ArticleJournal of community psychology2019
Content validation of a quantitative stakeholder engagement measure.
Article in Journal of community psychology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts: a systematic review.Health research policy and systems · 2023Pooled it
- How are health research partnerships assessed? A systematic review of outcomes, impacts, terminology and the use of theories, models and frameworks.Health research policy and systems · 2022Pooled it
- Scaling and sustaining COVID-19 vaccination through meaningful community engagement and care coordination for underserved communities: hybrid type 3 effectiveness-implementation sequential multiple assignment randomized trial.Implementation science : IS · 2023Trial
- Integrated Knowledge Translation for Social Innovations: Case Study on Knowledge Translation Innovation Incubator.Journal of participatory medicine · 2026Article
- Engagement Methods in Brain Tumor Genomic Research: Multimethod Comparative Study.Journal of participatory medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluating a community academic partnership to advance equity-focused cancer genetic implementation research: a qualitative analysis of partner perspectives.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a pragmatic measure of cocreation in research engagement: a study protocol.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Gaps and opportunities for measuring equity with the Translational Science Benefits Model: Recommendations from the Center for American Indian and Alaska Native Diabetes Translation Research.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Designing measures of complex collaborations with participatory, evidence-centered design.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2024Article
- A scoping review of the globally available tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Community-engaged optimization of COVID-19 rapid evaluation and testing experiences: roll-out implementation optimization trial.Implementation science : IS · 2023Article
- Team-focused implementation strategies to improve implementation of mental health screening and referral in rural Children's Advocacy Centers: study protocol for a pilot cluster randomized hybrid type 2 trial.Implementation science communications · 2023Article
- Evaluation of a stakeholder advisory board for an adolescent mental health randomized clinical trial.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- Stakeholder engagement in eight comparative effectiveness trials in African Americans and Latinos with asthma.Research involvement and engagement · 2022Article
- Construct validation of the Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST).Research involvement and engagement · 2022Article
- A Study Examining the Usefulness of a New Measure of Research Engagement.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Article
- Understanding implementation research collaborations from a co-creation lens: Recommendations for a path forward.Frontiers in health services · 2022Article
- Evaluating Stakeholder Engagement: Stakeholder-Centric Instrumentation Process (SCIP).Western journal of nursing research · 2021Article
- Development and Validation of a Brief Version of the Research Engagement Survey Tool.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Shortening and validation of the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) for measuring meaningful patient and family caregiver engagement.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimUsing a stakeholder-engaged approach, this study conducted content validation and item reduction of a quantitative measure of research engagement.
methodsA five-round modified Delphi process was used to reach consensus on items. Rounds 1-3 and 5 were conducted using web-based surveys. Round 4 consisted of a 2-day, in-person meeting. Delphi panelists received individualized reports outlining individual and aggregate group responses after rounds 1-3.
resultsOver the five-round process, items were added, dropped, modified, and moved from one engagement principle to another. The number of items was reduced from 48 to 32, with three to five items corresponding to eight engagement principles.
conclusionsResearch that develops standardized, reliable, and accurate measures to assess stakeholder engagement is essential to understanding the impact of engagement on scientific discovery and the scientific process. Valid quantitative measures to assess stakeholder engagement in research are necessary to assess associations between engagement and research outcomes.
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.