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.