University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Center for Health Promotion and Prevention Research, School of Public Health, 7000 Fannin St, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Box 357965, 1510 San Juan Road, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA.
Implement Sci. 2018 Mar 27;13(1):52. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0736-7.
Scientists and practitioners alike need reliable, valid measures of contextual factors that influence implementation. Yet, few existing measures demonstrate reliability or validity. To meet this need, we developed and assessed the psychometric properties of measures of several constructs within the Inner Setting domain of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).
We searched the literature for existing measures for the 7 Inner Setting domain constructs (Culture Overall, Culture Stress, Culture Effort, Implementation Climate, Learning Climate, Leadership Engagement, and Available Resources). We adapted items for the healthcare context, pilot-tested the adapted measures in 4 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), and implemented the revised measures in 78 FQHCs in the 7 states (N = 327 respondents) with a focus on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening practices. To psychometrically assess our measures, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis models (CFA; structural validity), assessed inter-item consistency (reliability), computed scale correlations (discriminant validity), and calculated inter-rater reliability and agreement (organization-level construct reliability and validity).
CFAs for most constructs exhibited good model fit (CFI > 0.90, TLI > 0.90, SRMR < 0.08, RMSEA < 0.08), with almost all factor loadings exceeding 0.40. Scale reliabilities ranged from good (0.7 ≤ α < 0.9) to excellent (α ≥ 0.9). Scale correlations fell below 0.90, indicating discriminant validity. Inter-rater reliability and agreement were sufficiently high to justify measuring constructs at the clinic-level.
Our findings provide psychometric evidence in support of the CFIR Inner Setting measures. Our findings also suggest the Inner Setting measures from individuals can be aggregated to represent the clinic-level. Measurement of the Inner Setting constructs can be useful in better understanding and predicting implementation in FQHCs and can be used to identify targets of strategies to accelerate and enhance implementation efforts in FQHCs.
科学家和从业者都需要可靠、有效的方法来衡量影响实施的背景因素。然而,现有的衡量标准很少能同时体现可靠性和有效性。为了满足这一需求,我们开发并评估了整合实施研究框架(CFIR)内的几个结构领域的措施的心理测量特性。
我们在文献中搜索了现有的 7 个内在环境结构领域的衡量标准(总体文化、文化压力、文化努力、实施气候、学习气候、领导参与和可用资源)。我们根据医疗保健背景对项目进行了改编,在 4 个联邦合格的健康中心(FQHC)进行了试点测试,并在 7 个州的 78 个 FQHC 中实施了修订后的衡量标准(重点是结直肠癌(CRC)筛查实践)。为了对我们的衡量标准进行心理测量评估,我们进行了验证性因素分析模型(CFA;结构有效性),评估了项目间的一致性(可靠性),计算了量表相关性(区别有效性),并计算了评分者间的可靠性和一致性(组织层面的结构可靠性和有效性)。
大多数结构的 CFA 表现出良好的模型拟合(CFI>0.90,TLI>0.90,SRMR<0.08,RMSEA<0.08),几乎所有的因子负荷都超过了 0.40。量表的可靠性从良好(0.7≤α<0.9)到优秀(α≥0.9)不等。量表相关性低于 0.90,表明具有区别有效性。评分者间的可靠性和一致性足以证明在诊所层面测量结构的合理性。
我们的研究结果提供了支持 CFIR 内在环境衡量标准的心理测量证据。我们的研究结果还表明,可以将个体的内在环境衡量标准汇总起来代表诊所层面。在 FQHC 中测量内在环境结构可以帮助更好地理解和预测实施情况,并可用于确定加速和加强 FQHC 实施工作的策略目标。