Table 1.
Descriptive statistics for PROM and feedback attitudes and self-efficacy
| Overall | Sample 1: 1-day training | Sample 2: 3-day training | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | α | M | SD | M | SD | |
| ROA | |||||||
| T1 PROM attitudes | 4.01 | 0.56 | .79 | 3.84 | 0.54 | 4.40 | 0.41 |
| T2 PROM attitudes | 4.37 | 0.57 | .85 | 4.18 | 0.55 | 4.82 | 0.36 |
| T1 feedback attitudes | 4.30 | 0.68 | .81 | 4.14 | 0.70 | 4.68 | 0.46 |
| T2 feedback attitudes | 4.70 | 0.57 | .88 | 4.54 | 0.55 | 5.11 | 0.35 |
| ROSE | |||||||
| T1 PROM self-efficacy | 2.60 | 0.94 | .79 | 2.54 | 0.99 | 2.73 | 0.84 |
| T2 PROM self-efficacy | 3.44 | 1.01 | .88 | 3.18 | 1.99 | 4.07 | 0.77 |
| T1 feedback self-efficacy | 1.97 | 1.04 | .80 | 1.80 | 0.92 | 2.36 | 1.23 |
| T2 feedback self-efficacy | 2.92 | 1.08 | .83 | 2.62 | 1.04 | 3.64 | 0.82 |
ROA routine outcome assessment questionnaire (Willis et al. 2009), ROSE routine outcome self-efficacy questionnaire, PROM patient reported outcome measure
n sample 1 = 28. n sample 2 = 12