Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40524282›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2025

Psychometric evaluation of the NoMAD instrument in cancer care settings: assessing factorial validity, measurement invariance, and differential item functioning.

Maja Kuharic, James Lorenz Merle, David Cella, Sandra A Mitchell, Lisa DiMartino, Jennifer L Ridgeway, Don S Dizon, Roshan Paudel, Jessica D Austin, Sandra L Wong and 4 more

3 registry-linked trialsAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 3 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03850912 nacompletednot on this map

SIMPRO Research Center: Integration and Implementation of PROs for Symptom Management in Oncology Practice

TypeinterventionalSponsorDana-Farber Cancer InstituteRan2019 to 2025Enrolled42,808ConditionsOther Cancer, Gastrointestinal Cancer, Thoracic Cancer, Gynecologic CancerArmsStakeholder Survey (Control Period), Stakeholder Survey (Intervention Period), Qualitative Interview, SASS Questionnaire, eSyM
NCT03892967 nacompletednot on this map

Enhanced, EHR-Facilitated Cancer Symptom Control (E2C2) Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorMayo ClinicRan2019 to 2023Enrolled50,207ConditionsHematopoietic and Lymphoid Cell Neoplasm, Malignant Solid NeoplasmArmsInterview, Quality-of-Life Assessment, Questionnaire Administration
NCT03988543 nacompletednot on this map

Implementation and Evaluation of an Expanded Bilingual Electronic Symptom Management Program Across a Multi-site, Fully-integrated Comprehensive Cancer Center

TypeinterventionalSponsorNorthwestern UniversityRan2020 to 2024Enrolled4,104ConditionsCancerArmsPatient Self-management
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Impact of COVID-19 on early identification of protein-energy malnutrition in the cancer care setting: a repeated cross-sectional survey of cancer care professionals.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
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

14 authors.

Maja KuharicDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
James Lorenz MerleIntermountain Healthcare Department of Population Health Sciences, Spencer Fox Eccles School of Medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
David CellaDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Sandra A MitchellDivision of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Lisa DiMartinoPeter O'Donnell Jr. School of Public Health, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Jennifer L RidgewayRobert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery and Division of Health Care Delivery Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Don S DizonLegorreta Cancer Center and Brown University Health, Providence, RI, USA.
Roshan PaudelDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Jessica D AustinDivision of Epidemiology, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA.
Sandra L WongDartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, USA.
Ann Marie FloresDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA.
Andrea L ChevilleDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Justin D SmithIntermountain Healthcare Department of Population Health Sciences, Spencer Fox Eccles School of Medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. jd.smith@hsc.utah.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3264-8082
IMPACT Consortium

Funding

Cancer Moonshot U24CA232980Cancer Moonshot UL1TR001422Cancer Moonshot UL1TR002377Cancer Moonshot UL1TR002541Cancer Moonshot UM1CA233033Cancer Moonshot UM1CA233035Cancer Moonshot UM1CA233080
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Normalization MeAsure Development (NoMAD) questionnaire is used to assess implementation processes based on Normalization Process Theory (NPT). However, its psychometric properties have not been extensively evaluated. This study aimed to examine the factorial validity, internal consistency, and measurement invariance at both scale and item levels of the NoMAD across three hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies determining the impact of routine symptom surveillance and guideline-based symptom management interventions in ambulatory oncology care settings.

methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted with 328 healthcare personnel (74.% clinicians) participating in the Improving the Management of SymPtoms during And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Research Consortium between 2019 and 2024. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) tested the hypothesized four-factor structure (coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, reflexive monitoring). Internal consistency was assessed with McDonald's omega and Cronbach's alpha coefficients (> 0.70 acceptable). Measurement invariance was tested across research centers, professional roles, and years in current roles using multi-group CFA. Model fit was defined by standard fit indices (Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) values ≥ 0.95, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) values ≤ 0.06, and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) values ≤ 0.08. Differential item functioning (DIF) was evaluated using ordinal logistic regression and item response theory methods (ΔR2 ≥ 0.02 indicative of meaningful DIF).

resultsThe four-factor model demonstrated good fit to the data (CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.05). All factor loadings were statistically significant (p < 0.001), ranging from 0.606 to 0.871. Internal consistency was satisfactory for all four constructs (Omega range: 0.789-0.864, Cronbach's alpha range: 0.782-0.863). The NoMAD exhibited configural, metric, and scalar invariance across research centers, roles, and years in the current role. One item ("The staff agree that the intervention is worthwhile") showed uniform DIF across healthcare systems (ΔR2 = 0.047), but no DIF was found by role or years in the current role.

conclusionsThis study supports the factorial validity, internal consistency, and measurement invariance of the NoMAD across three oncology implementation efforts. The presence of DIF in one item provides an opportunity for refinement in this healthcare context. Researchers and practitioners can use the NoMAD to assess and compare implementation processes, informing the development and evaluation of implementation strategies.

trial registration(ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03850912, NCT03892967, NCT03988543).

Indexed as

CancerConfirmatory factor analysisDifferential item functioningMeasurement invarianceNormalization measure developmentNormalization process theoryPsychometric evaluationSymptom management

Identifiers

PMID40524282
PMCPMC12168333

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.