Pragmatic measures for implementation research: development of the Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale (PAPERS)

Author:

Stanick Cameo F1,Halko Heather M2,Nolen Elspeth A3,Powell Byron J4,Dorsey Caitlin N5,Mettert Kayne D5,Weiner Bryan J6,Barwick Melanie7,Wolfenden Luke8,Damschroder Laura J9,Lewis Cara C5ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Hathaway-Sycamores Child and Family Services, Pasadena, CA, USA

2. University of Montana, Missoula, MT, USA

3. Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

4. Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA

5. Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA

6. Departments of Global Health and Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

7. Hospital for Sick Children and University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

8. School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia

9. VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Center for Clinical Management Research (CCMR), Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Abstract

Abstract The use of reliable, valid measures in implementation practice will remain limited without pragmatic measures. Previous research identified the need for pragmatic measures, though the characteristic identification used only expert opinion and literature review. Our team completed four studies to develop a stakeholder-driven pragmatic rating criteria for implementation measures. We published Studies 1 (identifying dimensions of the pragmatic construct) and 2 (clarifying the internal structure) that engaged stakeholders—participants in mental health provider and implementation settings—to identify 17 terms/phrases across four categories: Useful, Compatible, Acceptable, and Easy. This paper presents Studies 3 and 4: a Delphi to ascertain stakeholder-prioritized dimensions within a mental health context, and a pilot study applying the rating criteria. Stakeholders (N = 26) participated in a Delphi and rated the relevance of 17 terms/phrases to the pragmatic construct. The investigator team further defined and shortened the list, which were piloted with 60 implementation measures. The Delphi confirmed the importance of all pragmatic criteria, but provided little guidance on relative importance. The investigators removed or combined terms/phrases to obtain 11 criteria. The 6-point rating system assigned to each criterion demonstrated sufficient variability across items. The grey literature did not add critical information. This work produced the first stakeholder-driven rating criteria to assess whether measures are pragmatic. The Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale (PAPERS) combines the pragmatic criteria with psychometric rating criteria, from previous work. Use of PAPERS can inform development of implementation measures and to assess the quality of existing measures.

Funder

National Institute of Mental Health

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Behavioral Neuroscience,Applied Psychology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3