Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Implementation Science 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Study protocol

Advancing implementation science through measure development and evaluation: a study protocol

Authors: Cara C. Lewis, Bryan J. Weiner, Cameo Stanick, Sarah M. Fischer

Published in: Implementation Science | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Significant gaps related to measurement issues are among the most critical barriers to advancing implementation science. Three issues motivated the study aims: (a) the lack of stakeholder involvement in defining pragmatic measure qualities; (b) the dearth of measures, particularly for implementation outcomes; and (c) unknown psychometric and pragmatic strength of existing measures. Aim 1: Establish a stakeholder-driven operationalization of pragmatic measures and develop reliable, valid rating criteria for assessing the construct. Aim 2: Develop reliable, valid, and pragmatic measures of three critical implementation outcomes, acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Aim 3: Identify Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and Implementation Outcome Framework-linked measures that demonstrate both psychometric and pragmatic strength.

Methods/design

For Aim 1, we will conduct (a) interviews with stakeholder panelists (N = 7) and complete a literature review to populate pragmatic measure construct criteria, (b) Q-sort activities (N = 20) to clarify the internal structure of the definition, (c) Delphi activities (N = 20) to achieve consensus on the dimension priorities, (d) test-retest and inter-rater reliability assessments of the emergent rating system, and (e) known-groups validity testing of the top three prioritized pragmatic criteria. For Aim 2, our systematic development process involves domain delineation, item generation, substantive validity assessment, structural validity assessment, reliability assessment, and predictive validity assessment. We will also assess discriminant validity, known-groups validity, structural invariance, sensitivity to change, and other pragmatic features. For Aim 3, we will refine our established evidence-based assessment (EBA) criteria, extract the relevant data from the literature, rate each measure using the EBA criteria, and summarize the data.

