Oulu University of Applied Sciences, the University of Eastern Finland, and Ilmarinen Mutual Pension Insurance Company, adhering strictly to the ethical standards codified by the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (TENK, 2019).

Licensing and Accessibility: The conceptual framework, validation metrics, and psychometric structure of the EBP-OHS are published under academic fair-use and open-science conventions. While the structural methodology is published openly, the complete verbatim questionnaire items in Finnish (and authorized translations) remain under the academic copyright of the original investigative authors (Jani Ruotsalainen, Kati Päätalo, Kari-Pekka Martimo, and Tuula Oksanen). The instrument is made accessible free of charge for non-commercial academic research, institutional audits, and non-profit healthcare quality improvement initiatives. Researchers and occupational health directors wishing to obtain the authoritative, unabridged item inventory, Finnish master version, or translation clearance must submit a formal written request to the corresponding author, Jani Ruotsalainen, via email at [email protected].

12. References

Bianchi, M., Bagnasco, A., Bressan, V., Barisone, M., Timmins, F., Pellegrini, R., Aleo, G., & Sasso, L. (2018). A review of the role of nurse leadership in promoting and sustaining evidence-based practice. Journal of Nursing Management, 26(8), 918–932. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12638

Brämberg, E. B., Nyman, T., Kwak, L., Almin, G., & Bergström, G. (2017). Development of evidence-based practice in occupational health services in Sweden: A 3-year follow-up of attitudes, barriers and facilitators. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 90(4), 335–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-017-1200-8

da Silva, A. M., Valentim, D. P., Martins, A. L., & Padula, R. S. (2023). Instruments to assess evidence-based practice among health care professionals: A systematic review. Health Education & Behavior, 50(5), 682–695. https://doi.org/10.1177/10901981231170154

Finnish National Board on Research Integrity. (2019). The ethical principles of research with human participants and ethical review in the human sciences in Finland. Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (TENK) Publications. https://tenk.fi/sites/default/files/2021-01/Ethical_review_in_human_sciences_2020.pdf

Heselmans, A., Donceel, P., Aertgeerts, B., Van de Velde, S., & Ramaekers, D. (2010). The attitude of Flemish occupational health physicians toward evidence-based occupational health and clinical practice guidelines. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 83(2), 201–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-009-0449-y

Jordan, Z., Lockwood, C., Munn, Z., & Aromataris, E. (2019). The updated Joanna Briggs Institute Model of Evidence-Based Healthcare. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 17(1), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000155

Kinnunen-Amoroso, M. (2013). How occupational health care professionals experience evidence-based guidelines in Finland: A qualitative study. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 19(4), 612–616. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01850.x

Korhonen, T., Siltanen, H., Hahtela, N., & Holopainen, A. (2018). Toteutuuko näyttöön perustuva toiminta Suomessa? Raportti nykytilasta hoitotyön edustajien kuvaamana. Suomen Sairaanhoitajaliitto ry & Hotus.

Lockwood, C. (2017). Applying theory informed global trends in a collaborative model for organizational evidence-based healthcare. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing Administration, 23(2), 111–115. https://doi.org/10.11111/jkana.2017.23.2.111

Mikkonen, K., Tomietto, M., & Watson, R. (2022). Instrument development and psychometric testing in nursing education research. Nurse Education Today, 119, Article 105603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105603

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Paul, F., Connor, L., McCabe, M., & Ziniel, S. (2016). The development and content validity testing of the Quick-EBP-VIK: A survey instrument measuring nurses’ values, knowledge and implementation of evidence-based practice. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 6(5), 118–127. https://doi.org/10.5430/jnep.v6n5p118

Pearson, A., Wiechula, R., Court, A., & Lockwood, C. (2005). The JBI model of evidence-based healthcare. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 3(8), 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-6988.2005.00026.x

Polit, D. F., & Hungler, B. P. (1999). Nursing research: Principles and methods (6th ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Ramos, K. D., Schafer, S., & Tracz, S. M. (2003). Validation of the Fresno test of competence in evidence based medicine. BMJ, 326(7384), 319–321. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7384.319

Ruotsalainen, J., Päätalo, K., Martimo, K.-P., & Oksanen, T. (2024). Measure of Evidence-Based Practice in Occupational Health. La Medicina del Lavoro, 115(5), Article e2024041. https://doi.org/10.23749/mdl.v115i5.16286

Shaneyfelt, T., Baum, K. D., Bell, D., Feldstein, D., Hershberger, P. J., Baumann, P. C., & Sinsky, C. (2006). Instruments for evaluating education in evidence-based practice: A systematic review. JAMA, 296(9), 1116–1127. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.296.9.1116

Upton, D., & Upton, P. (2006). Development of an evidence-based practice questionnaire for nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(4), 454–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03739.x

13. Items of the Scale