Advancing Implementation Science through Measure Development and Evaluation

通过措施制定和评估推进实施科学

• 批准号: 9315040
• 负责人: Cara Charissa Lewis
• 金额: $ 54.35万
• 依托单位: KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 财政年份: 2016
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2016-08-23 至 2018-03-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/9315040
• 关键词: Address; Adoption; Advisory Committees; Caring; Decision Making; Development; Evaluation; Evidence based practice; Foundations; Generations; Goals; Health; Housing; Intervention; Interview; Knowledge; Laboratory Study; Link; Literature; Measurement; Measures; Mental Health; Methods; Mission; Nature; Outcome; Outcome Measure; Output; Performance; Plague; Policy Research; Procedures; Process; Property; Psyche structure; Psychiatry; Psychometrics; Publishing; Q-Sort; Rattus; Research; Research Personnel; Research Training; Review Literature; Risk; Running; Schools; Science; Scientist; Series; Solid; Specialist; Structure; System; Testing; United States National Institutes of Health; Work; base; community setting; evidence base; field study; implementation research; implementation science; improved; innovation; insight; meetings; sound; tool; uptake

 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.

 描述（由申请人提供）：质量差且不切实际的测量阻碍了对促进广泛提供循证护理和改善心理健康所需的实施障碍、促进因素和策略的研究。措施得出指导后续决策的研究和政策/实践见解。然而，对于推进科学和指导实践的措施来说，它们需要在心理测量上既强大又实用。目前还没有研究评估过被广泛引用的基础实施科学中描述的一系列综合措施的心理测量特性。实施研究综合框架 (CFIR) 4 或实施成果框架 (IOF) 5 等框架。 此外，没有研究试图推进务实的实施科学措施，现有的唯一务实标准是在没有利益相关者参与的情况下制定的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它们来推进实施的科学和实践。该应用程序的总体目标是提出以测量为中心的方法。实施科学的研究议程（即构建具有心理测量学的强大且务实的措施，需要进一步发展）以及完成这项工作的措施和方法，指导该提案的三个目标，一是建立利益相关者驱动的务实措施的实施。并制定可靠、有效的评级标准来评估构建。我们生成“务实”评级标准的方法采用混合方法（文献综述、定性访谈、Q 排序和德尔菲法）来吸引利益相关者。和我们审查了有效的开发程序，以建立其实质性的、有区别的内容、结构性、已知群体和预测的有效性以及对变化的敏感性；开发和测试新措施涉及一系列实验室研究，以评估受控条件下的心理测量特性，以及实地研究，以衡量“现实世界”条件下的心理测量和务实表现。 第三，确定与 CFIR 和 IOF 相关的措施，以证明两者。我们评估 46 种结构的 420 多项现有措施的方法建立在我们的初步研究的基础上，并将实用性测量评级标准纳入我们既定的心理测量评级标准中，从而呈现出心理测量和实用性测量概况。预测现有的测量方法在心理测量上很少有合理且实用的，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测量方法，一旦确定了实用的、心理测量上强大的测量方法，该领域就可以实现。生成有关哪些实施策略最有效、何时以及对谁最有效的可靠科学知识，以便利益相关者可以使用基于证据的方法来实施基于证据的实践。