The phrase "adoption score" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts related to evaluating or measuring the success or effectiveness of an adoption process, whether in a business, social, or technological setting.
Example: "The adoption score of the new software indicates how well it has been received by the employees."
Alternatives: "adoption rating" or "adoption metric".
EBIP adoption scores were significantly correlated with answers to the item about the percentage of workload involving research, r 367) = −.12, p = .027; with the negative correlation coefficient, the less workload involving research, the higher the EBIP adoption score.
There is a significant difference in answers for those individuals with an office (mean = 3.75, SD = 2.1) and those individuals who do not have an office (mean = 2.91, SD = 2.3) on EBIP adoption scores, t 530) = 3.84, p < .001; those with an office report higher EBIP adoption score.
The adoption score for the withdrawal phase was the lowest of the three phases, which may have resulted from less familiarity and knowledge with the tool and phase.
Also, there is a significant difference between females (mean = 3.86, SD = 2.1) and males (mean = 3.18, SD = 2.1) on EBIP adoption scores, t(498) = −3.51, p < .001; females report higher EBIP adoption scores than males.
There is a significant difference between tenure/tenure-track faculty (mean = 3.82, SD = 2.0) and non-tenure-track faculty (mean = 3.42, SD = 2.2) on their EBIP adoption scores, t 526) = 2.08, p = .038; tenure-track faculty report significantly higher EBIP adoption scores.
With the existence of individually based EBIP adoption scores, departmental profiles can be created to depict the climate or culture within a department concerning the adoption of evidence-based instructional practices.
The overarching goal is for an EBIP adoption scale score to serve as an index of an individual STEM faculty member's placement on the adoption scale as described previously by Dormant (2011) and as adapted here, specifically, for the use of evidence-based instructional practices.
Scores from the five CICS factor scores were correlated with EBIP adoption scale scores.
EBIP adoption scale scores are significantly correlated with (a) factor 1 (the free choice of teaching methods), r 531) = .13, p = .004; (b) factor 3 (teaching-research balance), r 531) = −.18, p < .001, (c) factor 4 (encouragement to use evidence-based instructional practices), r 528) = .14, p = .002, and (d) factor 5 (teacher connectedness), r 531) = .22, p < .001.001
Thus, researchers use a variety of traditional and novel scoring systems and diverse cut-offs, making the adoption of scoring systems and cut-offs potentially challenging for the pathologists [ 30, 35, 37, 41, 46, 49, 52- 54].
Fig. 1 Departmental Profiles Based on EBIP Adoption Stage Scale Scores Fig. 2 Departmental Profiles Based on EBIP Adoption Stage Scale Scores.
