schliessen

Filtern

 

Bibliotheken

Toward criteria for pragmatic measurement in implementation research and practice: a stakeholder-driven approach using concept mapping

Background Advancing implementation research and practice requires valid and reliable measures of implementation determinants, mechanisms, processes, strategies, and outcomes. However, researchers and implementation stakeholders are unlikely to use measures if they are not also pragmatic. The purpos... Full description

Journal Title: Implementation Science 2017, Vol.12
Main Author: Powell, Byron
Other Authors: Stanick, Cameo , Halko, Heather , Dorsey, Caitlin , Weiner, Bryan , Barwick, Melanie , Damschroder, Laura , Wensing, Michel , Wolfenden, Luke , Lewis, Cara
Format: Electronic Article Electronic Article
Language: English
Subjects:
ID: DOI: 10.1186/s13012-017-0649-x
Zum Text:
SendSend as email Add to Book BagAdd to Book Bag
Staff View
recordid: proquest1946882250
title: Toward criteria for pragmatic measurement in implementation research and practice: a stakeholder-driven approach using concept mapping
format: Article
creator:
  • Powell, Byron
  • Stanick, Cameo
  • Halko, Heather
  • Dorsey, Caitlin
  • Weiner, Bryan
  • Barwick, Melanie
  • Damschroder, Laura
  • Wensing, Michel
  • Wolfenden, Luke
  • Lewis, Cara
subjects:
  • Research
  • Researchers
  • Data Collection
  • Science
  • Mental Health
  • Concept Mapping
  • Medical Screening
  • Quantitative Psychology
  • Studies
  • Stakeholders
  • Cluster Analysis
ispartof: Implementation Science, 2017, Vol.12
description: Background Advancing implementation research and practice requires valid and reliable measures of implementation determinants, mechanisms, processes, strategies, and outcomes. However, researchers and implementation stakeholders are unlikely to use measures if they are not also pragmatic. The purpose of this study was to establish a stakeholder-driven conceptualization of the domains that comprise the pragmatic measure construct. It built upon a systematic review of the literature and semi-structured stakeholder interviews that generated 47 criteria for pragmatic measures, and aimed to further refine that set of criteria by identifying conceptually distinct categories of the pragmatic measure construct and providing quantitative ratings of the criteria’s clarity and importance. Methods Twenty-four stakeholders with expertise in implementation practice completed a concept mapping activity wherein they organized the initial list of 47 criteria into conceptually distinct categories and rated their clarity and importance. Multidimensional scaling, hierarchical cluster analysis, and descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Findings The 47 criteria were meaningfully grouped into four distinct categories: (1) acceptable, (2) compatible, (3) easy, and (4) useful. Average ratings of clarity and importance at the category and individual criteria level will be presented. Conclusions This study advances the field of implementation science and practice by providing clear and conceptually distinct domains of the pragmatic measure construct. Next steps will include a Delphi process to develop consensus on the most important criteria and the development of quantifiable pragmatic rating criteria that can be used to assess measures.
language: eng
source:
identifier: DOI: 10.1186/s13012-017-0649-x
fulltext: fulltext_linktorsrc
url: Link


