Measure of Evidence-Based Practice in Occupational Health

Abstract

The Measure of Evidence-Based Practice in Occupational Health (EBP-OHS) is a specialized, multidimensional psychometric instrument developed to evaluate the operationalization, integration, and cultural adoption of evidence-based practice (EBP) within occupational health services (OHS). Originating in Finland to overcome the ecological and structural limitations of legacy instruments—such as the Fresno test or nursing-centric inventories—the EBP-OHS captures the dual macro-level organizational infrastructure and micro-level practitioner competencies necessary for evidence-informed clinical and preventive decision-making. The instrument comprises 15 items evaluated across a distinctive 5-point Likert-type response scale (comprising Fully agree, Agree, Somewhat disagree, Fully disagree, and I cannot say). Through structural analysis, the instrument operationalizes three distinct latent dimensions: Organisational support (7 items), OHS practitioners' competence (6 items), and OHS practitioners' attitudes (2 items).

Psychometric evaluation of the EBP-OHS in a nationwide sample of 524 Finnish occupational healthcare professionals (occupational health physicians, occupational health nurses, and administrative supervisors) established robust empirical properties. Content validity was verified by a multi-expert panel yielding Item-Level Content Validity Index (I-CVI) values of ≥ 0.78 across retained items. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) confirmed a clear three-factor configuration explaining 60.3% of the total variance, with factor loadings spanning 0.51 to 0.84 and item communalities ranging from 0.37 to 0.79. The scale demonstrates excellent internal consistency reliability, indexed by an overall Cronbach's alpha of 0.88. By accounting for the interdependence of workplace organizational backing, clinical mastery, and professional conviction, the EBP-OHS provides health service administrators, industrial hygienists, organizational psychologists, and clinical researchers with an actionable, empirically validated diagnostic instrument to identify implementation barriers, steer curricular interventions, and optimize institutional occupational safety systems.

Keywords

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

Authors

The Measure of Evidence-Based Practice in Occupational Health (EBP-OHS) was conceptualized, developed, and psychometrically validated by an interdisciplinary team of researchers and clinical leaders in occupational health, health sciences, and organizational epidemiology:

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

Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Measure of Evidence-Based Practice in Occupational Health (EBP-OHS) is to furnish an empirically robust, domain-specific assessment battery that measures how occupational health personnel and their employing service organizations assimilate, appraise, and implement scientific evidence into day-to-day enterprise and clinical operations. Occupational health services occupy an inherently complex nexus bridging clinical medicine, employee wellness, preventive safety, labor law, and organizational performance. Despite the proliferation of clinical guidelines, occupational health practices historically suffered from substantial implementation variance, frequently relying on clinical tradition, organizational habit, or non-systematic empirical consensus rather than verified scientific research.

Prior to the introduction of the EBP-OHS, academic researchers and clinic managers relied on assessment instruments imported from acute hospital care or general medicine. Classic measures such as the Fresno Test evaluate individual technical competencies (such as database search syntaxes, calculation of likelihood ratios, and statistical understanding), whereas measures like the Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (EBPQ) were constructed primarily around hospital-based nursing routines. These legacy instruments possess minimal ecological validity within occupational health environments. In occupational health, an intervention rarely targets an individual patient in clinical isolation; rather, interventions require coordinated interactions among multidisciplinary teams (occupational health physicians, occupational health nurses, occupational physiotherapists, and organizational psychologists), corporate human resource managers, workplace safety representatives, and enterprise executives.

The clinical and administrative rationale underpinning the EBP-OHS rests on the premise that evidence-based occupational health cannot function as a solely individual cognitive skill. Rather, it constitutes an organizational ecosystem. Healthcare practitioners frequently experience individual readiness to deploy modern clinical guidelines but encounter insurmountable systemic barriers: prohibitive commercial workloads, absence of digital academic journal access, management indifference, or a lack of continuing professional education. Conversely, an institution may invest in subscriptions and clinical directives, but staff may harbor negative attitudes toward changing long-standing diagnostic habits. The EBP-OHS resolves this dilemma by systematically differentiating between individual competence, individual attitudes, and structural organizational facilitation. Consequently, the instrument serves clinical directors and policy planners as an actionable diagnostic audit. It enables organizations to pinpoint exactly why an evidence-to-practice gap exists—whether it is driven by structural resource deficits, educational skill gaps, or philosophical resistance—allowing for targeted structural interventions, customized continuing medical education, and longitudinal tracking of clinical quality improvement initiatives.

