Advancing implementation science through measure development and evaluation: a study protocol.
Advancing implementation science through measure development and evaluation: a study protocol.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s13012-015-0287-0
复制
发表时间：
2015-07-22
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Fischer SM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lewis CC;Weiner BJ;Stanick C;Fischer SM
与衡量问题有关的重大差距是推进实施科学的最关键障碍之一。这项研究的目的有三个问题：(A)利益攸关方没有参与定义实用的衡量标准；(B)缺乏衡量标准，特别是执行成果的衡量标准；(C)现有衡量标准的心理测量学和实用性不详。目标1：建立利益相关者驱动的务实措施的可操作性，并制定可靠、有效的评级标准来评估该结构。目标2：制定可接受性、适当性和可行性这三个关键实施成果的可靠、有效和务实的衡量标准。目标3：确定执行研究综合框架和执行成果框架--显示心理测量和实际能力的措施。对于目标1，我们将进行(A)与利益相关者小组成员(N = 7)的访谈并完成文献综述以填充实用措施构建标准，(B)Q-排序活动(N = 20)以澄清定义的内部结构，(C)德尔福活动(N = 20)以就维度优先顺序达成共识，(D)对紧急评级系统的重测和评分者之间的可靠性评估，以及(E)已知群体对前三个优先的实用标准的有效性测试。对于目标2，我们的系统开发过程包括领域划分、条目生成、实质效度评估、结构效度评估、信度评估和预测效度评估。我们还将评估判别效度、已知群体效度、结构不变性、对变化的敏感度以及其他语用特征。对于目标3，我们将完善我们建立的循证评估(EBA)标准，从文献中提取相关数据，使用EBA标准对每项衡量标准进行评级，并对数据进行汇总。预期每项目标的研究成果将产生积极影响，因为它们将为执行科学确立和指导以计量为重点的全面研究议程，并为完成这项工作提供有经验支持的措施、工具和方法。
Significant gaps related to measurement issues are among the most critical barriers to advancing implementation science. Three issues motivated the study aims: (a) the lack of stakeholder involvement in defining pragmatic measure qualities; (b) the dearth of measures, particularly for implementation outcomes; and (c) unknown psychometric and pragmatic strength of existing measures. Aim 1: Establish a stakeholder-driven operationalization of pragmatic measures and develop reliable, valid rating criteria for assessing the construct. Aim 2: Develop reliable, valid, and pragmatic measures of three critical implementation outcomes, acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Aim 3: Identify Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and Implementation Outcome Framework-linked measures that demonstrate both psychometric and pragmatic strength. For Aim 1, we will conduct (a) interviews with stakeholder panelists (N = 7) and complete a literature review to populate pragmatic measure construct criteria, (b) Q-sort activities (N = 20) to clarify the internal structure of the definition, (c) Delphi activities (N = 20) to achieve consensus on the dimension priorities, (d) test-retest and inter-rater reliability assessments of the emergent rating system, and (e) known-groups validity testing of the top three prioritized pragmatic criteria. For Aim 2, our systematic development process involves domain delineation, item generation, substantive validity assessment, structural validity assessment, reliability assessment, and predictive validity assessment. We will also assess discriminant validity, known-groups validity, structural invariance, sensitivity to change, and other pragmatic features. For Aim 3, we will refine our established evidence-based assessment (EBA) criteria, extract the relevant data from the literature, rate each measure using the EBA criteria, and summarize the data. The study outputs of each aim are expected to have a positive impact as they will establish and guide a comprehensive measurement-focused research agenda for implementation science and provide empirically supported measures, tools, and methods for accomplishing this work.