@attributes
ID1614218780
RANK0.07
NO1
SEARCH_ENGINEprimo_central_multiple_fe
SEARCH_ENGINE_TYPEPrimo Central Search Engine
LOCALfalse
PrimoNMBib
record
control
sourcerecordid1946882250
sourceidproquest
recordidTN_proquest1946882250
sourcesystemOther
pqid1946882250
galeid507974242
display
typearticle
titleToward criteria for pragmatic measurement in implementation research and practice: a stakeholder-driven approach using concept mapping
creatorPowell, Byron ; Stanick, Cameo ; Halko, Heather ; Dorsey, Caitlin ; Weiner, Bryan ; Barwick, Melanie ; Damschroder, Laura ; Wensing, Michel ; Wolfenden, Luke ; Lewis, Cara
ispartofImplementation Science, 2017, Vol.12
identifierDOI: 10.1186/s13012-017-0649-x
subjectResearch ; Researchers ; Data Collection ; Science ; Mental Health ; Concept Mapping ; Medical Screening ; Quantitative Psychology ; Studies ; Stakeholders ; Cluster Analysis
descriptionBackground Advancing implementation research and practice requires valid and reliable measures of implementation determinants, mechanisms, processes, strategies, and outcomes. However, researchers and implementation stakeholders are unlikely to use measures if they are not also pragmatic. The purpose of this study was to establish a stakeholder-driven conceptualization of the domains that comprise the pragmatic measure construct. It built upon a systematic review of the literature and semi-structured stakeholder interviews that generated 47 criteria for pragmatic measures, and aimed to further refine that set of criteria by identifying conceptually distinct categories of the pragmatic measure construct and providing quantitative ratings of the criteria’s clarity and importance. Methods Twenty-four stakeholders with expertise in implementation practice completed a concept mapping activity wherein they organized the initial list of 47 criteria into conceptually distinct categories and rated their clarity and importance. Multidimensional scaling, hierarchical cluster analysis, and descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Findings The 47 criteria were meaningfully grouped into four distinct categories: (1) acceptable, (2) compatible, (3) easy, and (4) useful. Average ratings of clarity and importance at the category and individual criteria level will be presented. Conclusions This study advances the field of implementation science and practice by providing clear and conceptually distinct domains of the pragmatic measure construct. Next steps will include a Delphi process to develop consensus on the most important criteria and the development of quantifiable pragmatic rating criteria that can be used to assess measures.
languageeng
source
version6
oafree_for_read
lds50peer_reviewed
links
openurl$$Topenurl_article
openurlfulltext$$Topenurlfull_article
linktorsrc$$Uhttp://search.proquest.com/docview/1946882250/?pq-origsite=primo$$EView_record_in_ProQuest_(subscribers_only)
search
creatorcontrib
0Powell, Byron
1Stanick, Cameo
2Halko, Heather
3Dorsey, Caitlin
4Weiner, Bryan
5Barwick, Melanie
6Damschroder, Laura
7Wensing, Michel
8Wolfenden, Luke
9Lewis, Cara
titleToward criteria for pragmatic measurement in implementation research and practice: a stakeholder-driven approach using concept mapping
descriptionBackground Advancing implementation research and practice requires valid and reliable measures of implementation determinants, mechanisms, processes, strategies, and outcomes. However, researchers and implementation stakeholders are unlikely to use measures if they are not also pragmatic. The purpose of this study was to establish a stakeholder-driven conceptualization of the domains that comprise the pragmatic measure construct. It built upon a systematic review of the literature and semi-structured stakeholder interviews that generated 47 criteria for pragmatic measures, and aimed to further refine that set of criteria by identifying conceptually distinct categories of the pragmatic measure construct and providing quantitative ratings of the criteria’s clarity and importance. Methods Twenty-four stakeholders with expertise in implementation practice completed a concept mapping activity wherein they organized the initial list of 47 criteria into conceptually distinct categories and rated their clarity and importance. Multidimensional scaling, hierarchical cluster analysis, and descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Findings The 47 criteria were meaningfully grouped into four distinct categories: (1) acceptable, (2) compatible, (3) easy, and (4) useful. Average ratings of clarity and importance at the category and individual criteria level will be presented. Conclusions This study advances the field of implementation science and practice by providing clear and conceptually distinct domains of the pragmatic measure construct. Next steps will include a Delphi process to develop consensus on the most important criteria and the development of quantifiable pragmatic rating criteria that can be used to assess measures.
subject
0Research
1Researchers
2Data Collection
3Science
4Mental Health
5Concept Mapping
6Medical Screening
7Quantitative Psychology
8Studies
9Stakeholders
10Cluster Analysis
general
0English
1BioMed Central
210.1186/s13012-017-0649-x
3Medical Database
4Health & Medical Collection (Alumni edition)
5Medical Database (Alumni edition)
6Health & Medical Collection
7Publicly Available Content Database
8ProQuest Central
9ProQuest Hospital Collection
10Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni edition)
