Advancing Implementation Science through Measure Development and Evaluation

 描述(由申请人提供)：质量差和不切实际的衡量标准阻碍了对促进广泛提供循证护理和改善心理健康所需的执行障碍、促进者和战略的研究。衡量标准衍生出指导后续决策的研究和政策/实践见解。然而，对于推动科学和为实践提供信息的措施来说，它们需要既具有强大的心理测量学能力，又具有实用性。没有任何研究评估诸如《执行研究综合框架》4或《执行成果框架》等被高度引用的基础性执行科学框架所描述的一系列综合措施的心理测量学特性。5此外，没有任何研究试图推进务实的执行科学措施，而且在没有利益攸关方参与的情况下产生了唯一现有的实用标准。我们的长期目标是开发一套全面的可靠、有效和务实的措施，研究人员和利益相关者可以使用这些措施来推进实施的科学和实践。这项申请的总体目标是为实施科学提出一个以测量为重点的研究议程(即，哪些结构具有心理测量学上的强大和实用的测量，需要进一步发展)以及完成这项工作的措施和方法。这项提议以三个目标为指导。第一，建立利益相关者驱动的务实措施的可操作性，并为评估构建制定可靠、有效的评级标准。我们采用混合方法(文献综述、定性访谈、Q排序和德尔菲法)来生成“务实”评级标准，以吸引利益相关者参与。第二，制定可接受性、适当性和可行性的可靠、有效和务实的衡量标准。我们已经审查了一个有效的开发程序，以确定它们的可靠性；实质性的、有区别的内容、结构、已知群体和预测有效性；结构不变性；以及对变化的敏感性。我们开发和测试新措施的方法包括一系列实验室研究，以评估受控条件下的心理测量特性，以及实地研究，以衡量心理测量和实际情况下的表现。第三，确定与CFIR和IOF挂钩的措施，显示心理测量和语用能力。我们评估46个建筑的420多个现有措施的方法建立在我们的初步研究基础上，并访问了一个既定的特别工作组。实用测量评级标准将被整合到我们既定的心理测量评级标准中，提供心理测量和实用测量概况。我们预测，很少有现有的措施是心理测量健全和务实的，但严格的、可复制的开发和测试程序将产生具有这些品质的措施。一旦确定了务实的、心理测量学上强有力的措施，实地就可以产生关于哪些执行战略在何时对谁最有效的强有力的科学知识，以便利益攸关方能够使用基于证据的方法来实施基于证据的做法。

 DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Poor quality and impractical measurement has impeded the study of implementation barriers, facilitators and strategies necessary for promoting widespread delivery of evidence-based care and improving mental health. Measures derive research and policy/practice insights that guide subsequent decision making. However, for measures to advance science and inform practice they need to be both psychometrically strong and pragmatic. No studies have evaluated the psychometric properties of a comprehensive array of measures delineated in highly-cited, foundational implementation science frameworks such as the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) 4 or the Implementation Outcomes Framework (IOF).5 Moreover, no research has attempted to advance pragmatic implementation science measures, and the only existing pragmatic criteria was generated in the absence of stakeholder involvement. Our long-term goal is to develop a comprehensive battery of reliable, valid, and pragmatic measures that researchers and stakeholders could use to advance the science and practice of implementation. The overarching objective of this application is to put forth a measurement-focused research agenda for implementation science (i.e., which constructs possess psychometrically strong and pragmatic measures, which require further development) as well as measures and methods to accomplish this work. Three aims guide this proposal. One, establish a stakeholder-driven operationalization of pragmatic measures and develop reliable, valid rating criteria for assessing the construct. Our approach to generating "pragmatic" rating criteria employs mixed methods (literature review, qualitative interviews, and Q-sort and Delphi methods) to engage stakeholders. Two, develop reliable, valid, and pragmatic measures of accept- ability, appropriateness, and feasibility. We have vetted an effective development procedure to establish their reliability; substantive, discriminant content, structural, known-groups, and predictive validity; structural invariance; and sensitivity to change. Our approach to developing and testing new measures involves a series of laboratory studies to assess psychometric properties under controlled conditions and field studies to gauge psychometric and pragmatic performance under "real world" conditions. Three, identify CFIR and IOF-linked measures that demonstrate both psychometric and pragmatic strength. Our approach to assessing over 420 existing measures of 46 constructs builds upon our preliminary studies and accesses an established task force. The pragmatic measure rating criteria will be integrated into our established psychometric rating criteria rendering psychometric and pragmatic measure profiles. We predict that few existing measures are psycho- metrically sound and pragmatic, but that rigorous, replicable development and testing procedures will generate measures that possess these qualities. Once pragmatic, psychometrically strong measures are identified, the field can generate robust scientific knowledge about which implementation strategies work best, when, and for whom so that stakeholders can use evidence-based approaches for implementing evidence-based practices.