↓ Skip to main content

The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration Instrument Review Project: A methodology to promote rigorous evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
28 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
122 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
236 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration Instrument Review Project: A methodology to promote rigorous evaluation
Published in
Implementation Science, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-014-0193-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cara C Lewis, Cameo F Stanick, Ruben G Martinez, Bryan J Weiner, Mimi Kim, Melanie Barwick, Katherine A Comtois

Abstract

BackgroundIdentification of psychometrically strong instruments for the field of implementation science is a high priority underscored in a recent National Institutes of Health working meeting (October 2013). Existing instrument reviews are limited in scope, methods, and findings. The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration Instrument Review Project¿s objectives address these limitations by identifying and applying a unique methodology to conduct a systematic and comprehensive review of quantitative instruments assessing constructs delineated in two of the field¿s most widely used frameworks, adopt a systematic search process (using standard search strings), and engage an international team of experts to assess the full range of psychometric criteria (reliability, construct and criterion validity). Although this work focuses on implementation of psychosocial interventions in mental health and health-care settings, the methodology and results will likely be useful across a broad spectrum of settings. This effort has culminated in a centralized online open-access repository of instruments depicting graphical head-to-head comparisons of their psychometric properties. This article describes the methodology and preliminary outcomes.MethodsThe seven stages of the review, synthesis, and evaluation methodology include (1) setting the scope for the review, (2) identifying frameworks to organize and complete the review, (3) generating a search protocol for the literature review of constructs, (4) literature review of specific instruments, (5) development of an evidence-based assessment rating criteria, (6) data extraction and rating instrument quality by a task force of implementation experts to inform knowledge synthesis, and (7) the creation of a website repository.ResultsTo date, this multi-faceted and collaborative search and synthesis methodology has identified over 420 instruments related to 34 constructs (total 48 including subconstructs) that are relevant to implementation science. Despite numerous constructs having greater than 20 available instruments, which implies saturation, preliminary results suggest that few instruments stem from gold standard development procedures. We anticipate identifying few high-quality, psychometrically sound instruments once our evidence-based assessment rating criteria have been applied.ConclusionsThe results of this methodology may enhance the rigor of implementation science evaluations by systematically facilitating access to psychometrically validated instruments and identifying where further instrument development is needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 236 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Unknown 234 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 48 20%
Student > Master 33 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 8%
Other 17 7%
Other 51 22%
Unknown 37 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 23%
Psychology 46 19%
Social Sciences 30 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 3%
Other 22 9%
Unknown 53 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 May 2016.
All research outputs
#1,858,842
of 24,717,692 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#372
of 1,779 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,542
of 362,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#7
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,717,692 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,779 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 362,678 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.