Psychological Construct

The EBP-OHS operationalizes evidence-based practice in occupational health as a multidimensional socio-cognitive and behavioral construct. Moving beyond reductionist conceptualizations of evidence utilization as a purely intellectual aptitude, the scale captures the interplay between individual professional traits and workplace environmental affordances. The construct spans three core dimensions:

1. Organisational Support (7 Items)

The Organisational support dimension captures the extent to which the practitioner perceives their work environment, administrative leadership, and operational infrastructure as actively fostering, enabling, and incentivizing evidence-based methodologies. Rooted in organizational climate theory, this subscale reflects systemic institutional commitment. Operationally, it measures managerial encouragement of scientific inquiry, systematic resource allocation (such as dedicated work hours for literature retrieval and paid participation in scientific congresses), institutional provision of ongoing vocational training, and the active maintenance of evidence-informed clinical guidelines within internal electronic health record workflows. A high score on this dimension reflects an organizational context characterized by psychological safety, proactive management, accessible scholarly databases, and explicit clinical governance where evidence utilization is formally embedded into the organizational standard operating procedures rather than relegated to voluntary off-duty professional conduct.

2. OHS Practitioners' Competence (6 Items)

The Competence dimension evaluates the self-reported functional mastery, procedural knowledge, and behavioral capability of the occupational health specialist to execute the core tenets of evidence-based healthcare. Rather than evaluating abstract biostatistical knowledge, this subscale targets pragmatic, applied clinical actions specific to occupational medicine. It gauges the practitioner's capacity to locate high-quality systematic reviews, critically evaluate the validity of clinical recommendations, translate epidemiological data to specific enterprise environments, and use scientific literature to justify clinical decisions to corporate clients and workers. Furthermore, it measures the practitioner's proficiency in selecting and defending evidence-supported workplace preventive services, risk assessments, and rehabilitation programs. Individuals with high scores demonstrate cognitive self-efficacy in operationalizing clinical research into routine patient consultations and enterprise-level occupational health agreements.

3. OHS Practitioners' Attitudes (2 Items)

The Attitudes dimension quantifies the affective, motivational, and philosophical value that occupational healthcare professionals ascribe to evidence-based practice. In accordance with the Theory of Planned Behavior, behavioral intention and subsequent clinical actions are substantially governed by internal attitudes toward that behavior. This subscale measures the fundamental professional belief that clinical and preventive activities must be substantiated by empirical scientific research to be ethically and clinically legitimate. Rather than perceiving scientific guidelines as an infringement on clinical autonomy, a practitioner scoring high on this dimension views empirical literature as an indispensable pillar of professional integrity, client safety, and optimal clinical practice.

Theoretical Framework

The architectural foundation of the EBP-OHS is grounded primarily in the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Model of Evidence-Based Healthcare (Jordan et al., 2119/2019; Pearson et al., 2005; Lockwood, 2017). The updated JBI Model conceptualizes evidence-based healthcare not as an isolated endpoint, but as a cyclical, global continuum organized around four pivotal operational phases: Evidence Generation, Evidence Synthesis, Evidence Transfer, and Evidence Implementation.

The EBP-OHS specifically operationalizes and integrates the final two phases of this framework within occupational health units:

• Evidence Transfer: This phase embodies the systemic translation, active dissemination, and communication of synthesized research findings to clinicians and end-users. In the EBP-OHS, evidence transfer is mirrored directly in the Organisational support dimension. It examines whether occupational health providers establish structural conduits—such as localized guideline updates, enterprise-wide educational modules, journal clubs, and modernized digital health informatics—to bridge the divide between academic production and workplace delivery.
• Evidence Implementation: This phase focuses on the actual behavioral translation and assimilation of research findings into clinical consultations, preventive interventions, and organizational change management. In the EBP-OHS framework, this is operationalized across the Practitioners' competence and Practitioners' attitudes dimensions. The model posits that implementation success requires a dual-level engine: the practitioner must possess both the clinical skill set to translate evidence into practice and the internal conviction that evidence-informed actions yield superior occupational safety and patient outcomes.

