Measurement of implementation components ten years after a nationwide introduction of empirically supported programs – a pilot study

Table 4 Pearson’s correlations between implementation drivers and dependent variables

	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.	9.
EBP is well integrated into the organization	.38 ^**	.07	.42 ^**	.24 ^**	.27 ^**	.28 ^**	.32 ^**	.19 ^*	.43**
Satisfied with implementation progress	.25 ^**	-.03	.26**	.12	.05	.17	.11	.04	.19*
Sufficient number of cases	.07	.08	.16*	-.01	.05	-.15	.09	.04	.05
Percent of position to work with EBP	.76 ^**	-.02	.64**	.50 ^**	.21 ^*	.37 ^**	.23 ^**	-.01	.55**
Likely to stop using EBP	.01	-.23 ^*	.11	.05	-.14	-.14	-.07	-.23 ^**	-.04
No. of families referred last 6 mos.	.16	.00	.18 ^*	.12	.14	-.05	.09	-.01	.16
No. of families who completed treatment – last 6 mos.	.40 ^**	.06	.30 ^**	.26 ^**	.14	.11	.07	-.05	.30**

1. Recruitment and staff selection, 2. Training, 3. Supervision, 4. Performance assessment, 5. Decision support data systems,
6. Administrative support, 7. Systems interventions, 8. Leadership, 9. Implementation sumscore.
Note. **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed), *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

ISSN: 1748-5908