Measuring implementation outcomes: An updated systematic review of measures’ psychometric properties
Background: Systematic reviews of measures can facilitate advances in implementation research and practice by locating reliable and valid measures and highlighting measurement gaps. Our team completed a systematic review of implementation outcome measures published in 2015 that indicated a severe me...
Saved in:
Published in | Implementation research and practice Vol. 1; p. 2633489520936644 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
London, England
SAGE Publications
01.01.2020
SAGE Publishing |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
ISSN | 2633-4895 2633-4895 |
DOI | 10.1177/2633489520936644 |
Cover
Loading…
Abstract | Background:
Systematic reviews of measures can facilitate advances in implementation research and practice by locating reliable and valid measures and highlighting measurement gaps. Our team completed a systematic review of implementation outcome measures published in 2015 that indicated a severe measurement gap in the field. Now, we offer an update with this enhanced systematic review to identify and evaluate the psychometric properties of measures of eight implementation outcomes used in behavioral health care.
Methods:
The systematic review methodology is described in detail in a previously published protocol paper and summarized here. The review proceeded in three phases. Phase I, data collection, involved search string generation, title and abstract screening, full text review, construct assignment, and measure forward searches. Phase II, data extraction, involved coding psychometric information. Phase III, data analysis, involved two trained specialists independently rating each measure using PAPERS (Psychometric And Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scales).
Results:
Searches identified 150 outcomes measures of which 48 were deemed unsuitable for rating and thus excluded, leaving 102 measures for review. We identified measures of acceptability (N = 32), adoption (N = 26), appropriateness (N = 6), cost (N = 31), feasibility (N = 18), fidelity (N = 18), penetration (N = 23), and sustainability (N = 14). Information about internal consistency and norms were available for most measures (59%). Information about other psychometric properties was often not available. Ratings for internal consistency and norms ranged from “adequate” to “excellent.” Ratings for other psychometric properties ranged mostly from “poor” to “good.”
Conclusion:
While measures of implementation outcomes used in behavioral health care (including mental health, substance use, and other addictive behaviors) are unevenly distributed and exhibit mostly unknown psychometric quality, the data reported in this article show an overall improvement in availability of psychometric information. This review identified a few promising measures, but targeted efforts are needed to systematically develop and test measures that are useful for both research and practice.
Plain language abstract:
When implementing an evidence-based treatment into practice, it is important to assess several outcomes to gauge how effectively it is being implemented. Outcomes such as acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness may offer insight into why providers do not adopt a new treatment. Similarly, outcomes such as fidelity and penetration may provide important context for why a new treatment did not achieve desired effects. It is important that methods to measure these outcomes are accurate and consistent. Without accurate and consistent measurement, high-quality evaluations cannot be conducted. This systematic review of published studies sought to identify questionnaires (referred to as measures) that ask staff at various levels (e.g., providers, supervisors) questions related to implementation outcomes, and to evaluate the quality of these measures. We identified 150 measures and rated the quality of their evidence with the goal of recommending the best measures for future use. Our findings suggest that a great deal of work is needed to generate evidence for existing measures or build new measures to achieve confidence in our implementation evaluations. |
---|---|
AbstractList | Background:
Systematic reviews of measures can facilitate advances in implementation research and practice by locating reliable and valid measures and highlighting measurement gaps. Our team completed a systematic review of implementation outcome measures published in 2015 that indicated a severe measurement gap in the field. Now, we offer an update with this enhanced systematic review to identify and evaluate the psychometric properties of measures of eight implementation outcomes used in behavioral health care.
Methods:
The systematic review methodology is described in detail in a previously published protocol paper and summarized here. The review proceeded in three phases. Phase I, data collection, involved search string generation, title and abstract screening, full text review, construct assignment, and measure forward searches. Phase II, data extraction, involved coding psychometric information. Phase III, data analysis, involved two trained specialists independently rating each measure using PAPERS (Psychometric And Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scales).
Results:
Searches identified 150 outcomes measures of which 48 were deemed unsuitable for rating and thus excluded, leaving 102 measures for review. We identified measures of acceptability (N = 32), adoption (N = 26), appropriateness (N = 6), cost (N = 31), feasibility (N = 18), fidelity (N = 18), penetration (N = 23), and sustainability (N = 14). Information about internal consistency and norms were available for most measures (59%). Information about other psychometric properties was often not available. Ratings for internal consistency and norms ranged from “adequate” to “excellent.” Ratings for other psychometric properties ranged mostly from “poor” to “good.”
Conclusion:
While measures of implementation outcomes used in behavioral health care (including mental health, substance use, and other addictive behaviors) are unevenly distributed and exhibit mostly unknown psychometric quality, the data reported in this article show an overall improvement in availability of psychometric information. This review identified a few promising measures, but targeted efforts are needed to systematically develop and test measures that are useful for both research and practice.
