Psychometric properties of two implementation measures: Normalization MeAsure Development questionnaire (NoMAD) and organizational readiness for implementing change (ORIC).

Implementation research and practice Pub Date : 2024-04-28 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/26334895241245448
P Batterham, Caroline Allenhof, Arlinda Cerga Pashoja, A Etzelmueller, N Fanaj, T Finch, J Freund, D Hanssen, K Mathiasen, Jordi Piera Jiminez, G Qirjako, T Rapley, Y Sacco, L Samalin, J Schuurmans, Claire van Genugten, C Vis
{"title":"Psychometric properties of two implementation measures: Normalization MeAsure Development questionnaire (NoMAD) and organizational readiness for implementing change (ORIC).","authors":"P Batterham, Caroline Allenhof, Arlinda Cerga Pashoja, A Etzelmueller, N Fanaj, T Finch, J Freund, D Hanssen, K Mathiasen, Jordi Piera Jiminez, G Qirjako, T Rapley, Y Sacco, L Samalin, J Schuurmans, Claire van Genugten, C Vis","doi":"10.1177/26334895241245448","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Effective interventions need to be implemented successfully to achieve impact. Two theory-based measures exist for measuring the effectiveness of implementation strategies and monitor implementation progress. The Normalization MeAsure Development questionnaire (NoMAD) explores the four core concepts (Coherence, Cognitive Participation, Collective Action, Reflexive Monitoring) of the Normalization Process Theory. The Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) is based on the theory of Organizational Readiness for Change, measuring organization members' psychological and behavioral preparedness for implementing a change. We examined the measurement properties of the NoMAD and ORIC in a multi-national implementation effectiveness study.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Twelve mental health organizations in nine countries implemented Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) for common mental disorders. Staff involved in iCBT service delivery (<i>n</i> = 318) participated in the study. Both measures were translated into eight languages using a standardized forward-backward translation procedure. Correlations between measures and subscales were estimated to examine convergent validity. The theoretical factor structures of the scales were tested using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Test-retest reliability was based on the correlation between scores at two time points 3 months apart. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Floor and ceiling effects were quantified using the proportion of zero and maximum scores.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>NoMAD and ORIC measure related but distinct latent constructs. The CFA showed that the use of a total score for each measure is appropriate. The theoretical subscales of the NoMAD had adequate internal consistency. The total scale had high internal consistency. The total ORIC scale and subscales demonstrated high internal consistency. Test-retest reliability was suboptimal for both measures and floor and ceiling effects were absent.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study confirmed the psychometric properties of the NoMAD and ORIC in multi-national mental health care settings. While measuring on different but related aspects of implementation processes, the NoMAD and ORIC prove to be valid and reliable across different language settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":73354,"journal":{"name":"Implementation research and practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11057218/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895241245448","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Effective interventions need to be implemented successfully to achieve impact. Two theory-based measures exist for measuring the effectiveness of implementation strategies and monitor implementation progress. The Normalization MeAsure Development questionnaire (NoMAD) explores the four core concepts (Coherence, Cognitive Participation, Collective Action, Reflexive Monitoring) of the Normalization Process Theory. The Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC) is based on the theory of Organizational Readiness for Change, measuring organization members' psychological and behavioral preparedness for implementing a change. We examined the measurement properties of the NoMAD and ORIC in a multi-national implementation effectiveness study.

Method: Twelve mental health organizations in nine countries implemented Internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT) for common mental disorders. Staff involved in iCBT service delivery (n = 318) participated in the study. Both measures were translated into eight languages using a standardized forward-backward translation procedure. Correlations between measures and subscales were estimated to examine convergent validity. The theoretical factor structures of the scales were tested using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Test-retest reliability was based on the correlation between scores at two time points 3 months apart. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Floor and ceiling effects were quantified using the proportion of zero and maximum scores.

Results: NoMAD and ORIC measure related but distinct latent constructs. The CFA showed that the use of a total score for each measure is appropriate. The theoretical subscales of the NoMAD had adequate internal consistency. The total scale had high internal consistency. The total ORIC scale and subscales demonstrated high internal consistency. Test-retest reliability was suboptimal for both measures and floor and ceiling effects were absent.

Conclusions: This study confirmed the psychometric properties of the NoMAD and ORIC in multi-national mental health care settings. While measuring on different but related aspects of implementation processes, the NoMAD and ORIC prove to be valid and reliable across different language settings.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
两种实施措施的心理测量特性:规范化 MeAsure 发展问卷 (NoMAD) 和组织实施变革的准备程度 (ORIC)。
背景:有效的干预措施需要成功实施才能产生影响。目前有两种基于理论的测量方法,用于测量实施策略的有效性和监测实施进度。正常化保证发展问卷(NoMAD)探讨了正常化过程理论的四个核心概念(一致性、认知参与、集体行动、反思性监测)。组织变革实施准备度(ORIC)以组织变革准备度理论为基础,测量组织成员实施变革的心理和行为准备度。我们在一项跨国实施效果研究中考察了 NoMAD 和 ORIC 的测量特性:方法:九个国家的十二家精神卫生机构针对常见精神障碍实施了基于互联网的认知行为疗法(iCBT)。参与 iCBT 服务的工作人员(n = 318)参与了研究。采用标准化的前后向翻译程序将两种测量方法翻译成八种语言。对测量和分量表之间的相关性进行了估算,以检查收敛效度。采用确证因子分析(CFA)对量表的理论因子结构进行了检验。重测信度基于相隔 3 个月的两个时间点的得分之间的相关性。内部一致性采用 Cronbach's alpha 进行评估。使用零分和最高分的比例来量化下限和上限效应:NoMAD和ORIC测量的是相关但不同的潜在结构。CFA 显示,每种测量方法使用总分是合适的。NoMAD 的理论分量表具有充分的内部一致性。总量表具有较高的内部一致性。ORIC 总量表和分量表具有较高的内部一致性。两个量表的重测信度均不理想,且不存在下限效应和上限效应:本研究证实了 NoMAD 和 ORIC 在多国精神卫生保健环境中的心理测量特性。尽管NoMAD和ORIC测量的是实施过程中不同但相关的方面,但它们在不同语言环境中都被证明是有效和可靠的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Calculating power for multilevel implementation trials in mental health: Meaningful effect sizes, intraclass correlation coefficients, and proportions of variance explained by covariates. Preparation for implementation of evidence-based practices in urban schools: A shared process with implementing partners. Are we being equitable enough? Lessons learned from sites lost in an implementation trial. Examining implementation determinants of a culturally grounded, school-based prevention curriculum in rural Hawai'i: A test development and validation study. Applying the resource management principle to achieve community engagement and experimental rigor in the multiphase optimization strategy framework.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1