Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37090010›Full record

ReviewImplementation research and practice

Measuring characteristics of individuals: An updated systematic review of instruments' psychometric properties.

Cameo Stanick, Heather Halko, Kayne Mettert, Caitlin Dorsey, Joanna Moullin, Bryan Weiner, Byron Powell, Cara C Lewis

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Implementation research and practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Cameo StanickHathaway-Sycamores Child and Family Services, Pasadena, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6076-3726
Heather HalkoJudge Baker Children's Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Kayne MettertKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1750-7863
Caitlin DorseyKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Joanna MoullinFaculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Bryan WeinerDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Byron PowellBrown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5245-1186
Cara C LewisKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8920-8075
Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · USChild & Family Service · USCurtin University · AUJudge Baker Children's Center · USUniversity of Washington · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Identification of psychometrically strong implementation measures could (1) advance researchers' understanding of how individual characteristics impact implementation processes and outcomes, and (2) promote the success of real-world implementation efforts. The current study advances the work that our team published in 2015 by providing an updated and enhanced systematic review that identifies and evaluates the psychometric properties of implementation measures that assess individual characteristics. Methods: A full description of our systematic review methodology, which included three phases, is described in a previously published protocol paper. Phase I focused on data collection and involved search string generation, title and abstract screening, full-text review, construct assignment, and measure forward searches. During Phase II, we completed data extraction (i.e., coding psychometric information). Phase III involved data analysis, where two trained specialists independently rated each measurement tool using our psychometric rating criteria. Results: Our team identified 124 measures of individual characteristics used in mental or behavioral health research, and 123 of those measures were deemed suitable for rating using Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale. We identified measures of Conclusion: The majority of research that develops, uses, or examines implementation measures that evaluate individual characteristics does not include the psychometric properties of those measures. The development and use of psychometric reporting standards could advance the use of valid and reliable tools within implementation research and practice, thereby enhancing the successful implementation and sustainment of evidence-based practice in community care. Plain Language Summary: Measurement is the foundation for advancing practice in health care and other industries. In the field of implementation science, the state of measurement is only recently being targeted as an area for improvement, given that high-quality measures need to be identified and utilized in implementation work to avoid developing another research to practice gap. For the current study, we utilized the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to identify measures related to individual characteristics' constructs, such as

Indexed as

Characteristics of individualsdisseminationevidence-based practiceimplementationmeasurementmental healthreliabilityvalidity

Identifiers

PMID37090010
PMCPMC9978649
OpenAlexW3136682254

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.