Plain language abstract:
When implementing an evidence-based treatment into practice, it is important to assess several outcomes to gauge how effectively it is being implemented. Outcomes such as acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness may offer insight into why providers do not adopt a new treatment. Similarly, outcomes such as fidelity and penetration may provide important context for why a new treatment did not achieve desired effects. It is important that methods to measure these outcomes are accurate and consistent. Without accurate and consistent measurement, high-quality evaluations cannot be conducted. This systematic review of published studies sought to identify questionnaires (referred to as measures) that ask staff at various levels (e.g., providers, supervisors) questions related to implementation outcomes, and to evaluate the quality of these measures. We identified 150 measures and rated the quality of their evidence with the goal of recommending the best measures for future use. Our findings suggest that a great deal of work is needed to generate evidence for existing measures or build new measures to achieve confidence in our implementation evaluations. Systematic reviews of measures can facilitate advances in implementation research and practice by locating reliable and valid measures and highlighting measurement gaps. Our team completed a systematic review of implementation outcome measures published in 2015 that indicated a severe measurement gap in the field. Now, we offer an update with this enhanced systematic review to identify and evaluate the psychometric properties of measures of eight implementation outcomes used in behavioral health care. The systematic review methodology is described in detail in a previously published protocol paper and summarized here. The review proceeded in three phases. Phase I, data collection, involved search string generation, title and abstract screening, full text review, construct assignment, and measure forward searches. Phase II, data extraction, involved coding psychometric information. Phase III, data analysis, involved two trained specialists independently rating each measure using PAPERS (Psychometric And Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scales). Searches identified 150 outcomes measures of which 48 were deemed unsuitable for rating and thus excluded, leaving 102 measures for review. We identified measures of acceptability ( = 32), adoption ( = 26), appropriateness ( = 6), cost ( = 31), feasibility ( = 18), fidelity ( = 18), penetration ( = 23), and sustainability ( = 14). Information about internal consistency and norms were available for most measures (59%). Information about other psychometric properties was often not available. Ratings for internal consistency and norms ranged from "adequate" to "excellent." Ratings for other psychometric properties ranged mostly from "poor" to "good." While measures of implementation outcomes used in behavioral health care (including mental health, substance use, and other addictive behaviors) are unevenly distributed and exhibit mostly unknown psychometric quality, the data reported in this article show an overall improvement in availability of psychometric information. This review identified a few promising measures, but targeted efforts are needed to systematically develop and test measures that are useful for both research and practice. When implementing an evidence-based treatment into practice, it is important to assess several outcomes to gauge how effectively it is being implemented. Outcomes such as acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness may offer insight into why providers do not adopt a new treatment. Similarly, outcomes such as fidelity and penetration may provide important context for why a new treatment did not achieve desired effects. It is important that methods to measure these outcomes are accurate and consistent. Without accurate and consistent measurement, high-quality evaluations cannot be conducted. This systematic review of published studies sought to identify questionnaires (referred to as measures) that ask staff at various levels (e.g., providers, supervisors) questions related to implementation outcomes, and to evaluate the quality of these measures. We identified 150 measures and rated the quality of their evidence with the goal of recommending the best measures for future use. Our findings suggest that a great deal of work is needed to generate evidence for existing measures or build new measures to achieve confidence in our implementation evaluations. Systematic reviews of measures can facilitate advances in implementation research and practice by locating reliable and valid measures and highlighting measurement gaps. Our team completed a systematic review of implementation outcome measures published in 2015 that indicated a severe measurement gap in the field. Now, we offer an update with this enhanced systematic review to identify and evaluate the psychometric properties of measures of eight implementation outcomes used in behavioral health care.BackgroundSystematic reviews of measures can facilitate advances in implementation research and practice by locating reliable and valid measures and highlighting measurement gaps. Our team completed a systematic review of implementation outcome measures published in 2015 that indicated a severe measurement gap in the field. Now, we offer an update with this enhanced systematic review to identify and evaluate the psychometric properties of measures of eight implementation outcomes used in behavioral health care.The systematic review methodology is described in detail in a previously published protocol paper and summarized here. The review proceeded in three phases. Phase I, data collection, involved search string generation, title and abstract screening, full text review, construct assignment, and measure forward searches. Phase II, data extraction, involved coding psychometric information. Phase III, data analysis, involved two trained specialists independently rating each measure using PAPERS (Psychometric And Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scales).MethodsThe systematic review methodology is described in detail in a previously published protocol paper and summarized here. The review proceeded in three phases. Phase I, data collection, involved search string generation, title and abstract screening, full text review, construct assignment, and measure forward searches. Phase II, data extraction, involved coding psychometric information. Phase III, data analysis, involved