Operationalizing the 'pragmatic' measures construct using a stakeholder feedback and a multi-method approach.

CONTEXT: Implementation science measures are rarely used by stakeholders to inform and enhance clinical program change. Little is known about what makes implementation measures pragmatic (i.e., practical) for use in community settings; thus, the present study's objective was to generate a clinical stakeholder-driven operationalization of a pragmatic measures construct. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The pragmatic measures construct was defined using: 1) a systematic literature review to identify dimensions of the construct using PsycINFO and PubMed databases, and 2) interviews with an international stakeholder panel (N = 7) who were asked about their perspectives of pragmatic measures. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Combined results from the systematic literature review and stakeholder interviews revealed a final list of 47 short statements (e.g., feasible, low cost, brief) describing pragmatic measures, which will allow for the development of a rigorous, stakeholder-driven conceptualization of the pragmatic measures construct. CONCLUSIONS: Results revealed significant overlap between terms related to the pragmatic construct in the existing literature and stakeholder interviews. However, a number of terms were unique to each methodology. This underscores the importance of understanding stakeholder perspectives of criteria measuring the pragmatic construct. These results will be used to inform future phases of the project where stakeholders will determine the relative importance and clarity of each dimension of the pragmatic construct, as well as their priorities for the pragmatic dimensions. Taken together, these results will be incorporated into a pragmatic rating system for existing implementation science measures to support implementation science and practice.

The psychometric and pragmatic evidence rating scale (PAPERS) for measure development and evaluation.

To rigorously measure the implementation of evidence-based interventions, implementation science requires measures that have evidence of reliability and validity across different contexts and populations. Measures that can detect change over time and impact on outcomes of interest are most useful to implementers. Moreover, measures that fit the practical needs of implementers could be used to guide implementation outside of the research context. To address this need, our team developed a rating scale for implementation science measures that considers their psychometric and pragmatic properties and the evidence available. The Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale (PAPERS) can be used in systematic reviews of measures, in measure development, and to select measures. PAPERS may move the field toward measures that inform robust research evaluations and practical implementation efforts.

Pragmatic measures for implementation research: development of the Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale (PAPERS).

The use of reliable, valid measures in implementation practice will remain limited without pragmatic measures. Previous research identified the need for pragmatic measures, though the characteristic identification used only expert opinion and literature review. Our team completed four studies to develop a stakeholder-driven pragmatic rating criteria for implementation measures. We published Studies 1 (identifying dimensions of the pragmatic construct) and 2 (clarifying the internal structure) that engaged stakeholders-participants in mental health provider and implementation settings-to identify 17 terms/phrases across four categories: Useful, Compatible, Acceptable, and Easy. This paper presents Studies 3 and 4: a Delphi to ascertain stakeholder-prioritized dimensions within a mental health context, and a pilot study applying the rating criteria. Stakeholders (N = 26) participated in a Delphi and rated the relevance of 17 terms/phrases to the pragmatic construct. The investigator team further defined and shortened the list, which were piloted with 60 implementation measures. The Delphi confirmed the importance of all pragmatic criteria, but provided little guidance on relative importance. The investigators removed or combined terms/phrases to obtain 11 criteria. The 6-point rating system assigned to each criterion demonstrated sufficient variability across items. The grey literature did not add critical information. This work produced the first stakeholder-driven rating criteria to assess whether measures are pragmatic. The Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale (PAPERS) combines the pragmatic criteria with psychometric rating criteria, from previous work. Use of PAPERS can inform development of implementation measures and to assess the quality of existing measures.

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 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.