Assessing Attitudes Toward Evidence-Based Practices of Workers Supporting People With Disabilities: A Validation of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitudes Scale.

Vassos et al. (2016) tested two short surveys that ask disability workers how they feel about using evidence-based practices. One survey is general; the other is tailored to positive behavior support. Staff answered both versions so the team could check if the questions hang together and make sense.

The researchers ran a confirmatory factor analysis and checked internal consistency. They wanted to know if either tool gives reliable scores that truly map onto four attitude areas: appeal, requirements, openness, and divergence.

Both surveys passed the psychometric tests. Factor loadings and Cronbach’s alphas showed solid validity. The general version came out slightly weaker, but still good enough for everyday use.

The study gives you two ready-to-go scales. You can pick the general one for any EBP or choose the PBS version when you focus on behavior plans.

Howard et al. (2023) looked at dozens of ABA tools and found most lack solid reliability or validity evidence. Vassos et al. (2016) stands out because it actually supplies that missing evidence for the EBPAS. Use it with confidence while you scrutinize other instruments.

Anonymous (2024) also reports strong alphas for the Catalyst Datafinch app. Together these papers show a trend: new disability-focused tools can reach high consistency when developers test them right.

van Herwaarden et al. (2022) followed the same playbook—CFA plus alpha—to validate a well-being scale for adults with mild ID. The matching methods let you compare quality across very different constructs.

You now have a quick, free tool to measure staff buy-in before training starts and track changes after. High scores on appeal and openness predict smoother adoption of new protocols, so you can tailor follow-up coaching to the doubters. Add the EBPAS to your yearly staff survey and watch attitude shifts alongside fidelity data.