Discussion

The study outputs of each aim are expected to have a positive impact as they will establish and guide a comprehensive measurement-focused research agenda for implementation science and provide empirically supported measures, tools, and methods for accomplishing this work.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Grimshaw J, Eccles M, Thomas R, MacLennan G, Ramsay C, Fraser C, et al. Toward evidence-based quality improvement. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:S14–20.PubMedPubMedCentral Grimshaw J, Eccles M, Thomas R, MacLennan G, Ramsay C, Fraser C, et al. Toward evidence-based quality improvement. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:S14–20.PubMedPubMedCentral
2.
go back to reference Glasgow RE, Riley WT. Pragmatic measures: what they are and why we need them. Am J Prev Med. 2013;45:237–43.CrossRefPubMed Glasgow RE, Riley WT. Pragmatic measures: what they are and why we need them. Am J Prev Med. 2013;45:237–43.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Lewis CC, Fischer S, Weiner BJ, Stanick C, Kim M, Martinez RG. Outcomes for implementation science: an enhanced systematic review of instruments using evidence-based rating criteria. Implement Sci, In Press. Lewis CC, Fischer S, Weiner BJ, Stanick C, Kim M, Martinez RG. Outcomes for implementation science: an enhanced systematic review of instruments using evidence-based rating criteria. Implement Sci, In Press.
4.
go back to reference Chor KHB, Wisdom JP, Olin S-CS, Hoagwood KE, Horwitz SM. Measures for predictors of innovation adoption. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res. 2014:1–29. Epub. Chor KHB, Wisdom JP, Olin S-CS, Hoagwood KE, Horwitz SM. Measures for predictors of innovation adoption. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res. 2014:1–29. Epub.
5.
go back to reference Chaudoir SR, Dugan AG, Barr CH. Measuring factors affecting implementation of health innovations: a systematic review of structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level measures. Implement Sci. 2013;8:22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Chaudoir SR, Dugan AG, Barr CH. Measuring factors affecting implementation of health innovations: a systematic review of structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level measures. Implement Sci. 2013;8:22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference Rabin BA, Purcell P, Naveed S, Moser RP, Henton MD, Proctor EK, et al. Advancing the application, quality and harmonization of implementation science measures. Implement Sci. 2012;7:119.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Rabin BA, Purcell P, Naveed S, Moser RP, Henton MD, Proctor EK, et al. Advancing the application, quality and harmonization of implementation science measures. Implement Sci. 2012;7:119.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Hunsley J, Mash EJ. Developing criteria for evidence-based assessment: an introduction to assessments that work, Guide assess work. 2008. p. 3–14. Hunsley J, Mash EJ. Developing criteria for evidence-based assessment: an introduction to assessments that work, Guide assess work. 2008. p. 3–14.
8.
go back to reference Weisz JR, Ng MY, Bearman SK. Odd couple? Reenvisioning the relation between science and practice in the dissemination-implementation era. Clin Psychol Sci. 2014;2:58–74.CrossRef Weisz JR, Ng MY, Bearman SK. Odd couple? Reenvisioning the relation between science and practice in the dissemination-implementation era. Clin Psychol Sci. 2014;2:58–74.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26:13–24.CrossRefPubMed Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, et al. Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26:13–24.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Brown SR. Q methodology and qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 1996;6:561–7.CrossRef Brown SR. Q methodology and qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 1996;6:561–7.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Michie S, Abraham C, Eccles MP, Francis JJ, Hardeman W, Johnston M. Strengthening evaluation and implementation by specifying components of behaviour change interventions: a study protocol. Implement Sci. 2011;6:10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Michie S, Abraham C, Eccles MP, Francis JJ, Hardeman W, Johnston M. Strengthening evaluation and implementation by specifying components of behaviour change interventions: a study protocol. Implement Sci. 2011;6:10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Pill J. The Delphi method: substance, context, a critique and an annotated bibliography. Socioecon Plann Sci. 1971;5:57–71.CrossRef Pill J. The Delphi method: substance, context, a critique and an annotated bibliography. Socioecon Plann Sci. 1971;5:57–71.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs. 2000;32:1008–15.PubMed Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs. 2000;32:1008–15.PubMed
14.
go back to reference Dajani JS, Sincoff MZ, Talley WK. Stability and agreement criteria for the termination of Delphi studies. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 1979;13:83–90.CrossRef Dajani JS, Sincoff MZ, Talley WK. Stability and agreement criteria for the termination of Delphi studies. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 1979;13:83–90.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Lewis C, Borntrager C, Martinez R, Weiner B, Kim M, Barwick M, et al. The society for implementation research collaboration instrument review project: a collaborative methodology to promote rigorous evaluation. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):2. under review.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lewis C, Borntrager C, Martinez R, Weiner B, Kim M, Barwick M, et al. The society for implementation research collaboration instrument review project: a collaborative methodology to promote rigorous evaluation. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):2. under review.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res. 2011;38:65–76.CrossRef Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res. 2011;38:65–76.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Wisdom JP, Chor KHB, Hoagwood KE, Horwitz SM. Innovation adoption: a review of theories and constructs. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res. 2014;41(4):480–502. Wisdom JP, Chor KHB, Hoagwood KE, Horwitz SM. Innovation adoption: a review of theories and constructs. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res. 2014;41(4):480–502.
19.
go back to reference DeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications, vol. 26. USA: Sage Publications; 2011. DeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications, vol. 26. USA: Sage Publications; 2011.
20.
go back to reference Viswanathan M. Measurement error and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2005.CrossRef Viswanathan M. Measurement error and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2005.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Hinkin TR. A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organ Res Methods. 1998;1:104–21.CrossRef Hinkin TR. A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organ Res Methods. 1998;1:104–21.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Nunnally JC. Bernstein: psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994. Nunnally JC. Bernstein: psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
23.
go back to reference Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. Predicting the performance of measures in a confirmatory factor analysis with a pretest assessment of their substantive validities. J Appl Psychol. 1991;76:732.CrossRef Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. Predicting the performance of measures in a confirmatory factor analysis with a pretest assessment of their substantive validities. J Appl Psychol. 1991;76:732.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Huijg JM, Gebhardt WA, Crone MR, Dusseldorp E, Presseau J. Discriminant content validity of a theoretical domains framework questionnaire for use in implementation research. Implement Sci. 2014;9:11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Huijg JM, Gebhardt WA, Crone MR, Dusseldorp E, Presseau J. Discriminant content validity of a theoretical domains framework questionnaire for use in implementation research. Implement Sci. 2014;9:11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
go back to reference MacCallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychol Methods. 1996;1:130.CrossRef MacCallum RC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychol Methods. 1996;1:130.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Messick S. Validity of psychological assessment: validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. Am Psychol. 1995;50:741.CrossRef Messick S. Validity of psychological assessment: validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. Am Psychol. 1995;50:741.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Kerlinger Fred N, Lee Howard B: Foundations of behavioral research. N Y 2000. Kerlinger Fred N, Lee Howard B: Foundations of behavioral research. N Y 2000.
28.
go back to reference Donnelly J, Trochim W. The research methods knowledge base. Ohio: Atomic Dog Publishing; 2007. Donnelly J, Trochim W. The research methods knowledge base. Ohio: Atomic Dog Publishing; 2007.
29.
go back to reference Rogers E: M. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press; 2008. Rogers E: M. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press; 2008.
30.
go back to reference Minasian LM, Carpenter WR, Weiner BJ, Anderson DE, McCaskill-Stevens W, Nelson S, et al. Translating research into evidence-based practice. Cancer. 2010;116:4440–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Minasian LM, Carpenter WR, Weiner BJ, Anderson DE, McCaskill-Stevens W, Nelson S, et al. Translating research into evidence-based practice. Cancer. 2010;116:4440–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
go back to reference Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus. Compr Model Program Appl Res Users Guide. 2012;5:E22. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus. Compr Model Program Appl Res Users Guide. 2012;5:E22.
32.
go back to reference Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:651–7.CrossRefPubMed Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:651–7.CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Beidas RS, Stewart RE, Walsh L, Lucas S, Downey MM, Jackson K, et al. Free, brief, and validated: standardized instruments for low-resource mental health settings. Cogn Behav Pract. 2015;22(1):5–19.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Beidas RS, Stewart RE, Walsh L, Lucas S, Downey MM, Jackson K, et al. Free, brief, and validated: standardized instruments for low-resource mental health settings. Cogn Behav Pract. 2015;22(1):5–19.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Advancing implementation science through measure development and evaluation: a study protocol
Authors
Cara C. Lewis
Bryan J. Weiner
Cameo Stanick
Sarah M. Fischer
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Implementation Science / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1748-5908
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0287-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Implementation Science 1/2015 Go to the issue