Psychometric properties of implementation measures for public health and community settings and mapping of constructs ag
- PDF / 915,276 Bytes
- 22 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 17 Downloads / 191 Views
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Open Access
Psychometric properties of implementation measures for public health and community settings and mapping of constructs against the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research: a systematic review Tara Clinton-McHarg1,2, Sze Lin Yoong1,2,3, Flora Tzelepis1,2,3, Tim Regan1,2, Alison Fielding1, Eliza Skelton1, Melanie Kingsland1,3, Jia Ying Ooi1 and Luke Wolfenden1,2,3*
Abstract Background: Recent reviews have synthesised the psychometric properties of measures developed to examine implementation science constructs in healthcare and mental health settings. However, no reviews have focussed primarily on the properties of measures developed to assess innovations in public health and community settings. This review identified quantitative measures developed in public health and community settings, examined their psychometric properties, and described how the domains of each measure align with the five domains and 37 constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Methods: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched to identify publications describing the development of measures to assess implementation science constructs in public health and community settings. The psychometric properties of each measure were assessed against recommended criteria for validity (face/ content, construct, criterion), reliability (internal consistency, test-retest), responsiveness, acceptability, feasibility, and revalidation and cross-cultural adaptation. Relevant domains were mapped against implementation constructs defined by the CFIR. (Continued on next page)
* Correspondence: [email protected] 1 School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia 2 Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, NSW 2305, Australia Full list of author information is available at the end of the article © The Author(s). 2016 Open Access This 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.
Clinton-McHarg et al. Implementation Science (2016) 11:148
Page 2 of 22
(Continued from previous page)
Results: Fifty-one measures met the inclusion criteria. The majority of these were developed in schools, universities, or colleges and other workplaces or organisations. Overall, most measures did not adequately assess or report psychometric properties. Forty-six percent of measures using exploratory factor analysis reported >50 % of variance was explained by the final model; none of the measures assessed u
Data Loading...