two trained specialists independently rating each measure using PAPERS (Psychometric And Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scales).Searches identified 150 outcomes measures of which 48 were deemed unsuitable for rating and thus excluded, leaving 102 measures for review. We identified measures of acceptability (N = 32), adoption (N = 26), appropriateness (N = 6), cost (N = 31), feasibility (N = 18), fidelity (N = 18), penetration (N = 23), and sustainability (N = 14). Information about internal consistency and norms were available for most measures (59%). Information about other psychometric properties was often not available. Ratings for internal consistency and norms ranged from "adequate" to "excellent." Ratings for other psychometric properties ranged mostly from "poor" to "good."ResultsSearches identified 150 outcomes measures of which 48 were deemed unsuitable for rating and thus excluded, leaving 102 measures for review. We identified measures of acceptability (N = 32), adoption (N = 26), appropriateness (N = 6), cost (N = 31), feasibility (N = 18), fidelity (N = 18), penetration (N = 23), and sustainability (N = 14). Information about internal consistency and norms were available for most measures (59%). Information about other psychometric properties was often not available. Ratings for internal consistency and norms ranged from "adequate" to "excellent." Ratings for other psychometric properties ranged mostly from "poor" to "good."While measures of implementation outcomes used in behavioral health care (including mental health, substance use, and other addictive behaviors) are unevenly distributed and exhibit mostly unknown psychometric quality, the data reported in this article show an overall improvement in availability of psychometric information. This review identified a few promising measures, but targeted efforts are needed to systematically develop and test measures that are useful for both research and practice.ConclusionWhile measures of implementation outcomes used in behavioral health care (including mental health, substance use, and other addictive behaviors) are unevenly distributed and exhibit mostly unknown psychometric quality, the data reported in this article show an overall improvement in availability of psychometric information. This review identified a few promising measures, but targeted efforts are needed to systematically develop and test measures that are useful for both research and practice.When implementing an evidence-based treatment into practice, it is important to assess several outcomes to gauge how effectively it is being implemented. Outcomes such as acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness may offer insight into why providers do not adopt a new treatment. Similarly, outcomes such as fidelity and penetration may provide important context for why a new treatment did not achieve desired effects. It is important that methods to measure these outcomes are accurate and consistent. Without accurate and consistent measurement, high-quality evaluations cannot be conducted. This systematic review of published studies sought to identify questionnaires (referred to as measures) that ask staff at various levels (e.g., providers, supervisors) questions related to implementation outcomes, and to evaluate the quality of these measures. We identified 150 measures and rated the quality of their evidence with the goal of recommending the best measures for future use. Our findings suggest that a great deal of work is needed to generate evidence for existing measures or build new measures to achieve confidence in our implementation evaluations.Plain language abstractWhen implementing an evidence-based treatment into practice, it is important to assess several outcomes to gauge how effectively it is being implemented. Outcomes such as acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness may offer insight into why providers do not adopt a new treatment. Similarly, outcomes such as fidelity and penetration may provide important context for why a new treatment did not achieve desired effects. It is important that methods to measure these outcomes are accurate and consistent. Without accurate and consistent measurement, high-quality evaluations cannot be conducted. This systematic review of published studies sought to identify questionnaires (referred to as measures) that ask staff at various levels (e.g., providers, supervisors) questions related to implementation outcomes, and to evaluate the quality of these measures. We identified 150 measures and rated the quality of their evidence with the goal of recommending the best measures for future use. Our findings suggest that a great deal of work is needed to generate evidence for existing measures or build new measures to achieve confidence in our implementation evaluations. Background: Systematic reviews of measures can facilitate advances in implementation research and practice by locating reliable and valid measures and highlighting measurement gaps. Our team completed a systematic review of implementation outcome measures published in 2015 that indicated a severe measurement gap in the field. Now, we offer an update with this enhanced systematic review to identify and evaluate the psychometric properties of measures of eight implementation outcomes used in behavioral health care. Methods: The systematic review methodology is described in detail in a previously published protocol paper and summarized here. The review proceeded in three phases. Phase I, data collection, involved search string generation, title and abstract screening, full text review, construct assignment, and measure forward searches. Phase II, data extraction, involved coding psychometric information. Phase III, data analysis, involved two trained specialists independently rating each measure using PAPERS (Psychometric And Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scales). Results: Searches identified 150 outcomes measures of which 48 were deemed unsuitable for rating and thus excluded, leaving 102 measures for review. We identified measures of acceptability ( N = 32), adoption ( N = 26), appropriateness ( N = 6), cost ( N = 31), feasibility ( N = 18), fidelity ( N = 18), penetration ( N = 23), and sustainability ( N = 14). Information about internal consistency and norms were available for most measures (59%). Information about other psychometric properties was often not available. Ratings for internal consistency and norms ranged from “adequate” to “excellent.” Ratings for other psychometric properties ranged mostly