Furthermore, the EBP-OHS intersects JBI theory with socio-technical systems theory and implementation science models, such as the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). CFIR posits that intervention execution depends inextricably on the interplay between the "outer setting" (societal, legislative, and insurance mandates), the "inner setting" (structural culture, leadership engagement, and resource climate within the health center), and individual characteristics (practitioner knowledge, self-efficacy, and professional identity). By aligning its subscale construction with these theoretical structures, the EBP-OHS provides a theoretically integrated assessment of healthcare implementation.

Validity

The psychometric evaluation of the EBP-OHS demonstrated strong evidence of both content and construct validity across systematic developmental phases in accordance with international testing standards (Mikkonen et al., 2022; Polit & Hungler, 1999):

Content Validity

Content validity was evaluated using a structured expert panel approach. A specialized Delphi-oriented review was conducted with 12 independent experts encompassing senior occupational health physicians, academic clinical researchers, occupational nursing educators, and evidence-based medicine methodologists. Panelists systematically evaluated every draft candidate item for domain relevance, contextual clarity, representativeness, and phrasing precision relative to occupational health workflows. The Item-Level Content Validity Index (I-CVI) was calculated for each prospective statement. Items were strictly retained only if they attained an I-CVI threshold of ≥ 0.78, satisfying the conservative psychometric criteria established by Polit and colleagues. This procedure eliminated ambiguous items, refined clinical terminology, and ensured comprehensive domain coverage.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was formally evaluated on a nationwide cross-sectional opportunity sample of 524 Finnish occupational health professionals collected between November 2020 and August 2021. The demographic distribution represented key clinical roles within the service delivery model: 55% occupational health nurses (n = 289), 32% occupational health physicians (n = 166), and 13% multidisciplinary experts and administrative supervisors (n = 69).

The sample size met recommended thresholds for stable covariance matrix estimation (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Initial statistical checks confirmed data adequacy for factor extraction: the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy yielded an outstanding coefficient of 0.90, well above the recommended 0.60 ceiling, while Bartlett's Test of Sphericity confirmed significant matrix correlation divergence from an identity matrix. Principal Component Analysis demonstrated that the 15 items loaded onto three conceptually distinct factors corresponding precisely to theoretical dimensions, demonstrating robust internal structural validity without anomalous cross-loadings.

Reliability

The reliability of the EBP-OHS was evaluated through classical test theory metrics, concentrating on internal consistency and scale cohesion across the total scale and its sub-components:

Internal Consistency Reliability

The complete 15-item EBP-OHS achieved an overall Cronbach's alpha coefficient of α = 0.88 in the primary validation cohort (N = 524). In psychometric literature, an alpha value between 0.80 and 0.90 is widely recognized as indicating high reliability and harmonious internal consistency without exhibiting the item redundancy often observed when alpha exceeds 0.95.

Analysis of subscale reliability similarly revealed strong internal cohesion across factors:

• Organisational support (7 items) demonstrated high internal consistency, reflecting systematic alignment in how respondents perceived managerial guidance, resource availability, and institutional development.
• OHS practitioners' competence (6 items) demonstrated solid internal consistency, confirming that practitioner self-evaluations across literature retrieval, clinical appraisal, and workplace justification scale predictably onto a single latent operational competency vector.
• OHS practitioners' attitudes (2 items), despite the mathematical constraint that short scales naturally yield lower alpha coefficients, demonstrated acceptable inter-item correlation, capturing an integrated affective-philosophical alignment toward scientific evidence.

Item-total correlations across the inventory confirmed that every item correlated substantially with the overall scale score, with no single item removal improving the overall alpha index. This stability verifies that the EBP-OHS yields dependable, low-error variance scores suitable for cross-sectional institutional bench-marking, health services research, and longitudinal evaluations.

Factor Analysis

To determine the internal latent dimensionality of the 15-item instrument, the developers performed exploratory factor extraction via Principal Component Analysis (PCA) utilizing orthogonal and oblique rotations on the validation sample (N = 524).

