Skip to main content

Table 3 Summary of preliminary results

From: The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration Instrument Review Project: A methodology to promote rigorous evaluation

Domain Construct Instruments per construct Stage of dev. Stage of dev. Percentage of instruments with definition Number of articles in packet
   N M Mode N(%) M(SD)
Implementation outcomes Acceptability 46 3.11 4 33 (71.74%) 4.41 (4.11)
Adoption 24 3.58 1 21 (87.50%) 1.58 (1.52)
Appropriateness 7 1.00 1 3 (42.86%) 1.29 (1.10)
Feasibility 14 1.00 1 6 (42.86%) 1.57 (1.46)
Penetration 5 2.40 1 5 (100%) 2.60 (2.08)
Sustainability 9 2.44 1 6 (66.67%) 1.67 (1.48)
Total   105    74  
Average   17.5 2.26 1 70.48% 2.19 (1.96)
Intervention characteristics Adaptability 1 4.00 1, 2, 3, 4 1 (100%) 1.00 (1.00)
Complexity 4 3.50 1 3 (75.00%) 1.00 (0.75)
Design quality and packaging 0 0.00 0 0 (0.00%) 0.00 (0.00)
Evidence strength and quality 4 1.75 1 3 (75.00%) 1.00 (0.75)
  Intervention source 0 0.00 0 0 (0.00%) 0.00 (0.00)
  Relative advantage 7 2.43 1 5 (71.43%) 1.00 (0.71)
  Trialability 3 4.00 1, 6, 7, 8 2 (66.67%) 1.00 (0.67)
Total   19    14  
Average   2.71 2.24 1 73.68% 0.71 (0.55)
Outer setting Cosmopolitanism 1 3.00 2, 6, 8 0 (0.00%) 4.00 (0.00)
  External policy and incentives 0 0.00 0 0 (0.00%) 0.00 (0.00)
  Patient needs and resources 3 4.67 6 2 (66.67%) 1.00 (0.67)
  Peer pressure 0 0.00 0 0 (0.00%) 0.00 (0.00)
Total   4    2  
Average   1 1.92 6 50.00% 1.25 (0.17)
Inner setting Combined 9 4.44 1 8 (88.89%) 9.22 (8.20)
  Culture 10 5.00 1 10 (100%) 4.44 (3.95)
  Implementation climate (IC) 15 5.60 1 14 (93.33%) 6.93 (6.47)
    IC: tension for change 0 0.00 0 0 (0.00%) 0.00 (0.00)
    IC: compatibility 1 8.00 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 1 (100%) 11.00 (0.00)
    IC: relative priority 1 2.00 1 and 6 1 (100%) 3.00 (0.00)
    IC: organizational incentives and rewards 4 5.75 1,6,7,8 4 (100%) 3.00 (2.25)
    IC: goals and feedback 0 0.00 0 0 (0.00%) 0.00 (0.00)
    IC: learning climate 14 4.64 1 14 (100%) 9.29 (8.62)
  Networks and communications 11 4.36 1 9 (81.82%) 5.17 (4.40)
  Readiness for implementation (RI) 16 3.38 1 13 (81.25%) 2.74 (2.59)
    RI: leadership engagement 4 5.75 1, 6, 7, 8 4 (100%) 4.50 (3.38)
    RI: available resources 2 3.00 1, 6 2 (100%) 2.50 (1.25)
    RI: access to knowledge and information 1 8.00 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 1 (100%) 7.00 (0.00)
  Structural characteristics 2 3.50 1, 6 2 (100%) 7.50 (3.75)
Total   90    83  
Average   6.00 4.23 1 92.22% 5.09 (2.99)
Characteristics of individuals Knowledge and beliefs about the intervention 52 3.84 2 31 (5.36%) 4.48 (4.40)
  Individual stage of change 6 2.83 1 5 (83.33%) 3.00 (2.50)
  Individual identification with the organization 4 3.50 1, 4 3 (16.67%) 2.83 (2.36)
  Other personal attributes 34 2.65 1 27 (5.26%) 3.89 (3.79)
  Self-Efficacy 4 3.75 1 4 (100%) 2.75 (2.06)
Total   98    70  
Average   19.6 3.31 2 71.43% 3.39 (3.02)
Process Engaging 0 0.00 0 0 (0.00%) 1.00 (0.00)
    Engaging: opinion leaders 0 0.00 0 0 (0.00%) 5.67 (3.78)
    Engaging: formally appointed internal implementation leaders 0 0.00 0 0 (0.00%) 0.00 (0.00)
    Engaging: champions 0 0.00 0 0 (0.00%) 0.00 (0.00)
    Engaging: external change agents 1 7.00 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 1 (100%) 10.00 (0.00)
  Executing 1 5.00 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 1 (100%) 2.00 (0.00)
  Planning 21 2.14 1 13 (61.90%) 7.25 (6.99)
  Reflecting and evaluating 20 0.03 0 9 (45.00%) 2.70 (2.22)
Total   54    24  
Average   6.75 1.77 1 44.44% 3.58 (1.62)
Client outcomes Satisfaction 10 2.80 1, 3, 4, 5 4 (40.00%) 4.43 (4.11)
  1. Stages of dev. means the stages of development through which the instrument passed based on an eight-stage coding system describe in the text. It is important to note that these stages are not necessarily linear, meaning that an instrument need not pass through stage one to enter stage two and so forth. Rather, instruments received a point for any of the stages the instrument passed through. Finally, these ratings are reflective of the instruments’ quality at its inception (i.e., based on its source article) and are not necessarily indicative of the instruments’ current psychometric strength.