From: T-CaST: an implementation theory comparison and selection tool
Davis et al.’s criteria for assessing TMF quality | Our criteria for selecting TMF |
---|---|
• Clarity of constructs—“Has the case been made for the independence of constructs from each other?” | • Usability: TMF includes relevant constructs (e.g., self-efficacy, climate) |
• Clarity of relationships between constructs—“Are the relationships between constructs clearly specified?” | • Usability: TMF provides an explanation of how included constructs influence implementation and/or each other |
• Measurability—“Is an explicit methodology for measuring the constructs given?” | • Applicability: A particular method (e.g., interviews, surveys, focus groups, chart review) can be used with TMF. |
• Testability—“Has the TMF been specified in such a way that it can be tested?” | • Testability: TMF proposes testable hypotheses. |
• Being explanatory—“Has the TMF been used to explain/account for a set of observations? (statistically or logically)” | • Testability: TMF contributes to an evidence base and/or theory development because it has been used in empirical studies. |
• Describing causality—“Has the TMF been used to describe mechanisms of change?” | • Usability: TMF provides an explanation of how included constructs influence implementation and/or each other. |
• Achieving parsimony—“Has the case for parsimony been made?” | • [Our stakeholders eliminated] |
• Generalizablity—“Have generalizations been investigated across: (a) behaviors? (b) populations? (c) contexts?” | • Applicability: TMF is generalizable to other disciplines (e.g., education, health services, social work), settings (e.g., schools, hospitals, community-based organizations), and/or populations (e.g., children, adults with serious mental illness). |
• Having an evidence base | • Testability: TMF contributes to an evidence base and/or TMF development because it has been used in empirical studies. |