from “poor” to “good.” Conclusion: While measures of implementation outcomes used in behavioral health care (including mental health, substance use, and other addictive behaviors) are unevenly distributed and exhibit mostly unknown psychometric quality, the data reported in this article show an overall improvement in availability of psychometric information. This review identified a few promising measures, but targeted efforts are needed to systematically develop and test measures that are useful for both research and practice. Plain language abstract: When implementing an evidence-based treatment into practice, it is important to assess several outcomes to gauge how effectively it is being implemented. Outcomes such as acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness may offer insight into why providers do not adopt a new treatment. Similarly, outcomes such as fidelity and penetration may provide important context for why a new treatment did not achieve desired effects. It is important that methods to measure these outcomes are accurate and consistent. Without accurate and consistent measurement, high-quality evaluations cannot be conducted. This systematic review of published studies sought to identify questionnaires (referred to as measures) that ask staff at various levels (e.g., providers, supervisors) questions related to implementation outcomes, and to evaluate the quality of these measures. We identified 150 measures and rated the quality of their evidence with the goal of recommending the best measures for future use. Our findings suggest that a great deal of work is needed to generate evidence for existing measures or build new measures to achieve confidence in our implementation evaluations. |
Author | Mettert, Kayne Dorsey, Caitlin Halko, Heather Weiner, Bryan Lewis, Cara |
AuthorAffiliation | 1 Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA 3 Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA 2 Judge Baker Children’s Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA |
AuthorAffiliation_xml | – name: 3 Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA – name: 2 Judge Baker Children’s Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA – name: 1 Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Kayne orcidid: 0000-0003-1750-7863 surname: Mettert fullname: Mettert, Kayne email: kayne.d.mettert@kp.org – sequence: 2 givenname: Cara orcidid: 0000-0001-8920-8075 surname: Lewis fullname: Lewis, Cara – sequence: 3 givenname: Caitlin surname: Dorsey fullname: Dorsey, Caitlin – sequence: 4 givenname: Heather surname: Halko fullname: Halko, Heather – sequence: 5 givenname: Bryan surname: Weiner fullname: Weiner, Bryan |
BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37089128$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
BookMark | eNp9kstu1TAQhi1UREvpnhXKkk3At_jCAqmquFQqYgNry3HGpz5K4mAnrc6O1-D1eBJ8mha1lWDl0fj_vxnNzHN0MMYREHpJ8BtCpHxLBWNc6YZizYTg_Ak62qfqfe7gXnyITnLeYoxpQyih6hk6ZBIrXcIj5L-AzUsK46YKw9TDAONs5xDHKi6ziwPkd9XpWC1TZ2foqrzLMwxF4KoEVwGuq-ir4QYB-ffPX9WUd-6y2OZUJFOKE6Q5QH6BnnrbZzi5fY_R948fvp19ri--fjo_O72oHWd4rhvuW0_arrFWlvZAWyyk9eAE9VYRoQVo2TnnPZGU8UY7DoRJ4RVzQjvJjtH5yu2i3ZophcGmnYk2mJtETBtjS0OuB9MqglXTatVqyVnLNdNSlnFJSp2W2hbW-5U1Le0AnSuTSbZ_AH34M4ZLs4lXRmvKqaAF8PoWkOKPBfJshpAd9L0dIS7ZUIWbhoiymCJ9db_W3yJ3iyoCsQpcijkn8MaFdVGldOgNwWZ_FObxURQjfmS8Y__HUq-WbDdgtnFJY9nZv_V_AMHwx4w |
CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1186_s12874_022_01772_w crossref_primary_10_1177_13623613231179289 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13012_023_01286_z crossref_primary_10_1186_s13643_025_02786_3 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13643_023_02285_3 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12913_024_11542_7 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13034_023_00616_9 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10488_022_01218_x crossref_primary_10_1007_s10488_023_01288_5 crossref_primary_10_1080_02619768_2023_2296354 crossref_primary_10_1044_2024_AJSLP_24_00100 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12873_024_00971_6 crossref_primary_10_1111_jep_13972 crossref_primary_10_1007_s43477_024_00146_2 crossref_primary_10_1007_s43477_024_00122_w crossref_primary_10_1007_s43477_021_00019_y crossref_primary_10_1097_SPV_0000000000001322 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13012_022_01237_0 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpubh_2022_984130 crossref_primary_10_1186_s43058_022_00284_4 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10567_023_00465_0 crossref_primary_10_1007_s43477_023_00099_y crossref_primary_10_1177_26334895241245448 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13012_021_01152_w crossref_primary_10_1016_j_evalprogplan_2020_101875 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpubh_2024_1474641 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10488_024_01363_5 crossref_primary_10_1017_S0007114524001338 crossref_primary_10_1007_s41347_024_00385_y crossref_primary_10_1186_s40814_022_01075_3 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10488_022_01197_z crossref_primary_10_1186_s43058_024_00675_9 crossref_primary_10_1111_cfs_13098 crossref_primary_10_1017_gmh_2022_47 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13034_022_00550_2 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10900_021_01042_8 crossref_primary_10_1186_s43058_023_00486_4 crossref_primary_10_1177_26334895221141116 crossref_primary_10_3389_frhs_2022_953731 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12913_024_11758_7 crossref_primary_10_1002_wjs_12201 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12889_022_13732_6 crossref_primary_10_3310_nihropenres_13559_1 crossref_primary_10_1186_s43058_024_00549_0 crossref_primary_10_3389_fdgth_2023_1349545 crossref_primary_10_1080_10503307_2025_2477556 crossref_primary_10_1177_09514848211010271 crossref_primary_10_1017_gmh_2023_63 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12913_021_07230_5 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpubh_2022_862388 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_cpr_2023_102371 crossref_primary_10_1177_29767342241263675 crossref_primary_10_5093_psed2022a7 crossref_primary_10_1177_26334895221086269 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0304244 crossref_primary_10_1200_OP_24_00280 crossref_primary_10_1161_CIRCOUTCOMES_121_008109 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ridd_2021_104111 crossref_primary_10_3389_fonc_2023_1271812 crossref_primary_10_1177_26334895241262823 crossref_primary_10_1002_pon_6265 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12144_023_05478_0 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_aucc_2024_101153 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_zefq_2021_06_005 |
