Cargando…

Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures

BACKGROUND: Implementation outcome measures are essential for monitoring and evaluating the success of implementation efforts. Yet, currently available measures lack conceptual clarity and have largely unknown reliability and validity. This study developed and psychometrically assessed three new mea...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Weiner, Bryan J., Lewis, Cara C., Stanick, Cameo, Powell, Byron J., Dorsey, Caitlin N., Clary, Alecia S., Boynton, Marcella H., Halko, Heather
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5576104/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28851459
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3
_version_ 1783260143516909568
author Weiner, Bryan J.
Lewis, Cara C.
Stanick, Cameo
Powell, Byron J.
Dorsey, Caitlin N.
Clary, Alecia S.
Boynton, Marcella H.
Halko, Heather
author_facet Weiner, Bryan J.
Lewis, Cara C.
Stanick, Cameo
Powell, Byron J.
Dorsey, Caitlin N.
Clary, Alecia S.
Boynton, Marcella H.
Halko, Heather
author_sort Weiner, Bryan J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Implementation outcome measures are essential for monitoring and evaluating the success of implementation efforts. Yet, currently available measures lack conceptual clarity and have largely unknown reliability and validity. This study developed and psychometrically assessed three new measures: the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM), and Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM). METHODS: Thirty-six implementation scientists and 27 mental health professionals assigned 31 items to the constructs and rated their confidence in their assignments. The Wilcoxon one-sample signed rank test was used to assess substantive and discriminant content validity. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA and CFA) and Cronbach alphas were used to assess the validity of the conceptual model. Three hundred twenty-six mental health counselors read one of six randomly assigned vignettes depicting a therapist contemplating adopting an evidence-based practice (EBP). Participants used 15 items to rate the therapist’s perceptions of the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of adopting the EBP. CFA and Cronbach alphas were used to refine the scales, assess structural validity, and assess reliability. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess known-groups validity. Finally, half of the counselors were randomly assigned to receive the same vignette and the other half the opposite vignette; and all were asked to re-rate acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to assess test-retest reliability and linear regression to assess sensitivity to change. RESULTS: All but five items exhibited substantive and discriminant content validity. A trimmed CFA with five items per construct exhibited acceptable model fit (CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.08) and high factor loadings (0.79 to 0.94). The alphas for 5-item scales were between 0.87 and 0.89. Scale refinement based on measure-specific CFAs and Cronbach alphas using vignette data produced 4-item scales (α’s from 0.85 to 0.91). A three-factor CFA exhibited acceptable fit (CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.08) and high factor loadings (0.75 to 0.89), indicating structural validity. ANOVA showed significant main effects, indicating known-groups validity. Test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from 0.73 to 0.88. Regression analysis indicated each measure was sensitive to change in both directions. CONCLUSIONS: The AIM, IAM, and FIM demonstrate promising psychometric properties. Predictive validity assessment is planned. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5576104
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55761042017-08-30 Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures Weiner, Bryan J. Lewis, Cara C. Stanick, Cameo Powell, Byron J. Dorsey, Caitlin N. Clary, Alecia S. Boynton, Marcella H. Halko, Heather Implement Sci Research BACKGROUND: Implementation outcome measures are essential for monitoring and evaluating the success of implementation efforts. Yet, currently available measures lack conceptual clarity and have largely unknown reliability and validity. This study developed and psychometrically assessed three new measures: the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM), and Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM). METHODS: Thirty-six implementation scientists and 27 mental health professionals assigned 31 items to the constructs and rated their confidence in their assignments. The Wilcoxon one-sample signed rank test was used to assess substantive and discriminant content validity. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA and CFA) and Cronbach alphas were used to assess the validity of the conceptual model. Three hundred twenty-six mental health counselors read one of six randomly assigned vignettes depicting a therapist contemplating adopting an evidence-based practice (EBP). Participants used 15 items to rate the therapist’s perceptions of the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of adopting the EBP. CFA and Cronbach alphas were used to refine the scales, assess structural validity, and assess reliability. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess known-groups validity. Finally, half of the counselors were randomly assigned to receive the same vignette and the other half the opposite vignette; and all were asked to re-rate acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to assess test-retest reliability and linear regression to assess sensitivity to change. RESULTS: All but five items exhibited substantive and discriminant content validity. A trimmed CFA with five items per construct exhibited acceptable model fit (CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.08) and high factor loadings (0.79 to 0.94). The alphas for 5-item scales were between 0.87 and 0.89. Scale refinement based on measure-specific CFAs and Cronbach alphas using vignette data produced 4-item scales (α’s from 0.85 to 0.91). A three-factor CFA exhibited acceptable fit (CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.08) and high factor loadings (0.75 to 0.89), indicating structural validity. ANOVA showed significant main effects, indicating known-groups validity. Test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from 0.73 to 0.88. Regression analysis indicated each measure was sensitive to change in both directions. CONCLUSIONS: The AIM, IAM, and FIM demonstrate promising psychometric properties. Predictive validity assessment is planned. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-08-29 /pmc/articles/PMC5576104/ /pubmed/28851459 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Weiner, Bryan J.
Lewis, Cara C.
Stanick, Cameo
Powell, Byron J.
Dorsey, Caitlin N.
Clary, Alecia S.
Boynton, Marcella H.
Halko, Heather
Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures
title Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures
title_full Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures
title_fullStr Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures
title_full_unstemmed Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures
title_short Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures
title_sort psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5576104/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28851459
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3
work_keys_str_mv AT weinerbryanj psychometricassessmentofthreenewlydevelopedimplementationoutcomemeasures
AT lewiscarac psychometricassessmentofthreenewlydevelopedimplementationoutcomemeasures
AT stanickcameo psychometricassessmentofthreenewlydevelopedimplementationoutcomemeasures
AT powellbyronj psychometricassessmentofthreenewlydevelopedimplementationoutcomemeasures
AT dorseycaitlinn psychometricassessmentofthreenewlydevelopedimplementationoutcomemeasures
AT claryalecias psychometricassessmentofthreenewlydevelopedimplementationoutcomemeasures
AT boyntonmarcellah psychometricassessmentofthreenewlydevelopedimplementationoutcomemeasures
AT halkoheather psychometricassessmentofthreenewlydevelopedimplementationoutcomemeasures