# Improving Clarity and Interpretability of Items in a Bilingual Index of Propensity to Integrate Research Evidence Into Clinical Decision‐Making in Rehabilitation

## TL;DR

This paper improves a bilingual tool used to assess how rehabilitation clinicians use research evidence in decision-making by enhancing clarity and interpretability.

## Contribution

The study introduces a revised, bilingual, multidimensional index with improved clarity and interpretability for clinical decision-making in rehabilitation.

## Key findings

- The index was revised 12 times based on feedback from focus groups and cognitive interviews.
- Modifications improved the clarity and consistency of items and response options in both English and French.
- The revised index can better inform individual and organizational factors influencing evidence-based decision-making.

## Abstract

Clear, interpretable measures that account for linguistic differences are critical to accurately assess rehabilitation clinicians' propensity to integrate research evidence into clinical decision‐making.

To contribute evidence for the clarity and interpretability of a new five‐item bilingual multidimensional index of a rehabilitation clinician's propensity to integrate research evidence into clinical decision‐making.

This study was conducted in three sequential steps: (1) We conducted a focus group with occupational therapists, physical therapists, and researchers to review the items and response options for clarity, consistency, and interval properties and agree on equivalency in English and French. (2) We conducted cognitive interviews whereby clinicians elaborated on their interpretation of the item, comprehensibility of items, and appropriateness of response options. Accepted modifications were integrated and tested with subsequent participants. (3) We conducted an online survey to validate the English and French equivalency of response options on a 0–100 scale.

During the qualitative revision process (one focus group with seven participants followed by 27 interviews), the index was revised 12 times with substantial modifications to the use of research evidence and attitudes items.

This study increases the clinical relevance and reduces measurement error of this brief index which can inform on individual or organizational factors influencing a clinician's propensity of integrating research evidence into decision‐making and ultimately improve rehabilitation outcomes.