Skip to main content

Table 2 Item-factor loadings for initial and final itemized subscales of the sustainment measurement system scale

From: Measurement of sustainment of prevention programs and initiatives: the sustainment measurement system scale

Subscale definition and items Initial model Final model
Item factor loading R2 Item factor loading R2 Mean S.D.
Inter-item reliability of entire scale .93 .93   
Factor 1. Financial stability α = .75 α = .81 2.58 1.04
The project is supported by federal, state, or local government funding. .090 .008     
Project is funded through non-profit, private, and/or non-governmental sources. .579 .335 .582 .339 1.94 1.32
Project has a combination of stable (i.e., earmarked) and flexible (i.e., discretionary) funding. .745 .555 .748 .559 2.40 1.34
Project has sustained funding. .758 .575 .754 .569 2.69 1.37
Diverse community organizations are financially invested in the success of the project. .720 .519 .724 .524 2.77 1.45
Project is financially solvent. .585 .342 .581 .338 3.15 1.44
Factor 2. Responsiveness to community needs and values α = .60    
Factor 2a. Responsiveness to community needs    α = .70 4.47 0.64
Project meets the needs of the intended target populations. .548 .300 .871 .758 4.56 0.68
Project addresses the behavioral health needs of the communities/populations being served. .460 .212 .557 .310 4.38 0.78
Factor 2b. Responsiveness to community values    α = .70 4.72 0.42
Project can be adapted to meet the needs of the communities or populations being served. .489 .239 .437 .191 4.61 0.60
Project is consistent with the norms, values, and guiding principles of participating organizations. .683 .467 .761 .580 4.81 0.44
Project fits well with the values of the organization(s) responsible for sustaining it and the communities where it is being sustained. .756 .572 .875 .766 4.73 0.54
Participating organizations have a shared perception of the importance of the project. .382 .146     
The current social or health issue addressed by the project is perceived as intolerable or unacceptable to the community. .144 .021     
Factor 3. Coalitions, partnerships, and networks α = .92 α = .93 4.11 0.82
Grantee organization is networked with other organizations committed to sustaining the project. .504 .254     
Community members are passionately committed to sustaining the project. .675 .455 .691 .477 4.09 0.92
Community is actively engaged in the development of project goals. .699 .489 .723 .522 3.87 1.03
Community has access to knowledge and information about the project. .688 .473 .710 .504 4.20 0.93
Project is supported by a coalition/partnership/network of community organizations. .825 .681 .827 .684 4.32 1.00
Coalition/partnership/network members actively seek to expand the network of community organizations, leaders, and sources of support for this project. .862 .744 .855 .732 4.05 1.08
Coalition/partnership/network is committed to the continued operation of this project. .880 .774 .858 .736 4.18 1.05
High level of networking and communication within the organizations responsible for sustaining the project. .835 .697 .829 .687 4.10 1.04
Community leaders are actively involved in the project.    .750 .562 3.97 0.98
Factor 4. Infrastructure, capacity and support α = .88    
Available resources dedicated for implementing and sustaining the project. .549 .301     
Project has adequate staff to sustain the program’s goals and activities. .630 .397     
Factor 4a. Organizational capacity    α = .85 3.76 0.95
Project exhibits sound fiscal management. .657 .432 .645 .416 4.52 0.85
Project is well integrated into the operations of the organization and its partners. .794 .631 .806 .650 4.25 0.86
Plans for implementing and sustaining the project are developed in advance. .684 .468 .770 .593 3.95 0.96
Project is carried out or accomplished according to those plans. .748 .560 .829 .688 4.19 0.92
Factor 4b. Organizational staff capability    α = .82 4.56 0.68
Project offers sufficient training to agency staff and community members. .635 .404 .747 .558 4.34 0.93
Staff possesses adequate knowledge and supportive beliefs about the project. .704 .496 .884 .781 4.70 0.71
Staff feel themselves to be capable of implementing the project. .646 .417 .766 .587 4.63 0.71
Factor 5. Implementation leadership α = .79 α = .74 4.06 0.83
Leaders in the organization or coalition/partnership/network are actively engaged in the process of implementing and sustaining the project. .671 .451     
Community leaders are actively involved in the project. .729 .532     
The project has a formally appointed person responsible for coordinating the process of implementing and sustaining the project. .661 .437 .662 .439 4.52 4.09
The project is also supported by a champion who is actively engaged in the process of implementing and sustaining the project. .660 .435 .783 .613 4.09 0.96
We have a process in place to sustain the project in the event our champion leaves. .623 .388 .711 .506 3.56 1.15
Factor 6. Evaluation, feedback, and program outcomes α = .74 α = .75 4.08 0.78
Ongoing evaluation of progress made towards sustainment. .654 .428 .656 .431 3.95 1.06
Sufficient and timely feedback about the project delivery to maintain or improve quality. .843 .711 .832 .692 4.11 1.00
Evidence of positive outcomes .559 .312 .568 .322 4.17 0.79
Factor 7. Sustainment outcomes α = .84 α = .85 4.41 0.74
Continue to operate as described in original application .608 .370 .608 .370 4.36 0.82
Continue to deliver preventive services to intended population .828 .685 .834 .695 4.67 0.72
Continue to deliver evidence-based services .741 .548 .743 .553 4.54 0.84
Periodically measure fidelity of services delivered .745 .554 .734 .539 4.09 1.18
Total subscales 7 9   
Total items 42 35   
X2 (d.f.) 1577.1 (798) 960.2 (524)   
CFI 0.756 0.844   
RMSEA 0.082 0.076   
SRMR 0.090 0.066   
Back to article page

Implementation Science

ISSN: 1748-5908