Measuring Scholarly Practice in Respiratory Therapists: The Development and Initial Validation of a Scholarly Practice Tool.

Abstract

Introduction: Respiratory therapists (RTs) must apply competencies to address the health care needs of the public. Although all competencies are deemed essential, scholarly practice requires that professionals critically assess their practices, integrate evidence-based literature, and enhance the care they deliver to patients. Though scholarly practice is also associated with professional empowerment, role satisfaction, and improved patient care, it is rarely measured. The purpose of this study was to develop, pilot, and generate preliminary validity evidence of a tool designed to measure scholarly practice among RTs.

Methods: We used DeVellis' nine-step scale development process and exploratory factor analysis to develop the tool. The results of a scoping review and qualitative study were used to generate an item pool and pilot test it with 81 RTs across Canada. The refined tool was tested on a larger sample (n = 832) and analyzed using exploratory factor analysis.

Results: Using principal axis factoring with Promax rotation, we retained 18 items across 4 factors, explaining 56.7% of the variance in the data (31.7%, 10.2%, 8.6%, 6.2%): (Factor 1) professional development and credibility, (Factor 2) elements supporting scholarly practice, (Factor 3) the perceived impact of scholarly activities on practice, and (Factor 4) scholarly practitioner identity and ability. Internal consistency of the final 18-item scale was suitable overall (Cronbach alpha = 0.879) and for each factor (F1 = 0.888; F2 = 0.774; F3 = 0.842; F4 = 0.746).

Discussion: Our results provide preliminary evidence for a scholarly practice tool that can encourage self-reflection and/or foster peer-based reflection. Using the tool with other health care professionals and conducting confirmatory factor analysis could generate additional validity evidence.