SynthesisImplementation science : IS2011
A systematic review of the psychometric properties of self-report research utilization measures used in healthcare.
Synthesis in Implementation science : IS, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Measuring factors affecting implementation of health innovations: a systematic review of structural, organizational, provider, patient, and innovation level measures.Implementation science : IS · 2013Pooled it
- Pediatric Migraine Disability Assessment (PedMIDAS): translation into Turkish and cross-cultural adaptation.BMC neurology · 2026Article
- Complex intervention to improve empathy within maternity services: a mixed methods feasibility study with pilot evaluation.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Methodological procedure based on quantitizing/liquefying: a case study to assess work climate in an emergency department.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Development and applications of the anaesthetists' non-technical skills behavioural marker system: protocol for a systematic review.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Article
- A new measure to understand the role of science in US Congress: lessons learned from the Legislative Use of Research Survey (LURS).Evidence & policy : a journal of research, debate and practice · 2021Article
- Stakeholder perspectives and sustainability of an integrated care model for the prevention and management of obesity: the Childhood Obesity Research Demonstration (CORD) project.Translational behavioral medicine · 2021Article
- Standardizing Assessment of Spoken Discourse in Aphasia: A Working Group With Deliverables.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2021Article
- Accelerating the conceptual use of behavioral health research in juvenile court decision-making: study protocol.Implementation science communications · 2021Article
- Correlates of evidence-based nursing practice among nurses in Saudi Arabia: A structural equation model.Belitung nursing journal · 2021Article
- Evaluating sustainability in the Childhood Obesity Research Demonstration project: the model and process.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2020Article
- Measures of evidence-informed decision-making competence attributes: a psychometric systematic review.BMC nursing · 2020Article
- Development and psychometric testing of the 5Senses screening tool for long-term care: a study protocol.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Just Google it: Measuring schools' use of research evidence with internet search results.Evidence & policy : a journal of research, debate and practice · 2019Article
- Improving the normalization of complex interventions: part 2 - validation of the NoMAD instrument for assessing implementation work based on normalization process theory (NPT).BMC medical research methodology · 2018Article
- Improving the normalization of complex interventions: part 1 - development of the NoMAD instrument for assessing implementation work based on normalization process theory (NPT).BMC medical research methodology · 2018Article
- Measures assessing attributes of evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) competence among nurses: a systematic review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn healthcare, a gap exists between what is known from research and what is practiced. Understanding this gap depends upon our ability to robustly measure research utilization.
objectivesThe objectives of this systematic review were: to identify self-report measures of research utilization used in healthcare, and to assess the psychometric properties (acceptability, reliability, and validity) of these measures.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review of literature reporting use or development of self-report research utilization measures. Our search included: multiple databases, ancestry searches, and a hand search. Acceptability was assessed by examining time to complete the measure and missing data rates. Our approach to reliability and validity assessment followed that outlined in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.
resultsOf 42,770 titles screened, 97 original studies (108 articles) were included in this review. The 97 studies reported on the use or development of 60 unique self-report research utilization measures. Seven of the measures were assessed in more than one study. Study samples consisted of healthcare providers (92 studies) and healthcare decision makers (5 studies). No studies reported data on acceptability of the measures. Reliability was reported in 32 (33%) of the studies, representing 13 of the 60 measures. Internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha) reliability was reported in 31 studies; values exceeded 0.70 in 29 studies. Test-retest reliability was reported in 3 studies with Pearson's r coefficients > 0.80. No validity information was reported for 12 of the 60 measures. The remaining 48 measures were classified into a three-level validity hierarchy according to the number of validity sources reported in 50% or more of the studies using the measure. Level one measures (n = 6) reported evidence from any three (out of four possible) Standards validity sources (which, in the case of single item measures, was all applicable validity sources). Level two measures (n = 16) had evidence from any two validity sources, and level three measures (n = 26) from only one validity source.
conclusionsThis review reveals significant underdevelopment in the measurement of research utilization. Substantial methodological advances with respect to construct clarity, use of research utilization and related theory, use of measurement theory, and psychometric assessment are required. Also needed are improved reporting practices and the adoption of a more contemporary view of validity (i.e., the Standards) in future research utilization measurement studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.