Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Mar 1.
Published in final edited form as: Adm Policy Ment Health. 2017 Mar;44(2):269–283. doi: 10.1007/s10488-016-0742-5

Table 3.

ARC effects on clinician EBP adoption and use through proficiency culture and EBP intentions

Consequent

Proficiency culture
(T2)a
EBP intentions
(T3)b
EBP adoption
(yes/no) (T4)b
EBP use
(% clients) (T4)b

Antecedent B SE p γ SE p γ SE p γ SE p
Intercept 41.97 3.79 <.001 5.22 .19 <.001 1.66 .36 <.001 60.82 4.15 <.001
OSC profile (T1) 7.19 2.03 .005 −.36 .21 .087 .13 .63 .834 −6.04 7.44 .417
ARC 6.91 2.49 .020 .06 .63 .928 .92 .61 .127 13.90 8.73 .111
Proficiency culture (T2) .08 .04 .045 −.05 .07 .451 −.65 .91 .478
EBP intentions-WG (T3)c .25 .20 .217 10.69 1.47 <.001
EBP intentions-BG (T3)c 1.75 .60 .003 24.32 5.36 <.001

Note: ARC = Availability, Responsiveness, and Continuity organizational intervention; BG = between group; EBP = evidence-based practice; OSC = organizational social context; T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2; T3 = Time 3, T4 = Time 4; WG = within group.

a

This is an ordinary least squares multiple regression model; F(2, 10) = 8.97, p = .006, R2 = .64.

b

This is a two-level mixed effects regression model with random agency intercepts.

c

This variable is centered within context with means reintroduced (CWCM).