Hadley Stevens Smith, Caryn Kseniya Rubanovich, Jill Oliver Robinson, Ariel N. Levchenko, Sarah A. Classen, Janet Malek, Adam H. Buchanan, Barbara Biesecker, Kyle B. Brothers, Benjamin S. Wilfond, Christine Rini, Cinnamon S. Bloss, Amy L. McGuire & Sara J. Knight
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: August 2024
Hadley Stevens Smith, Caryn Kseniya Rubanovich, Jill Oliver Robinson, Ariel N. Levchenko, Sarah A. Classen, Janet Malek, Barbara Biesecker, Kyle B. Brothers, Benjamin S. Wilfond, Christine Rini, Sara J. Knight, Amy L. McGuire & Cinnamon S. Bloss
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: August 2024
Christopher G. Kemp, Kristen Danforth, Luke Aldridge, Laura K. Murray, and Emily E. Haroz
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: October 2023
Limited guidance exists to support investigators in the choice, adaptation, validation and use of implementation measures for global mental health implementation research. Our objectives were to develop consensus on best practices for implementation measurement and identify strengths and opportunities in current practice. We convened seven expert panelists. Participants rated approaches to measure adaptation and validation according to appropriateness and feasibility. Follow-up interviews were conducted and a group discussion was held. We then surveyed investigators who have used quantitative implementation measures in global mental health implementation research. Participants described their use of implementation measures, including approaches to adaptation and validation, alongside challenges and opportunities. Panelists agreed that investigators could rely on evidence of a measure’s validity, reliability and dimensionality from similar contexts. Panelists did not reach consensus on whether to establish the pragmatic qualities of measures in novel settings. Survey respondents (n = 28) most commonly reported using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research Inner Setting Measures (n = 9) and the Program Assessment Sustainability Tool (n = 5). All reported adapting measures to their settings; only two reported validating their measures. These results will support guidance for implementation measurement in support of mental health services in diverse global settings.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**
Bryan J. Weiner, Cara C. Lewis, Cameo Stanick, Byron J. Powell, Caitlin N. Dorsey, Alecia S. Clary, Marcella H. Boynton and Heather Halko
University of Washington affiliated authors are displayed in bold.
Published: August 2017
Implementation outcome measures are essential for monitoring and evaluating the success of implementation efforts. Yet, currently available measures lack conceptual clarity and have largely unknown reliability and validity. This study developed and psychometrically assessed three new measures: the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM), and Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM).
Thirty-six implementation scientists and 27 mental health professionals assigned 31 items to the constructs and rated their confidence in their assignments. The Wilcoxon one-sample signed rank test was used to assess substantive and discriminant content validity. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA and CFA) and Cronbach alphas were used to assess the validity of the conceptual model. Three hundred twenty-six mental health counselors read one of six randomly assigned vignettes depicting a therapist contemplating adopting an evidence-based practice (EBP). Participants used 15 items to rate the therapist’s perceptions of the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of adopting the EBP. CFA and Cronbach alphas were used to refine the scales, assess structural validity, and assess reliability. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess known-groups validity. Finally, half of the counselors were randomly assigned to receive the same vignette and the other half the opposite vignette; and all were asked to re-rate acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to assess test-retest reliability and linear regression to assess sensitivity to change.
All but five items exhibited substantive and discriminant content validity. A trimmed CFA with five items per construct exhibited acceptable model fit (CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.08) and high factor loadings (0.79 to 0.94). The alphas for 5-item scales were between 0.87 and 0.89. Scale refinement based on measure-specific CFAs and Cronbach alphas using vignette data produced 4-item scales (α’s from 0.85 to 0.91). A three-factor CFA exhibited acceptable fit (CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.08) and high factor loadings (0.75 to 0.89), indicating structural validity. ANOVA showed significant main effects, indicating known-groups validity. Test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from 0.73 to 0.88. Regression analysis indicated each measure was sensitive to change in both directions.
The AIM, IAM, and FIM demonstrate promising psychometric properties. Predictive validity assessment is planned.
**This abstract is posted with permission under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License**