Journal
IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE
Volume 9, Issue -, Pages -Publisher
BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13012-014-0118-8
Keywords
Instruments; Implementation; Dissemination; Psychometrics; Mixed methods
Funding
- National Institutes of Health R13 award
- NIH CTSA at UNC [UL1TR00083]
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Background: Like many new fields, implementation science has become vulnerable to instrumentation issues that potentially threaten the strength of the developing knowledge base. For instance, many implementation studies report findings based on instruments that do not have established psychometric properties. This article aims to review six pressing instrumentation issues, discuss the impact of these issues on the field, and provide practical recommendations. Discussion: This debate centers on the impact of the following instrumentation issues: use of frameworks, theories, and models; role of psychometric properties; use of 'home-grown' and adapted instruments; choosing the most appropriate evaluation method and approach; practicality; and need for decision-making tools. Practical recommendations include: use of consensus definitions for key implementation constructs; reporting standards (e.g., regarding psychometrics, instrument adaptation); when to use multiple forms of observation and mixed methods; and accessing instrument repositories and decision aid tools. Summary: This debate provides an overview of six key instrumentation issues and offers several courses of action to limit the impact of these issues on the field. With careful attention to these issues, the field of implementation science can potentially move forward at the rapid pace that is respectfully demanded by community stakeholders.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available