Skip to main content

Table 2 Factor loadings, fit statistics, and correlations between items for the final model results

From: Pragmatic adaptation of implementation research measures for a novel context and multiple professional roles: a factor analysis study

 

Fit Statistics

Parameter Estimates (factor loadings, correlations)

Scale/Subscale/Item

χ2(df)

p

CFI

RMSEA

90% CI

WRMR

α

B

SE (B)

β

95% CI

ILS

7.523(5)

.185

1.00

.03

.000 | .060

.17

.89

    

Factor Loadings

  RIC’s leadership team supports clinicians’ efforts to learn about research.

1.00***

.00

.81

.786 | .842

  RIC’s leadership team supports clinicians’ efforts to use research in clinical practice.

.97***

.04

.77

.744 | .804

  RIC’s leadership team recognizes and appreciates employee efforts toward successful implementation of the AbilityLab Model of Care.

2.64***

.22

.91

.890 | .935

  RIC’s leadership team has removed obstacles to implementing the AbilityLab Model of Care.

1.94***

.14

.85

.825 | .881

  My direct supervisor is able to answer my questions about the AbilityLab Model of Care.

1.09***

.07

.68

.637 | .714

  My direct supervisor openly addresses problems regarding the implementation of new processes.

1.04***

.07

.66

.612 | .706

Correlations between items (WITH statements)

    

  My direct supervisor openly addresses problems regarding the implementation of new processes. WITH My direct supervisor is able to answer my questions about the AbilityLab Model of Care.

.55***

.03

.55

.496 | .594

  My direct supervisor openly addresses problems regarding the implementation of new processes. WITH RIC’s leadership team has removed obstacles to implementing the AbilityLab Model of Care.

−.30***

.06

−.30

−.412 | -.197

  My direct supervisor openly addresses problems regarding the implementation of new processes. WITH RIC’s leadership team recognizes and appreciates employee efforts toward successful implementation of the AbilityLab Model of Care.

−.22***

.07

−.22

−.353 | -.092

  RIC’s leadership team supports clinicians’ efforts to use research in clinical practice. WITH RIC’s leadership team supports clinicians’ efforts to learn about research.

.23***

.02

.58

.537 | .614

Item(s) removed during CFA: None

OCRBS

2.785(4)

.595

1.00

.00

.000 | .045

.16

.88

    

Factor Loadings

  I will experience more self-fulfillment with the AbilityLab Model of Care.

1.00***

.00

.86

.827 | .892

  I will benefit from the change from RIC’s current model of rehabilitation to the AbilityLab Model of Care.

1.17***

.09

.90

.860 | .923

  Most of my peers have embraced the AbilityLab Model of Care.

.64***

.06

.74

.696 | .774

  We have the capability to successfully implement the AbilityLab Model of Care.

.60***

.05

.71

.669 | .750

  Patients will benefit from the change from RIC’s current model of rehabilitation to the AbilityLab Model of Care.

.82***

.07

.81

.782 | .838

  I can implement the AbilityLab Model of Care.

.56***

.05

.69

.644 | .727

Correlations between items (WITH statements)

    

  I will experience more self-fulfillment with the AbilityLab Model of Care. WITH I will benefit from the change from RIC’s current model of rehabilitation to the AbilityLab Model of Care.

.28***

.08

.28

.119 | .439

  I will experience more self-fulfillment with the AbilityLab Model of Care. WITH I can implement the AbilityLab Model of Care.

.17***

.04

.17

.083 | .246

  Patients will benefit from the change from RIC’s current model of rehabilitation to the AbilityLab Model of Care. WITH We have the capability to successfully implement the AbilityLab Model of Care.

.35***

.04

.35

.270 | .427

  I can implement the AbilityLab Model of Care. WITH We have the capability to successfully implement the AbilityLab Model of Care.

.20***

.04

.20

.125 | .280

  Most of my peers have embraced the AbilityLab Model of Care. WITH I will benefit from the change from RIC’s current model of rehabilitation to the AbilityLab Model of Care.

−.25***

.06

−.25

−.374 | -.128

Item(s) removed during CFA: We need to improve the way we deliver care at RIC; I am prepared to be a part of the AbilityLab Model of Care.

EBPQ (clinicians only)

.000 (0)

.000

1.00

.00

.00 | .00

.00

.82

    

Factor Loadings

  Searched the literature to answer a question related to alternative plans of care.

1.00***

.00

.85

.805 | .891

  Evaluated the patient’s outcomes to assess if your plan of care was effective.

.50***

.05

.63

.560 | .692

  Shared your practice-based evidence with colleagues.

.56***

.05

.67

.608 | .722

  Integrated the evidence you found in the literature with your plan of care.

1.68***

.44

.94

.895 | .980

Correlations between items (WITH statements)

    

  Shared your practice-based evidence with colleagues. WITH Evaluated the patient’s outcomes to assess if your plan of care was effective.

.32***

.05

.32

.229 | .418

  Evaluated the patient’s outcomes to assess if your plan of care was effective. WITH Searched the literature to answer a question related to alternative plans of care.

−.34***

.09

−.34

−.507 | -.163

Item(s) removed during CFA: Seriously questioned whether your default plan of care was the best option.

EBPAS (clinicians only)

7.256(6)

.298

1.00

.02

.000 | .064

.22

     

Factor 1: Openness

      

.90

    

Factor Loadings

  I am eager to use new and different techniques or outcome measures developed by researchers.

1.00***

.00

.89

.854 | .925

  I would try new techniques or outcome measures even if it were very different from what I am used to doing.

.89***

.04

.95

.919 | .976

  I like to use new techniques or outcome measures to help my patients.

1.02***

.04

.90

.862 | .947

Correlations between items (WITH statements)

    

  I like to use new techniques or outcome measures to help my patients. WITH I would try new techniques or outcome measures even if it were very different from what I am used to doing.

−.07***

.02

−.59

−1.138 | -.047

Factor 2: Appeal/Requirement

    

.82

    

Factor Loadings

  it was being used by colleagues who were happy with it?

1.00

.00

.88

.838 | .915

  it was intuitively appealing?

1.02***

.04

.90

.864 | .930

  it was required by your supervisor?

.88***

.04

.77

.720 | .821

Correlations between items (WITH statements)

    

  it was required by your supervisor? WITH it was intuitively appealing?

−.08***

.03

−.30

−.503 | -.075

Correlation between Factors Open WITH Appeal/Requirement

.54***

.03

.70

.645 | .745

Item(s) removed during CFA: I know better than academic researchers how to care for my clients (reverse scored) (did not fit in either subscale)

  1. Note. ***p < .001. B = unstandardized factor loadings. β = standardized factor loadings. EBPQ Evidence Based Practice Questionnaire, EBPAS Evidence Based Practice Attitudes Scale, ILS Implementation Leadership Scale. OCBRS Organizational Change Recipient’s Belief Scale. Item key in Table 1. Only correlations between items and factors specified in the final model are reported; complete intercorrelations available in Supplemental Tables S1, S2, S3, S4
Back to article page

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

Contact us