Domain | Traditional CFIR approach | Rapid CFIR approach |
---|---|---|
Effectiveness: evaluation objectives | ||
Ability to identify and describe implementation determinants | Yes | Yes |
Ability to provide rapid feedback to operational partners | No (preliminary results only) | Yes |
Rigor: evaluation processes | ||
Credibility | ||
Analyst authority: We had analysts with expertise in both qualitative methods and the CFIR | Yes | Yes |
Data accuracy: We used two analysts/interview and maintained access to the raw data in order to verify the accuracy of data, especially quotations | Yes (transcripts and audio recordings) | Yes (audio recordings) |
Data organization: We used matrices, allowing us to parse out and synthesize data as needed | Yes | Yes |
Dependability | ||
Data comparability: We used the same interviewers and semi-structured interview guide (based on the CFIR) to ensure data was comparable across participants and facilities | Yes | Yes |
Coding comparability: We used the same analysts and framework to ensure coding was comparable across participants and facilities | Yes | Yes |
Analysis audit trail: We documented keys phases of analysis and edits in memos and/or matrices | Yes | Yes |
Confirmability | ||
Data triangulation: We interviewed multiple participants at each site, allowing us to triangulate data | Yes | Yes |
Team reflexivity: We held weekly meetings to discuss discrepancies and refinements to coding processes | Yes | Yes |