Development of the Technical Assistance Engagement Scale: a modified Delphi study.

Victoria C Scott, Jasmine Temple, Zara Jillani
{"title":"Development of the Technical Assistance Engagement Scale: a modified Delphi study.","authors":"Victoria C Scott, Jasmine Temple, Zara Jillani","doi":"10.1186/s43058-024-00618-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Technical assistance (TA) is a tailored approach to capacity building that is commonly used to support implementation of evidence-based interventions. Despite its widespread applications, measurement tools for assessing critical components of TA are scant. In particular, the field lacks an expert-informed measure for examining relationship quality between TA providers and recipients. TA relationships are central to TA and significantly associated with program implementation outcomes. The current study seeks to address the gap in TA measurement tools by providing a scale for assessing TA relationships.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We utilized a modified Delphi approach involving two rounds of Delphi surveys and a panel discussion with TA experts to garner feedback and consensus on the domains and items that compose the TA Engagement Scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>TA experts represented various U.S. organizations and TA roles (e.g., provider, recipient, researcher) with 25 respondents in the first survey and 26 respondents in the second survey. The modified Delphi process resulted in a scale composed of six domains and 22 items relevant and important to TA relationships between providers and recipients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The TA Engagement Scale is a formative evaluation tool intended to offer TA providers the ability to identify strengths and areas for growth in the provider-recipient relationship and to communicate about ongoing needs. As a standard measurement tool, it lends a step toward more systematic collection of TA data, the ability to generate a more coherent body of TA evidence, and enables comparisons of TA relationships across settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":73355,"journal":{"name":"Implementation science communications","volume":"5 1","pages":"84"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11288084/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation science communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00618-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Technical assistance (TA) is a tailored approach to capacity building that is commonly used to support implementation of evidence-based interventions. Despite its widespread applications, measurement tools for assessing critical components of TA are scant. In particular, the field lacks an expert-informed measure for examining relationship quality between TA providers and recipients. TA relationships are central to TA and significantly associated with program implementation outcomes. The current study seeks to address the gap in TA measurement tools by providing a scale for assessing TA relationships.

Methods: We utilized a modified Delphi approach involving two rounds of Delphi surveys and a panel discussion with TA experts to garner feedback and consensus on the domains and items that compose the TA Engagement Scale.

Results: TA experts represented various U.S. organizations and TA roles (e.g., provider, recipient, researcher) with 25 respondents in the first survey and 26 respondents in the second survey. The modified Delphi process resulted in a scale composed of six domains and 22 items relevant and important to TA relationships between providers and recipients.

Conclusion: The TA Engagement Scale is a formative evaluation tool intended to offer TA providers the ability to identify strengths and areas for growth in the provider-recipient relationship and to communicate about ongoing needs. As a standard measurement tool, it lends a step toward more systematic collection of TA data, the ability to generate a more coherent body of TA evidence, and enables comparisons of TA relationships across 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
技术援助参与度量表的开发:修改后的德尔菲研究。
背景:技术援助(TA)是一种量身定制的能力建设方法,通常用于支持循证干预措施的实施。尽管应用广泛,但用于评估技术援助关键组成部分的测量工具却很少。特别是,该领域缺乏一种由专家提供信息的衡量标准,用于检查技术援助提供者和接受者之间的关系质量。TA 关系是 TA 的核心,与项目实施结果密切相关。本研究试图通过提供一个评估 TA 关系的量表来弥补 TA 测量工具的不足:我们采用了一种改良的德尔菲方法,包括两轮德尔菲调查和与技术援助专家的小组讨论,以获得反馈并就构成技术援助参与量表的领域和项目达成共识:技术援助专家代表了美国不同的组织和技术援助角色(如提供者、接受者、研究者),第一次调查有 25 名受访者,第二次调查有 26 名受访者。经过修改的德尔菲过程产生了一个量表,该量表由 6 个领域和 22 个与提供者和接受者之间的 TA 关系相关且重要的项目组成:技术援助参与度量表是一种形成性评估工具,旨在为技术援助提供者提供能力,以确定提供者与受援者关系中的优势和有待发展的领域,并就持续需求进行沟通。作为一种标准的测量工具,它有助于更系统地收集助教数据,生成更一致的助教证据,并对不同环境下的助教关系进行比较。
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
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Audit and feedback is an effective implementation strategy to increase fidelity to a multi-component labor induction protocol designed to reduce obstetric inequities. Development of an implementation intervention to promote adoption of the COMFORT clinical practice guideline for peripartum pain management: a qualitative study. The system can change: a feasibility study of a doula-clinician collaborative at a large tertiary hospital in the United States. Development and evaluation of an implementation strategy to increase HPV vaccination among underserved youth across Texas: a protocol paper. Impact of learning health systems on cross-system collaboration between youth legal and community mental health systems: a type II hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial.
×
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