Content validity of an item bank to assess intervention characteristic determinants of implementing evidence-based practices.

Implementation research and practice Pub Date : 2023-05-16 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1177/26334895231175527
Salene M W Jones, Aditya Shrey, Bryan J Weiner
{"title":"Content validity of an item bank to assess intervention characteristic determinants of implementing evidence-based practices.","authors":"Salene M W Jones, Aditya Shrey, Bryan J Weiner","doi":"10.1177/26334895231175527","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Barriers and facilitators, collectively called determinants, of evidence-based practice implementation are key to identifying the best strategies for promoting implementation. Assessing determinants before implementation can help tailor strategies to those that would be most effective. Current measures of determinants are not comparable across implementation settings and implementation scientists and practitioners often have to create their own measures. This study was the first step in creating determinants item banks that are usable across settings and focused on intervention characteristics. We aimed to establish the content validity of the item bank.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This study used a concurrent mixed methods approach. Items for assessing intervention characteristic determinants were first identified through systematic reviews. Implementation scientists then completed a survey where they provided both quantitative and qualitative feedback on the items. Finally, three experts with both clinical and implementation experience provided feedback on redundancy and representativeness.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The systematic reviews identified over 1,959 items so subsequent steps were limited to focus on intervention characteristic determinants (271 items) such as adaptability of the practice. Based on feedback from thirty implementation scientists, the items were reduced to 92 but an additional 53 were added, most due to qualitative feedback. Items were also rewritten based on qualitative results. Three experts reviewed the remaining 145 items. Based on their feedback, the number of items was reduced to 109.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Creating a determinants item bank was feasible and the final items had content validity. The next steps include testing reliability and validity in a larger sample of clinicians implementing evidence-based practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":73354,"journal":{"name":"Implementation research and practice","volume":"4 ","pages":"26334895231175527"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/2b/88/10.1177_26334895231175527.PMC10192670.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895231175527","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Barriers and facilitators, collectively called determinants, of evidence-based practice implementation are key to identifying the best strategies for promoting implementation. Assessing determinants before implementation can help tailor strategies to those that would be most effective. Current measures of determinants are not comparable across implementation settings and implementation scientists and practitioners often have to create their own measures. This study was the first step in creating determinants item banks that are usable across settings and focused on intervention characteristics. We aimed to establish the content validity of the item bank.

Method: This study used a concurrent mixed methods approach. Items for assessing intervention characteristic determinants were first identified through systematic reviews. Implementation scientists then completed a survey where they provided both quantitative and qualitative feedback on the items. Finally, three experts with both clinical and implementation experience provided feedback on redundancy and representativeness.

Results: The systematic reviews identified over 1,959 items so subsequent steps were limited to focus on intervention characteristic determinants (271 items) such as adaptability of the practice. Based on feedback from thirty implementation scientists, the items were reduced to 92 but an additional 53 were added, most due to qualitative feedback. Items were also rewritten based on qualitative results. Three experts reviewed the remaining 145 items. Based on their feedback, the number of items was reduced to 109.

Conclusions: Creating a determinants item bank was feasible and the final items had content validity. The next steps include testing reliability and validity in a larger sample of clinicians implementing evidence-based practices.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

项目库的内容有效性,以评估实施循证实践的干预特征决定因素。
背景:循证实践实施的障碍和促进者,统称为决定因素,是确定促进实施的最佳战略的关键。在实施之前评估决定因素有助于根据最有效的战略调整战略。目前的决定因素衡量标准在实施环境中不具有可比性,实施科学家和从业者往往必须制定自己的衡量标准。这项研究是创建跨环境可用的决定因素项目库的第一步,重点关注干预特征。我们旨在建立项目库的内容有效性。方法:本研究采用并行混合方法。评估干预特征决定因素的项目首先通过系统审查确定。执行科学家随后完成了一项调查,他们对这些项目提供了定量和定性反馈。最后,三位具有临床和实施经验的专家就冗余性和代表性提供了反馈。结果:系统审查确定了超过1959个项目,因此后续步骤仅限于关注干预特征的决定因素(271个项目),如实践的适应性。根据30名实施科学家的反馈,项目减少到92个,但增加了53个,大部分是由于质量反馈。项目也根据定性结果改写。三名专家审查了其余145个项目。根据他们的反馈,项目数量减少到109个。结论:创建决定因素项目库是可行的,最终项目具有内容有效性。接下来的步骤包括在更多实施循证实践的临床医生样本中测试可靠性和有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信