11ProQuest Health & Medical Complete
12ProQuest Medical Library
13ProQuest Central (new)
14ProQuest Central Korea
15Health Research Premium Collection
16Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni edition)
17ProQuest Central Essentials
18ProQuest Central China
sourceidproquest
recordidproquest1946882250
rsrctypearticle
creationdate2017
addtitleImplementation Science
searchscope
01000273
11006761
21006762
31007067
41007945
51008886
61009127
71009240
81009386
910000039
1010000047
1110000118
1210000119
1310000155
1410000156
1510000157
1610000158
1710000255
1810000256
1910000258
2010000270
2110000271
2210000281
2310000300
2410000302
25proquest
scope
01000273
11006761
21006762
31007067
41007945
51008886
61009127
71009240
81009386
910000039
1010000047
1110000118
1210000119
1310000155
1410000156
1510000157
1610000158
1710000255
1810000256
1910000258
2010000270
2110000271
2210000281
2310000300
2410000302
25proquest
lsr43
01000273true
11006761true
21006762true
31007067true
41007945true
51008886true
61009127true
71009240true
81009386true
910000039true
1010000047true
1110000118true
1210000119true
1310000155true
1410000156true
1510000157true
1610000158true
1710000255true
1810000256true
1910000258true
2010000270true
2110000271true
2210000281true
2310000300true
2410000302true
startdate20170101
enddate20170101
citationvol 12
lsr30VSR-Enriched:[pages, pqid, date, issue, issn, eissn, galeid]
sort
titleToward criteria for pragmatic measurement in implementation research and practice: a stakeholder-driven approach using concept mapping
authorPowell, Byron ; Stanick, Cameo ; Halko, Heather ; Dorsey, Caitlin ; Weiner, Bryan ; Barwick, Melanie ; Damschroder, Laura ; Wensing, Michel ; Wolfenden, Luke ; Lewis, Cara
creationdate20170101
lso0120170101
facets
frbrgroupid9064768618010084914
frbrtype5
newrecords20171009
languageeng
creationdate2017
topic
0Research
1Researchers
2Data Collection
3Science
4Mental Health
5Concept Mapping
6Medical Screening
7Quantitative Psychology
8Studies
9Stakeholders
10Cluster Analysis
collection
0Medical Database
1Health & Medical Collection (Alumni edition)
2Medical Database (Alumni edition)
3Health & Medical Collection
4Publicly Available Content Database
5ProQuest Central
6ProQuest Hospital Collection
7Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni edition)
8ProQuest Health & Medical Complete
9ProQuest Medical Library
10ProQuest Central (new)
11ProQuest Central Korea
12Health Research Premium Collection
13Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni edition)
14ProQuest Central Essentials
15ProQuest Central China
prefilterarticles
rsrctypearticles
creatorcontrib
0Powell, Byron
1Stanick, Cameo
2Halko, Heather
3Dorsey, Caitlin
4Weiner, Bryan
5Barwick, Melanie
6Damschroder, Laura
7Wensing, Michel
8Wolfenden, Luke
9Lewis, Cara
jtitleImplementation Science
toplevelpeer_reviewed
delivery
delcategoryRemote Search Resource
fulltextfulltext_linktorsrc
addata
aulast
0Powell
1Stanick
2Halko
3Dorsey
4Weiner
5Barwick
6Damschroder
7Wensing
8Wolfenden
9Lewis
aufirst
0Byron
1Cameo
2Heather
3Caitlin
4Bryan
5Melanie
6Laura
7Michel
8Luke
9Cara
au
0Powell, Byron
1Stanick, Cameo
2Halko, Heather
3Dorsey, Caitlin
4Weiner, Bryan
5Barwick, Melanie
6Damschroder, Laura
7Wensing, Michel
8Wolfenden, Luke
9Lewis, Cara
atitleToward criteria for pragmatic measurement in implementation research and practice: a stakeholder-driven approach using concept mapping
jtitleImplementation Science
risdate20170101
volume12
formatjournal
genrearticle
ristypeJOUR
abstractBackground Advancing implementation research and practice requires valid and reliable measures of implementation determinants, mechanisms, processes, strategies, and outcomes. However, researchers and implementation stakeholders are unlikely to use measures if they are not also pragmatic. The purpose of this study was to establish a stakeholder-driven conceptualization of the domains that comprise the pragmatic measure construct. It built upon a systematic review of the literature and semi-structured stakeholder interviews that generated 47 criteria for pragmatic measures, and aimed to further refine that set of criteria by identifying conceptually distinct categories of the pragmatic measure construct and providing quantitative ratings of the criteria’s clarity and importance. Methods Twenty-four stakeholders with expertise in implementation practice completed a concept mapping activity wherein they organized the initial list of 47 criteria into conceptually distinct categories and rated their clarity and importance. Multidimensional scaling, hierarchical cluster analysis, and descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Findings The 47 criteria were meaningfully grouped into four distinct categories: (1) acceptable, (2) compatible, (3) easy, and (4) useful. Average ratings of clarity and importance at the category and individual criteria level will be presented. Conclusions This study advances the field of implementation science and practice by providing clear and conceptually distinct domains of the pragmatic measure construct. Next steps will include a Delphi process to develop consensus on the most important criteria and the development of quantifiable pragmatic rating criteria that can be used to assess measures.
copLondon
pubBioMed Central
doi10.1186/s13012-017-0649-x
urlhttp://search.proquest.com/docview/1946882250/
pages1-7
issue1
issn17485908
eissn17485908
oafree_for_read
date2017-10-03