Rita Obeid

Background Research is the scientific basis for the profession of dietetics, as it must be located and applied in evidence‐based practice (EBP). EBP is often presented as a foundational skill for research. CEAR – Core, Evidence Application, Research – is a newly proposed model that separates Research and Evidence Application skills into distinct domains, jointly supported by a set of Core skills, thus acknowledging that education and advancement in one domain neither requires nor precipitates education and advancement in the other. The goal was to investigate the content and construct validity of the new CEAR Model. Methods A cross‐sectional online survey of randomly selected dietitians in the United States was used to collect CEAR domain scores, validated measures of research or EBP skills and self‐reported characteristics. Exploratory factor analysis, Cronbach's α and Pearson correlation between various tools and CEAR domains were used to assess validity and reliability. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multiple linear regression between CEAR domains and participant characteristics were used to assess convergent and divergent validity. Results One hundred and fifty‐four responses with a valid CEAR score were received and led to a three‐factor solution, supporting the theorised differentiation of research from evidence application skills (content validity). Internal reliability for the CEAR Model overall and for each domain was high. The hypothesised correlations between existing research or EBP measurement tools and the relevant CEAR domains were found (construct validity). Known groups analysis demonstrated the expected differences in CEAR domain scores based on participant characteristics. Conclusions The CEAR Model demonstrates preliminary validity and internal reliability. It adds to the current literature by acknowledging the separateness of evidence application skills from research skills.

A pre‐registered, crowd‐sourced, multicultural study assessed how the personal need for structure (PNFS) predicted perceptions, behaviors, and coping mechanisms in response to the COVID‐19 pandemic. Collaborators, invited to collect online survey data through Psi Chi's Network for International Collaborative Exchange crowd‐sourcing initiative (Edlund et al., 2019), recruited approximately 100 participants across 22 data‐collection locations (final N = 4620). Participants completed randomized online surveys, which inquired about an individual's PNFS, and current perceptions, behaviors and knowledge surrounding the pandemic. Results indicated that individuals with higher PNFS fared better at navigating the rules and restrictions that came with the pandemic. Specifically, and contrary to hypotheses, higher PNFS positively predicted knowledge of COVID‐19 and support for government restrictions and negatively predicted belief in pandemic misinformation. Additionally, PNFS significantly positively predicted the use of problem and emotion‐focused coping strategies and did not predict dysfunctional coping mechanisms. Our findings emphasize the role individual differences play in navigating the pandemic, and future research should evaluate PNFS in light of COVID‐19 and in relation to other behavioral and psychological outcomes.