Shuo Luan,1 Jia Song,2 Bin Ruan,1 Yuetong Zhu,1 Dongsen Liu,1 Jinghua Qian1 

1School of Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation, Beijing Sport University, Beijing, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of Evidence-Based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People’s Republic of China

Correspondence: Jinghua Qian, School of Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation, Beijing Sport University, Beijing, People’s Republic of China, Email jh5727@163.com; Dongsen Liu, School of Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation, Beijing Sport University, Beijing, People’s Republic of China, Email dongsam1001@sina.com

Purpose: To translate and culturally adapt the Evidence-Based Practice and Evidence-Informed Practice Questionnaire into the Chinese version and evaluate its psychometric properties.
Methods: The process of translation and cross-cultural adaptation adhered to the established guidelines, followed by psychometric evaluation that assessed floor/ceiling effects, face validity, content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, and test–retest reliability. The evaluation engaged 5 experts and 279 students (170 undergraduates and 109 postgraduates) from Beijing Sport University. Questionnaire items were categorized according to Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) and Evidence-Informed Practice (EIP) concepts, with varying response options for degree and frequency. Forty students completed the Chinese version of the questionnaire for the second time after a two-week period.
Results: No floor or ceiling effects were observed. Following the revision of item 32 and deletion of item 14, the Item-Level Content Validity Index (I-CVI) for all other items ranged from 0.80 to 1.00, with an average scale-level CVI (S-CVI/Ave) of 0.91. The final Chinese version of the questionnaire consists of 52 items, showing adequate internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.78, 0.86, 0.86, and 0.89 for the EBP (degree and frequency) and EIP (degree and frequency) items, respectively. Comparison between test–retest scores produced significant differences in all items, with Spearman correlation coefficient (r) ranging from 0.33 to 0.80 (p< 0.05), except for item 16 (r=0.29, p=0.065). Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) results indicated Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) values for EBP degree, EBP frequency, and EIP degree items ranging from 0.78 to 0.87. Bartlett’s test of sphericity yielded significant results, explaining 63.62%, 69.35%, and 70.91% of the total variance, respectively, after removing items 23 and 42– 44 (cross-loading items).
Conclusion: The Chinese version of the Evidence-Based Practice and Evidence-Informed Practice Questionnaire demonstrated good psychometric properties for assessing the effectiveness of EBP and EIP educational programs tailored for physiotherapy and exercise rehabilitation students.

Keywords: evidence-based practice, evidence-informed practice, cultural adaptation, psychometric properties, physiotherapy