Assessing provider perceptions of training: Initial evaluation of the Acceptability, Feasibility, and Appropriateness Scale.

Implementation research and practice Pub Date : 2022-04-05 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1177/26334895221086269
Evelyn Cho, Aaron R Lyon, Siena K Tugendrajch, Brigid R Marriott, Kristin M Hawley
{"title":"Assessing provider perceptions of training: Initial evaluation of the Acceptability, Feasibility, and Appropriateness Scale.","authors":"Evelyn Cho, Aaron R Lyon, Siena K Tugendrajch, Brigid R Marriott, Kristin M Hawley","doi":"10.1177/26334895221086269","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is a well-documented gap between research and practice in the treatment of mental health problems. One promising approach to bridging this gap is training community-based providers in evidence-based practices (EBPs). However, a paucity of valid, reliable measures to assess a range of outcomes of such trainings impedes our ability to evaluate and improve training toward this end. The current study examined the factor structure of the Acceptability, Feasibility, Appropriateness Scale (AFAS), a provider-report measure that assesses three perceptual implementation outcomes of trainings that may be leading indicators of training success (i.e., acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness). Providers who attended half-day EBP trainings for common mental health problems reported on the acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness of these trainings using the AFAS (<i>N</i>  =  298). Confirmatory factor analysis indicates good fit to the hypothesized three-factor structure (RMSEA  =  .058, CFI  =  .990, TLI  =  .987). Acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness were three distinct but related constructs. Cronbach's alpha ranged from .86 to .91, indicating acceptable internal consistency for the three subscales. Acceptability and feasibility, but not appropriateness, scores varied between workshops, though variability across workshops was generally limited. This initial evaluation of the AFAS is in line with recent efforts to enhance psychometric reporting practices for implementation outcome measures and provides future directions for further development and refinement of the AFAS.</p><p><strong>Plain language summary: </strong>Clinician training in evidence-based practices is often used to increase implementation of evidence-based practices in mental health service settings. However, one barrier to evaluating the success of clinician trainings is the lack of measures that reliably and accurately assess clinician training outcomes. This study was the initial evaluation of the Acceptability, Feasibility, Appropriateness Scale (AFAS), a measure that assesses the immediate outcomes of clinician trainings. This study found some evidence supporting the AFAS reliability and its three subscales. With additional item refinement and psychometric testing, the AFAS could become a useful measure of a training's immediate impact on providers.</p>","PeriodicalId":73354,"journal":{"name":"Implementation research and practice","volume":"3 ","pages":"26334895221086269"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/8d/a2/10.1177_26334895221086269.PMC9924265.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895221086269","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is a well-documented gap between research and practice in the treatment of mental health problems. One promising approach to bridging this gap is training community-based providers in evidence-based practices (EBPs). However, a paucity of valid, reliable measures to assess a range of outcomes of such trainings impedes our ability to evaluate and improve training toward this end. The current study examined the factor structure of the Acceptability, Feasibility, Appropriateness Scale (AFAS), a provider-report measure that assesses three perceptual implementation outcomes of trainings that may be leading indicators of training success (i.e., acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness). Providers who attended half-day EBP trainings for common mental health problems reported on the acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness of these trainings using the AFAS (N  =  298). Confirmatory factor analysis indicates good fit to the hypothesized three-factor structure (RMSEA  =  .058, CFI  =  .990, TLI  =  .987). Acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness were three distinct but related constructs. Cronbach's alpha ranged from .86 to .91, indicating acceptable internal consistency for the three subscales. Acceptability and feasibility, but not appropriateness, scores varied between workshops, though variability across workshops was generally limited. This initial evaluation of the AFAS is in line with recent efforts to enhance psychometric reporting practices for implementation outcome measures and provides future directions for further development and refinement of the AFAS.

Plain language summary: Clinician training in evidence-based practices is often used to increase implementation of evidence-based practices in mental health service settings. However, one barrier to evaluating the success of clinician trainings is the lack of measures that reliably and accurately assess clinician training outcomes. This study was the initial evaluation of the Acceptability, Feasibility, Appropriateness Scale (AFAS), a measure that assesses the immediate outcomes of clinician trainings. This study found some evidence supporting the AFAS reliability and its three subscales. With additional item refinement and psychometric testing, the AFAS could become a useful measure of a training's immediate impact on providers.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

评估提供者对培训的看法:可接受性、可行性和适宜性量表的初步评估。
在心理健康问题的治疗方面,研究与实践之间存在着明显的差距。然而,缺乏有效、可靠的方法来评估此类培训的一系列结果,这阻碍了我们评估和改进培训的能力。本研究对 "可接受性、可行性、适宜性量表"(AFAS)的因子结构进行了研究,AFAS 是一种由提供者报告的测量方法,用于评估培训的三种感知实施结果,这些结果可能是培训成功与否的先行指标(即可接受性、可行性和适宜性)。参加了为期半天的针对常见心理健康问题的 EBP 培训的医疗服务提供者使用 AFAS 报告了这些培训的可接受性、可行性和适宜性(N = 298)。确认性因素分析表明,与假设的三因素结构非常吻合(RMSEA = .058,CFI = .990,TLI = .987)。可接受性、可行性和适宜性是三个不同但相关的结构。Cronbach's alpha 介于 0.86 至 0.91 之间,表明三个分量表的内部一致性均可接受。可接受性和可行性得分在不同工作坊之间存在差异,但适当性得分不存在差异,不过不同工作坊之间的差异总体上是有限的。对 AFAS 的初步评估与最近为加强实施结果测量的心理测量报告实践所做的努力是一致的,并为进一步开发和完善 AFAS 提供了未来的方向。然而,评估临床医生培训成功与否的一个障碍是缺乏可靠、准确地评估临床医生培训成果的方法。本研究是对可接受性、可行性、适宜性量表(AFAS)的初步评估,该量表可评估临床医师培训的直接成果。这项研究发现了一些支持 AFAS 可靠性及其三个分量表的证据。经过进一步的项目改进和心理测试,AFAS 可以成为衡量培训对医疗服务提供者直接影响的有用指标。
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