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 |