Cites_doi | 10.1186/s13012-015-0255-8 10.1097/01.cej.0000186633.81753.8b 10.1192/bjp.bp.113.128314 10.1080/02796015.2003.12086183 10.1186/s13643-018-0728-3 10.1145/57167.57203 10.1016/0022-4405(91)90014-I 10.1007/s10488-011-0377-5 10.1186/1748-5908-5-41 10.1177/001440299706300406 10.1176/appi.ps.201200247 10.1186/s13012-015-0219-z 10.1186/1748-5908-4-50 10.1016/j.ridd.2005.05.003 10.1016/S0740-5472(02)00233-7 10.3109/10826080903534467 10.1080/10474410903408885 10.1080/10474411003785370 10.1007/s10488-009-0226-y 10.1037/a0027887 10.1007/s13142-015-0344-x 10.1111/jgs.13775 10.1007/s10926-012-9378-9 10.1007/s10488-008-0197-4 10.1093/her/17.3.315 10.1186/s13012-014-0118-8 10.1177/1077559511427346 10.1097/HMR.0b013e3181dc8233 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2003.00407.x 10.1037/0022-006X.75.6.829 10.1186/1748-5908-7-30 10.1177/019874298801400104 10.4088/PCC.10m01065 10.1016/j.jsp.2010.06.001 10.1186/s13012-016-0438-y 10.5888/pcd11.130184 10.1287/isre.2.3.192 10.3138/cjpe.022.003 10.1002/1520-6807(199110)28:4<325::AID-PITS2310280407>3.0.CO;2-Y 10.1186/1748-5908-3-19 10.1007/s13142-015-0325-0 10.1016/S0740-5472(02)00231-3 10.1097/01.mlr.0000233683.82254.63 10.1186/s13012-014-0192-y 10.1071/AH010143 10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322 10.3122/jabfm.2015.S1.150050 10.1037//0735-7028.17.3.235 10.1080/09595230701499126 10.2466/pr0.94.2.475-481 10.1007/s10597-009-9202-y 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017972 10.1089/tmj.2011.0029 10.1097/00075484-200301000-00008 10.1207/S15374424JCCP3102_03 10.1016/0005-7916(92)90007-6 10.1186/s13012-015-0342-x 10.1016/S0376-8716(99)00049-6 10.1176/ps.2009.60.5.671 10.1177/0020764010365414 10.1177/070674370905400306 10.1176/ps.2008.59.7.732 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.07.012 10.1002/bin.2360040104 10.1037/a0028484 10.1007/s001270170017 10.1177/1062860608314942 10.1093/jpepsy/18.6.717 10.1080/15504260903175973 10.1176/appi.ps.201600193 10.1023/B:MHSR.0000024351.12294.65 10.1037/pas0000037 10.1016/j.jaac.2013.02.005 10.1176/appi.ps.201200227 10.1177/1098300710385348 10.1002/cpp.657 10.1007/s13142-014-0273-0 10.1186/1756-0500-3-83 10.1007/s10488-016-0742-5 10.1186/1748-5908-8-19 10.1007/s10488-010-0327-7 10.1016/j.beth.2010.06.004 10.1037//0022-006X.68.2.331 10.1186/1748-5908-7-65 10.1016/j.jsat.2011.07.008 10.2190/DE.38.2.f 10.1097/00004703-199508000-00005 10.1186/s12991-015-0077-8 10.1093/tbm/ibz164 10.1016/j.jsat.2015.04.003 10.1080/15504263.2013.807073 10.1111/j.0197-6664.2004.00040.x 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301776 10.4088/JCP.14m09139 10.1007/s11606-014-3027-2 10.1037//0022-006X.57.4.522 10.1037/tra0000004 10.1177/109019819302000208 |
ContentType | Journal Article |
Copyright | The Author(s) 2020 The Author(s) 2020. The Author(s) 2020 2020 SAGE Publications Ltd and the Society for Implementation Research Colloboration, unless otherwise noted. Manuscript content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Licenses |
Copyright_xml | – notice: The Author(s) 2020 – notice: The Author(s) 2020. – notice: The Author(s) 2020 2020 SAGE Publications Ltd and the Society for Implementation Research Colloboration, unless otherwise noted. Manuscript content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Licenses |
DBID | AFRWT AAYXX CITATION NPM 7X8 5PM DOA |
DOI | 10.1177/2633489520936644 |
DatabaseName | Sage Journals GOLD Open Access 2024 CrossRef PubMed MEDLINE - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals |
DatabaseTitle | CrossRef PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitleList | PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: DOA name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals url: https://www.doaj.org/ sourceTypes: Open Website – sequence: 2 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 3 dbid: AFRWT name: Sage Journals Open Access Journals (WRLC) url: http://journals.sagepub.com/ sourceTypes: Publisher |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
Discipline | Public Health |
EISSN | 2633-4895 |
ExternalDocumentID | oai_doaj_org_article_b81085b98b9743b493977895722c979a PMC9924262 37089128 10_1177_2633489520936644 10.1177_2633489520936644 |
Genre | Journal Article Review |
GrantInformation_xml | – fundername: National Institute of Mental Health grantid: R01MH106510 funderid: https://doi.org/10.13039/100000025 – fundername: ; grantid: R01MH106510 |
GroupedDBID | 0R~ 54M AADEU AANEX AASGM ABQXT ABVFX ACARO ACROE ADOGD AEONT AFCOW AFRWT ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS DC. DF. EBS GROUPED_DOAJ H13 J8X M~E OK1 RPM SAUOL SCDPB SCNPE SFC AAYXX ACHEB CITATION 31X AATBZ ACGZU ACSIQ AEWHI AIOMO DV7 GROUPED_SAGE_PREMIER_JOURNAL_COLLECTION NPM Q7P SFK SFT SGV SPP 7X8 5PM |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c430t-54fbf1bd5aa7128e9a067afec62fa81696e97dccff1723459c4e1376f83c69c73 |
IEDL.DBID | AFRWT |
ISSN | 2633-4895 |
IngestDate | Wed Aug 27 01:22:42 EDT 2025 Thu Aug 21 18:37:41 EDT 2025 Fri Jul 11 08:56:09 EDT 2025 Thu Jan 02 22:52:42 EST 2025 Thu Apr 24 23:04:28 EDT 2025 Tue Jul 01 05:25:41 EDT 2025 Tue Jun 17 22:31:35 EDT 2025 |
IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
IsOpenAccess | true |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Keywords | evidence based Implementation outcomes dissemination behavioral health measurement evaluation implementation |
Language | English |
License | This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). The Author(s) 2020. |
LinkModel | DirectLink |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c430t-54fbf1bd5aa7128e9a067afec62fa81696e97dccff1723459c4e1376f83c69c73 |
Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 ObjectType-Review-3 content type line 23 |
ORCID | 0000-0003-1750-7863 0000-0001-8920-8075 |
OpenAccessLink | https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2633489520936644?utm_source=summon&utm_medium=discovery-provider |
PMID | 37089128 |
PQID | 2805516002 |
PQPubID | 23479 |
ParticipantIDs | doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_b81085b98b9743b493977895722c979a pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9924262 proquest_miscellaneous_2805516002 pubmed_primary_37089128 crossref_citationtrail_10_1177_2633489520936644 crossref_primary_10_1177_2633489520936644 sage_journals_10_1177_2633489520936644 |
ProviderPackageCode | CITATION AAYXX |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | 2020-01-01 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2020-01-01 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 01 year: 2020 text: 2020-01-01 day: 01 |
PublicationDecade | 2020 |
PublicationPlace | London, England |
PublicationPlace_xml | – name: London, England – name: United States – name: Sage UK: London, England |
PublicationTitle | Implementation research and practice |
PublicationTitleAlternate | Implement Res Pract |
PublicationYear | 2020 |
Publisher | SAGE Publications SAGE Publishing |
Publisher_xml | – name: SAGE Publications – name: SAGE Publishing |
References | Myers 2008 Skinner 2007; 22 Pace, Buczek, Cruz, Ellenberg, Jonathan, Ginman 2014; 23 Eckert, Miller, DuPaul, Riley-Tillman 2003; 32 Henninger 2010 bibr49-2633489520936644 bibr1-2633489520936644 bibr57-2633489520936644 bibr22-2633489520936644 bibr73-2633489520936644 bibr65-2633489520936644 bibr91-2633489520936644 bibr32-2633489520936644 bibr75-2633489520936644 bibr106-2633489520936644 Myers S. J. (bibr80-2633489520936644) 2008 bibr14-2633489520936644 bibr40-2633489520936644 bibr83-2633489520936644 bibr20-2633489520936644 Trent L. R. (bibr104-2633489520936644) 2010 Eckert T. L. (bibr33-2633489520936644) 2003; 32 bibr67-2633489520936644 bibr93-2633489520936644 bibr69-2633489520936644 bibr30-2633489520936644 bibr77-2633489520936644 bibr59-2633489520936644 bibr85-2633489520936644 bibr98-2633489520936644 bibr112-2633489520936644 bibr12-2633489520936644 bibr44-2633489520936644 bibr36-2633489520936644 bibr19-2633489520936644 bibr60-2633489520936644 bibr28-2633489520936644 bibr35-2633489520936644 bibr86-2633489520936644 bibr6-2633489520936644 bibr52-2633489520936644 bibr111-2633489520936644 Skinner K. (bibr94-2633489520936644) 2007; 22 Pace C. A. (bibr84-2633489520936644) 2014; 23 bibr27-2633489520936644 bibr10-2633489520936644 bibr63-2633489520936644 bibr71-2633489520936644 bibr89-2633489520936644 Forchuk C. (bibr38-2633489520936644) 2002 bibr97-2633489520936644 bibr100-2633489520936644 bibr24-2633489520936644 bibr39-2633489520936644 bibr13-2633489520936644 bibr103-2633489520936644 bibr16-2633489520936644 bibr21-2633489520936644 bibr3-2633489520936644 bibr55-2633489520936644 bibr82-2633489520936644 bibr74-2633489520936644 bibr90-2633489520936644 bibr31-2633489520936644 bibr107-2633489520936644 bibr15-2633489520936644 bibr58-2633489520936644 bibr48-2633489520936644 bibr105-2633489520936644 bibr66-2633489520936644 bibr9-2633489520936644 bibr92-2633489520936644 bibr23-2633489520936644 bibr25-2633489520936644 bibr109-2633489520936644 bibr17-2633489520936644 bibr46-2633489520936644 bibr41-2633489520936644 bibr4-2633489520936644 bibr54-2633489520936644 Miller W. R. (bibr76-2633489520936644) 2002 bibr2-2633489520936644 bibr7-2633489520936644 bibr51-2633489520936644 bibr56-2633489520936644 bibr43-2633489520936644 bibr64-2633489520936644 bibr72-2633489520936644 Milne D. (bibr78-2633489520936644) 1996 bibr87-2633489520936644 bibr102-2633489520936644 bibr61-2633489520936644 bibr95-2633489520936644 bibr18-2633489520936644 bibr88-2633489520936644 bibr70-2633489520936644 bibr45-2633489520936644 bibr62-2633489520936644 bibr101-2633489520936644 bibr79-2633489520936644 bibr5-2633489520936644 bibr53-2633489520936644 bibr96-2633489520936644 bibr110-2633489520936644 Maher L. (bibr68-2633489520936644) 2007 bibr8-2633489520936644 bibr50-2633489520936644 bibr11-2633489520936644 bibr26-2633489520936644 bibr99-2633489520936644 bibr37-2633489520936644 bibr108-2633489520936644 bibr34-2633489520936644 Henninger K. (bibr47-2633489520936644) 2010 bibr42-2633489520936644 bibr29-2633489520936644 bibr81-2633489520936644 |
References_xml | – volume: 32 start-page: 57 issue: 1 year: 2003 end-page: 76 article-title: Adolescent suicide prevention: School psychologists’ acceptability of school-based programs publication-title: School Psychology Review – year: 2010 publication-title: Exploring the relationship between factors of implementation, treatment integrity, and reading fluency – volume: 23 start-page: S487 year: 2014 end-page: S488 article-title: Integrating behavioral health services and primary care at an urban, safety-net teaching hospital: A pilot program publication-title: Journal of General Internal Medicine – year: 2008 publication-title: Relationship between the consultant-parent working alliance and ratings of the consultation process with parents of children having autism spectrum disorder – volume: 22 start-page: 49 issue: 1 year: 2007 end-page: 73 article-title: Developing a tool to measure knowledge exchange outcomes publication-title: The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation – ident: bibr34-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0255-8 – ident: bibr50-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1097/01.cej.0000186633.81753.8b – ident: bibr12-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.113.128314 – volume: 32 start-page: 57 issue: 1 year: 2003 ident: bibr33-2633489520936644 publication-title: School Psychology Review doi: 10.1080/02796015.2003.12086183 – ident: bibr63-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0728-3 – ident: bibr21-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1145/57167.57203 – ident: bibr36-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1016/0022-4405(91)90014-I – ident: bibr18-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1007/s10488-011-0377-5 – ident: bibr20-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-41 – ident: bibr17-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1177/001440299706300406 – ident: bibr49-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201200247 – ident: bibr8-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0219-z – ident: bibr27-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-50 – ident: bibr108-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2005.05.003 – ident: bibr61-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1016/S0740-5472(02)00233-7 – ident: bibr74-2633489520936644 – ident: bibr6-2633489520936644 doi: 10.3109/10826080903534467 – ident: bibr14-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1080/10474410903408885 – ident: bibr111-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1080/10474411003785370 – ident: bibr13-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1007/s10488-009-0226-y – ident: bibr53-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1037/a0027887 – ident: bibr40-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1007/s13142-015-0344-x – ident: bibr22-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1111/jgs.13775 – ident: bibr112-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1007/s10926-012-9378-9 – volume: 23 start-page: S487 year: 2014 ident: bibr84-2633489520936644 publication-title: Journal of General Internal Medicine – ident: bibr88-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1007/s10488-008-0197-4 – ident: bibr85-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1093/her/17.3.315 – ident: bibr71-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1186/s13012-014-0118-8 – ident: bibr58-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1177/1077559511427346 – ident: bibr23-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1097/HMR.0b013e3181dc8233 – ident: bibr16-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2003.00407.x – ident: bibr86-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.75.6.829 – ident: bibr39-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-30 – ident: bibr90-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1177/019874298801400104 – ident: bibr35-2633489520936644 doi: 10.4088/PCC.10m01065 – ident: bibr101-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2010.06.001 – year: 2008 ident: bibr80-2633489520936644 publication-title: Relationship between the consultant-parent working alliance and ratings of the consultation process with parents of children having autism spectrum disorder – ident: bibr45-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0438-y – volume-title: Development of a measure of disseminability (MOD) year: 2010 ident: bibr104-2633489520936644 – ident: bibr65-2633489520936644 doi: 10.5888/pcd11.130184 – ident: bibr79-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1287/isre.2.3.192 – volume: 22 start-page: 49 issue: 1 year: 2007 ident: bibr94-2633489520936644 publication-title: The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation doi: 10.3138/cjpe.022.003 – ident: bibr60-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1002/1520-6807(199110)28:4<325::AID-PITS2310280407>3.0.CO;2-Y – volume-title: Sustainability and model guide year: 2007 ident: bibr68-2633489520936644 – ident: bibr9-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-3-19 – ident: bibr10-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1007/s13142-015-0325-0 – year: 2010 ident: bibr47-2633489520936644 publication-title: Exploring the relationship between factors of implementation, treatment integrity, and reading fluency – ident: bibr93-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1016/S0740-5472(02)00231-3 – ident: bibr83-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000233683.82254.63 – ident: bibr2-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1186/s13012-014-0192-y – ident: bibr103-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1071/AH010143 – ident: bibr42-2633489520936644 doi: 10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322 – ident: bibr25-2633489520936644 doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2015.S1.150050 – ident: bibr37-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1037//0735-7028.17.3.235 – ident: bibr48-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1080/09595230701499126 – ident: bibr82-2633489520936644 doi: 10.2466/pr0.94.2.475-481 – ident: bibr99-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1007/s10597-009-9202-y – ident: bibr89-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7 – ident: bibr54-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017972 – ident: bibr67-2633489520936644 – ident: bibr57-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1089/tmj.2011.0029 – ident: bibr7-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1097/00075484-200301000-00008 – ident: bibr107-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1207/S15374424JCCP3102_03 – ident: bibr102-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1016/0005-7916(92)90007-6 – ident: bibr62-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0342-x – ident: bibr19-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1016/S0376-8716(99)00049-6 – ident: bibr26-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1176/ps.2009.60.5.671 – ident: bibr106-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1177/0020764010365414 – ident: bibr59-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1177/070674370905400306 – ident: bibr100-2633489520936644 – ident: bibr110-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1176/ps.2008.59.7.732 – ident: bibr28-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.07.012 – ident: bibr29-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1002/bin.2360040104 – ident: bibr69-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1037/a0028484 – ident: bibr66-2633489520936644 – volume-title: Teaching and training for non-teachers year: 1996 ident: bibr78-2633489520936644 – ident: bibr95-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1007/s001270170017 – ident: bibr96-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1177/1062860608314942 – ident: bibr51-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/18.6.717 – ident: bibr81-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1080/15504260903175973 – volume-title: Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change year: 2002 ident: bibr76-2633489520936644 – ident: bibr91-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201600193 – ident: bibr1-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1023/B:MHSR.0000024351.12294.65 – ident: bibr75-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1037/pas0000037 – ident: bibr31-2633489520936644 – ident: bibr43-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2013.02.005 – ident: bibr24-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201200227 – ident: bibr72-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1177/1098300710385348 – ident: bibr77-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1002/cpp.657 – ident: bibr15-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1007/s13142-014-0273-0 – ident: bibr5-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-3-83 – ident: bibr109-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1007/s10488-016-0742-5 – ident: bibr11-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-19 – ident: bibr3-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1007/s10488-010-0327-7 – ident: bibr30-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2010.06.004 – ident: bibr4-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1037//0022-006X.68.2.331 – ident: bibr97-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-65 – ident: bibr41-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2011.07.008 – ident: bibr46-2633489520936644 doi: 10.2190/DE.38.2.f – ident: bibr87-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1097/00004703-199508000-00005 – ident: bibr56-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1186/s12991-015-0077-8 – ident: bibr98-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibz164 – ident: bibr105-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2015.04.003 – ident: bibr73-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1080/15504263.2013.807073 – ident: bibr70-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1111/j.0197-6664.2004.00040.x – ident: bibr32-2633489520936644 doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301776 – ident: bibr64-2633489520936644 doi: 10.4088/JCP.14m09139 – ident: bibr55-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1007/s11606-014-3027-2 – ident: bibr52-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1037//0022-006X.57.4.522 – ident: bibr92-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1037/tra0000004 – volume-title: Ottawa Report to the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation year: 2002 ident: bibr38-2633489520936644 – ident: bibr44-2633489520936644 doi: 10.1177/109019819302000208 |
SSID | ssj0002512128 |
Score | 2.379315 |
SecondaryResourceType | review_article |
Snippet | Background:
Systematic reviews of measures can facilitate advances in implementation research and practice by locating reliable and valid measures and... Systematic reviews of measures can facilitate advances in implementation research and practice by locating reliable and valid measures and highlighting... Background: Systematic reviews of measures can facilitate advances in implementation research and practice by locating reliable and valid measures and... |
SourceID | doaj pubmedcentral proquest pubmed crossref sage |
SourceType | Open Website Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source Publisher |
StartPage | 2633489520936644 |
SubjectTerms | Systematic Reviews of Methods to Measure Implementation Constructs |
SummonAdditionalLinks | – databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals dbid: DOA link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV3NahsxEBYlp0ApTZu2m6RBhVDoYbF3pZU0uSWhIRTSUwK5LZIs0UC9NrF972v09fIkmZHWjp3-XXrdlXalmZHm02j0ibEjNAII0qsSrJKljFaXAG5YInawniifQuLpvvyqLq7ll5vmZu2qL8oJy_TAWXADZyg_3oFxiHyFk0CIxUCj69qDhgSN0OetLaZoDiavjTPv477koFZ05hQo60MoBAEbfijR9f8OY_6aKrmW75Vc0PlL9qLHjvwkt3mHPQvdK_Y8B954Pk_0msXLFPVDj8Rvx8vkcJI-nyzmaF5hdsxPOr6Y0lJ_xB-ZnHk-xcInkY9z4HB2_-Mnz8e0xnTxludTCt3fEQfrLrs-_3x1dlH2lymUXorhvGxkdLFyo8ZajZIJYNFP2Ri8qqM1lQIVQI-8jxEhjZANeBkqnH2iEV6B1-IN2-omXXjHuAnaxBCURU3KUVNDAC-ECJVzWM_Ygg2Wom19zzROF158b6ueXPypMgr2aVVjmlk2_lL2lLS1Kkf82OkBWk3bW037L6sp2IelrlscT7RJYrswWcza2gxp7xBNqGBvs-5XvxJ6aACFVzC9YRUbbdl8091-S5zdAISF8JsfyX7afqKY_bGXe_-jl_tsu6bwQIoYHbCt-d0ivEcMNXeHabg8AHJdFSA priority: 102 providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals |
Title | Measuring implementation outcomes: An updated systematic review of measures’ psychometric properties |
URI | https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2633489520936644 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37089128 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2805516002 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC9924262 https://doaj.org/article/b81085b98b9743b493977895722c979a |
Volume | 1 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwjV1Lj9MwELaW3QsSQrwpj8pICIlDaBM7doYLKohqhbQc0K7YW2S7NqxE0qpNDnvbv8Hf45cw4yRdygLimjqxO4_M5JsXY89RCMBLpxIwSiYyGJ0A2GmCvoNx1PLJxz7dRx_V4Yn8cJqf7rF6qIXpKbh5RWlVeKL4sibtJjR60gcZJ5miAlKgFA6h0KK_aZuq7NDuYagGXaHwdFtRZNtRPuR5MlS3XWMHmVY5KvLBbP7p8_EWlSFrn8aBrLRFQntcxjavbLtjy2LL_z_5qVfTLX_JGYtmbH6L3ez9Tz7rBOY22_P1HXajA-94V5N0l4WjiByiVeNn1ZBgThzky7ZBUvnNaz6rebsiuGDBL7tB864Shi8DrzrwcfPj4jvvSr0qGt7l-Irg_zX1cb3HTubvj98dJv1AhsRJMW2SXAYbUrvIjdFIJQ8GbZ0J3qksmCJVoDzohXMhoFskZA5O-hTfYKEQToHT4j7br5e1f8h44XURvFcGpUEu8gw8OCGET63F-wozYpOBtKXru5XT0IxvZdo3KP-dGSP2cnvHquvU8Y-1b4lb23XUYzteWK6_lL3KlragygwLhcVvLmElkK-MD9FZ5kADHvHZwOsSdZICLab2y3ZTZsWU4o8oTiP2oOP9diuhpwUg8UZM70jFzll2f6nPvsa-3wDkT-EzX5D8lIOq_PVfPvrfhY_Z9YxghIgsPWH7zbr1T9HXauy4V5BxxCrGEQz7CRKFJag |
linkProvider | SAGE Publications |
linkToHtml | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwjV1Lj9MwELagewBphXhveRoJIXEI28SO7eFWEFWB7R5QV-wtsl0bVqJJ1cedv8Hf45cwk6TZLQuIa-JxbM84Mx7PfMPYcxQCCNKrBKySiYxWJwBukKDtYD1BPoUap3tyrMYn8sNpfnqh1Fe7gqtXFFaFI6p_1t3u1vowU5Q7ChS9IRQq86tsT5LS6rG94ejT52nnYCHFnda1VYkkIZrza8pL3eyopRq9_08m5-XIyQvhX7VGGt1kN1pTkg8b3t9iV0J5m-03fjjepBfdYXFSOwFRQfGz-TZWnJjBq80aZx1Wr_mw5JsFnfxn_BzYmTdJLbyKfN74EVc_v__gTdbWnOpweb4gT_6SIFnvspPRu-nbcdLWVki8FIN1ksvoYupmubUaVymARbVlY_Aqi9akClQAPfM-RrRwhMzBy5Dizyga4RV4Le6xXlmV4YBxE7SJISiLjJWzPIMAXggRUueQztg-O9wubeFb4HGqf_GtSFus8d-Z0WcvO4pFA7rxj7ZviFtdO4LLrh9Uyy9Fu_sKZyjJwoFxeHwSTgKZvdiJzjIPGnCIz7a8LnB70Z2JLUO1WRWZGdBVIopTn91veN99SuiBAVy8PtM7UrEzlt035dnXGsIbgEwj7PMFyU-xlfq_zvLB_zZ8yq6Np5Oj4uj98ceH7HpG3oHaYfSI9dbLTXiMJtTaPWk3yy8C_hEM |
linkToPdf | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwjV1Zb9QwELZgKyGkCpWzCwWMhJB4CLuJHcfD23KsytEKoVb0LbIdm1bqJqs93vkb_D1-CTNOdstSQLwmtmN7xpnxHN8w9hSZALx0KgGjZCKDKRIAO0xQdzCOIJ98xOk-OFT7x_L9SX7SxeZQLky3g_MXFFaFM4o_azrd0yoMOh_jIFOUPwoUwSEUCvSrbEtKFI09tjUaf_5ytDaykPBOY31V6pJQnwtX5aVhNkRTRPD_k9p5OXrylxCwKJXGO-xGp07yUUv_m-yKr2-x7dYWx9sUo9ssHERDIAopfjZZxYsTQXizXODK_fwlH9V8OaXbf8UvwJ15m9jCm8AnrS1x_uPbd95mbk2oFpfjU7LmzwiW9Q47Hr89er2fdPUVEifFcJHkMtiQ2io3psBd8mBQdJngncqC0akC5aGonAsBtRwhc3DSp_hDClo4Ba4Qd1mvbmq_y7j2hQ7eK4PElVWegQcnhPCptdhPmz4brLa2dB34ONXAOC_TDm_8d2L02fN1j2kLvPGPtq-IWut2BJkdHzSzr2V3AkurKdHCgrZ4hRJWAqm-OEiRZQ4KwCk-WdG6xCNGfhNT-2Y5LzM9JHcislOf3Wtpv_6UKIYacPP6rNjgio25bL6pz04jjDcAqUc45jPin3LF-X9d5f3_bfiYXfv0Zlx-fHf44QG7npGBINqM9lhvMVv6h6hFLeyj7qz8BA8HEhw |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Measuring+implementation+outcomes%3A+An+updated+systematic+review+of+measures%27+psychometric+properties&rft.jtitle=Implementation+research+and+practice&rft.au=Mettert%2C+Kayne&rft.au=Lewis%2C+Cara&rft.au=Dorsey%2C+Caitlin&rft.au=Halko%2C+Heather&rft.date=2020-01-01&rft.eissn=2633-4895&rft.volume=1&rft.spage=2633489520936644&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177%2F2633489520936644&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F37089128&rft.externalDocID=37089128 |
thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=2633-4895&client=summon |
thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=2633-4895&client=summon |
thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=2633-4895&client=summon |