ArticleImplementation science communications2025
Using a novel, multi-method approach to evaluate the quality of self-report survey data in organizational readiness research.
Article in Implementation science communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Knowledge, Attitude and Practice on Recurrence Prevention Among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of general medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSelf-report measures are essential in implementation science since many phenomena are difficult to assess directly. Nevertheless, cognitively demanding surveys increase the prevalence of careless and inattentive responses. Assessing response quality is critical to improving data validity, yet recommendations for determining response quality vary. To address this, we aimed to 1) apply a multi-method approach to assess the quality of self-report survey data in a study aimed to validate a measure of organizational readiness, 2) compare readiness scores among responses categorized as high- and low-quality, and 3) examine individual characteristics associated with low-quality responses.
methodsWe surveyed federally qualified health center staff to assess organizational readiness for implementing evidence-based interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening. The survey was informed by the R = MC
resultsThe sample consisted of 474 responses from 57 clinics. The average survey time was 24.3 min, and 42 respondents (8.9%) had MRPs on all readiness components. The number of low-quality responses varied by assessment method (range = 42-98). Survey responses classified as low quality had higher readiness scores (M, ISC, GC, p < 0.01). Age (p = 0.01), race (p < 0.01), and implementation involvement (p = 0.04) were inversely associated with survey completion time, whereas older age (p = 0.01) and more years worked at the clinic (p = 0.03) were associated with higher response quality. Quality improvement staff and clinic management were less likely to provide low-quality responses (p = 0.04).
conclusionsOur findings suggest that readiness scores can be inflated by low-quality responses, and individual characteristics play a significant role in data quality. There is a need to be aware of who is completing surveys and the context in which surveys are distributed to improve the interpretation of findings and make the measurement of implementation-related constructs more precise.
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.