Organisations increasingly adopt evidence-based management to inform decision-making, yet empirical research examining how it is practised remains relatively limited. A new study addresses this gap by developing and validating a purpose-built measurement tool—the Evidence-Based Management Source Utilisation Scale (EBM-SUS). This scale is specifically tailored to management settings and captures the extent to which decision makers draw on four distinct sources of evidence.

The research, conducted by scholars from Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Malta, is published in the International Journal of Organisational Analysis. It contributes to a growing body of work seeking to operationalise and measure evidence-based practices beyond clinical or healthcare contexts.

“Although researchers have advanced understanding and highlighted the importance of evidence-based management, relatively few studies have examined how different sources of evidence are used in decision making,” says Denise M. Rousseau, professor of organisational behaviour and public policy at Carnegie Mellon’s Heinz College and a coauthor of the study. She notes that the research was designed to address this important gap in the literature.

Evidence-based management is widely recognised as a critical approach in organisational settings, strengthening decision-making through the integration of four foundational sources: scientific research, organisational data, professional expertise, and stakeholder perspectives. Each of these contributes unique insights, yet existing measurement tools often prioritise clinical forms of evidence and do not readily transfer to broader organisational contexts.

To address this limitation, the researchers developed the EBM-SUS. They evaluated it through two empirical studies involving senior leaders in the Maltese public service, including director generals, managers, and permanent secretaries. These roles involve responsibility for policy development, resource allocation, programme implementation, and both strategic and operational decision-making across ministries and government entities.

The first study used exploratory factor analysis to identify the scale’s underlying structure, while the second applied confirmatory factor analysis to validate the measurement model and examine its associations with traits such as risk aversion and conscientious decision making. The results indicate that the EBM-SUS demonstrates strong psychometric properties, supporting its reliability and validity as a tool for assessing how decision makers use multiple sources of evidence.

“Assessing how managers draw on each source—both individually and collectively—can enhance transparency, accountability, and effectiveness, while improving alignment between decisions and organisational goals,” explains Frank Bezzina of the University of Malta, a coauthor of the study. Vincent Cassar adds that the findings reinforce the value of evidence-based management as a framework for understanding decision-making dynamics, while also highlighting the EBM-SUS as a practical tool to support more evidence-informed organisational practices.

More information: Frank Bezzina et al, Evidence-based management in practice: measuring the use of four core sources of evidence, International Journal of Organizational Analysis. DOI: 10.1108/IJOA-11-2025-6185

Journal information: International Journal of Organizational Analysis Provided by Carnegie Mellon University