Skip to main content

Table 2 Distribution of ImplemeNtation and Improvement Science Proposal Evaluation CriTeria (INSPECT) Scores

From: Standardizing an approach to the evaluation of implementation science proposals

Cumulative Proposal Scores
Proposals evaluated: n = 30, Median score 7 (IQR 3.3–11.8)
Individual Item Scores
INSPECT Items Rating Scale Krippendorff’s Alpha
0 1 2 3  
(N = 150) (N = 74) (N = 47) (N = 29) (0.88)
The care gap or quality gap 7 (23%) 6 (20%) 6 (20%) 11 (36%) 0.84
The evidence-based treatment to be implemented 15 (50%) 9 (30%) 2 (7%) 4 (13%) 0.77
Conceptual model and heoretical justification 21 (70%) 4 (13%) 3 (10%) 2 (7%) 0.99
Stakeholder priorities, engagement in change 13 (43%) 9 (30%) 7 (23%) 1 (3%) 0.88
Setting’s readiness to adopt new services/treatment/programs 16 (53%) 7 (23%) 6 (20%) 1 (3%) 0.96
Implementation strategy/process 20 (67%) 7 (23%) 1 (3%) 2 (7%) 0.84
Team experience with setting, treatment, and implementation process 13 (43%) 5 (17%) 8 (27%) 4 (13%) 0.96
Feasibility of proposed research design and methods 13 (43%) 11 (37%) 6 (20%) 0 (0%) 0.84
Measurement and analysis 21 (70%) 4 (13%) 3 (10%) 2 (7%) 0.78
Policy/funding environment; leverage or support for sustaining change 11 (37%) 12 (40%) 5 (17%) 2 (7%) 0.77