Skip to content

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

Authors:

Byron J. Powell, Cameo F. Stanick, Heather M. Halko, Caitlin N. Dorsey, Bryan J. Weiner, Melanie A. Barwick, Laura J. Damschroder, Michel Wensing, Luke Wolfenden, and Cara C. Lewis

University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.

✪ Open Access

Published: October 2017

Read the full text in the open access journal Implementation Science

Abstract:

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.

**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**