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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inImplementation research and practice Vol. 1; p. 2633489520936644
Main Authors Mettert, Kayne, Lewis, Cara, Dorsey, Caitlin, Halko, Heather, Weiner, Bryan
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published London, England SAGE Publications 01.01.2020
SAGE Publishing
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN2633-4895
2633-4895
DOI10.1177/2633489520936644

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