Variance and Eigenvalues

The PCA extracted a three-factor solution that accounted for a substantial 60.3% of the total cumulative variance in the data matrix. In health sciences psychometrics, an explained variance threshold exceeding 50–60% indicates that the extracted components represent the underlying latent construct well. All three retained factors comfortably satisfied Kaiser's criterion (eigenvalues > 1.0), with each factor recording an empirical eigenvalue of 1.3 or greater.

Factor Loadings and Communalities

The factor matrix revealed a clean, theoretically interpretable structure:

• Factor 1: Organisational Support — 7 items; primary factor loadings ranged robustly from 0.51 to 0.84. Communalities demonstrated that organizational parameters (supervisory support, dedicated study time, accessible guidelines, and training resources) were well accounted for by the extracted factor.
• Factor 2: OHS Practitioners' Competence — 6 items; factor loadings clustered between 0.54 and 0.81, capturing applied skills in evidence retrieval, clinical decision rationale, and evidence-informed intervention design.
• Factor 3: OHS Practitioners' Attitudes — 2 items; factor loadings loaded cleanly onto this third component (> 0.70), isolating professional valuation and ethical commitments to science-based healthcare practice.

Across all 15 items, communality coefficients ranged from 0.37 to 0.79. These coefficients confirm that the shared variance accounted for by the factor solution was adequate to strong across the item inventory, validating the tripartite model of evidence-based occupational practice.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The EBP-OHS is an operational self-report assessment battery structured as follows:

• Instrument Name: Measure of Evidence-Based Practice in Occupational Health (EBP-OHS)
• Test Type: Multi-item, multidimensional self-report psychometric questionnaire
• Target Population: Occupational healthcare multidisciplinary teams, including occupational health physicians, occupational health nurses, occupational physiotherapists, occupational psychologists, clinic managers, and allied workplace health supervisors
• Item Count: 15 items
• Subscale Breakdown:
  • Organisational support: 7 items
  • OHS practitioners' competence: 6 items
  • OHS practitioners' attitudes: 2 items
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type response format:
  • Fully agree
  • Agree
  • Somewhat disagree
  • Fully disagree
  • I cannot say (distinct non-evaluative/neutral response category)
• Original Language: Finnish
• Administration Modality: Online digital survey, workplace intranet assessment, or self-administered print questionnaire; average completion duration is approximately 5 to 8 minutes.
• Scoring Procedures: Items within each subscale are scored categorically from high endorsement to low endorsement. The separate "I cannot say" category allows practitioners to abstain without distorting the continuum when evaluating organizational characteristics of which they have no direct knowledge. Mean scores or summative composites can be computed for individual subscales as well as an overall EBP-OHS composite index. Subscale profile analysis enables clinic managers to identify whether an occupational health unit suffers primarily from organizational resource deficiencies (low Organisational Support) despite high staff enthusiasm (high Attitudes and Competence), or vice versa.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Measure of Evidence-Based Practice in Occupational Health was formally published and validated in 2024 through an empirical research collaboration between Finnish academic institutions and healthcare insurers, published in the peer-reviewed journal La Medicina del Lavoro (Ruotsalainen et al., 2024).

Licensing and Academic Access: The instrument is protected by intellectual copyright held by the original authors and the publishing journal. The individual items of this scale are proprietary and are not publicly reproduced in the open literature. Researchers, clinicians, and organizational administrators seeking to review, license, translate, or deploy the complete 15-item EBP-OHS for academic research, health service evaluation, or commercial workforce audits must contact the corresponding author directly (Jani Ruotsalainen, [email protected]) to request formal usage authorization, scoring manuals, and the approved Finnish inventory or official translations.

References

Bianchi, M., Bagnasco, A., Bressan, V., Barisone, M., Timmins, F., Xing, W., & 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, J., & Hermansson, L. (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(6), 841–854. 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. TENK Guidelines 2019. 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 [Does evidence-based practice take place in Finland? Report on the current situation as described by nursing representatives]. Hoitotyön tutkimussäätiö (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, 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), 118–128. 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 e2024040. https://doi.org/10.23749/mdl.v115i5.16286

Shaneyfelt, T., Baum, K. D., Bell, D., Feldstein, D., Hershberger, P. J., Baumann, P. C., & Smetana, G. W. (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

Items of the Scale