Introduction Inclusive professional practice is a fundamental pillar for guaranteeing socio-labor equity in contemporary societies, yet precise instruments are needed to assess the predisposition of future university graduates towards these practices. This study examined the psychometric properties of the EPI-Capacitas scale, designed within the framework of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Methods An instrumental design was employed with a sample of 1,159 Spanish higher education students from 12 degree programs. The sample was randomly divided into two complementary subsamples to conduct an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA, n = 590) and a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA, n = 569; robust maximum likelihood). Internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity, and measurement invariance across fields of study (Health Sciences vs. Social and Legal Sciences) were assessed. Results The EFA revealed a four-dimensional structure (Subjective Norm, Future Intention, Attitude and Behavioral Control) explaining 59.2% of the variance. The CFA confirmed the fit of the 17-item model ( χ 2 /df = 3.10; CFI = 0.94; RMSEA = 0.07). McDonald's omega ranged from 0.80 to 0.92 in the EFA subsample and from 0.76 to 0.90 in the CFA subsample. Convergent validity was supported and discriminant validity was confirmed according to the Fornell-Larcker criterion. Scalar invariance across fields of study was supported, and Health Sciences students scored higher than Social and Legal Sciences students on all four dimensions. Discussion The EPI-Capacitas scale is a robust, brief and effective instrument for diagnosing inclusive professional attitudes and intentions in the university setting. Its application makes it possible to guide training strategies that strengthen the social commitment and self-efficacy of future professionals in the creation of inclusive socio-labor environments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Martínez-Basomba et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: