Skip to main content

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

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

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