Evidence-based management is used increasingly by organizations to aid in decision making, but research in this area is limited. In a new study, researchers developed and validated a new measure—the Evidence-Based Management Source Utilization Scale (EBM-SUS)—that is tailored to management and that captures the extent to which decision makers draw on four sources of evidence.
The study, by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Malta, appears in the International Journal of Organizational Analysis .
“Although researchers have advanced understanding and highlighted the importance of evidence-based management, few studies have examined the use of sources of evidence in decision making,” says Denise M. Rousseau, professor of organizational behavior and public policy at Carnegie Mellon’s Heinz College, who coauthored the study. “Our study sought to address these gaps.”
Evidence-based management is increasingly recognized as vital in organizational management, where it enhances decision making by integrating four foundational sources of evidence: scientific research, organizational data, professional expertise, and stakeholder influence. Each source contributes in unique ways, but most measures of evidence-based management prioritize clinical evidence and do not transfer easily to broader settings of organizational management.
In this work, researchers developed the EBM-SUS, then conducted two studies with leaders from the Maltese public service (e.g., director generals, managers, permanent secretaries). These positions involve responsibility for policy development, resource allocation, program implementation, and strategic and operational decision making in ministries and government entities.
The first study used exploratory factor analysis to determine the underlying factor structure of the EBM-SUS, while the second used confirmatory factor analysis to validate the measurement model and examine its ties with risk aversion and conscientious decision making.
The EBM-SUS demonstrated robust psychometric properties, which the authors say means that the scale is valid for assessing the use of the four core sources of evidence in decision making.
“Assessing the extent to which managers draw on each source individually and collectively can boost transparency, accountability, and effectiveness, as well as support better alignment of decisions with goals,” explains Frank Bezzina, professor at the University of Malta, who coauthored the study.
Adds Vincent Cassar, professor of business and enterprise management at the University of Malta, who coauthored the study: “Evidence-based management holds promise as a framework to capture the dynamics related to decision making, and our study confirms the EBM-SUS’s ability to support more evidence-informed organizational practices.”
Among the study’s limitations, the authors note that the EBM-SUS relies on self-reported use of sources of evidence, which may be subject to social desirability bias or inaccuracies. In addition, the scale measured only the extent of use of sources of evidence, not the quality, appropriateness, or effectiveness of how that evidence is used in decision making. Finally, the study examined decision makers from the Maltese public service, which could limit the generalizability of its findings to other sectors, cultures, or countries.
International Journal of Organizational Analysis
Evidence-based management in practice: measuring the use of four core sources of evidence
27-Mar-2026