Skip to main content

Table 5 Traditional deductive CFIR approach versus rapid deductive CFIR approach: effectiveness and rigor

From: Rapid versus traditional qualitative analysis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)

Domain

Traditional CFIR approach

Rapid CFIR approach

Effectiveness: evaluation objectives

 Ability to identify and describe implementation determinants

Yes

Yes

 Ability to provide rapid feedback to operational partners

No (preliminary results only)

Yes

Rigor: evaluation processes

Credibility

  Analyst authority: We had analysts with expertise in both qualitative methods and the CFIR

Yes

Yes

  Data accuracy: We used two analysts/interview and maintained access to the raw data in order to verify the accuracy of data, especially quotations

Yes (transcripts and audio recordings)

Yes (audio recordings)

  Data organization: We used matrices, allowing us to parse out and synthesize data as needed

Yes

Yes

Dependability

  Data comparability: We used the same interviewers and semi-structured interview guide (based on the CFIR) to ensure data was comparable across participants and facilities

Yes

Yes

  Coding comparability: We used the same analysts and framework to ensure coding was comparable across participants and facilities

Yes

Yes

  Analysis audit trail: We documented keys phases of analysis and edits in memos and/or matrices

Yes

Yes

Confirmability

  Data triangulation: We interviewed multiple participants at each site, allowing us to triangulate data

Yes

Yes

  Team reflexivity: We held weekly meetings to discuss discrepancies and refinements to coding processes

Yes

Yes