Cited by 38Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and EducationBehavioral and Psychological Studies

Sustained Implementation Support Scale: Validation of a Measure of Program Characteristics and Workplace Functioning for Sustained Program Implementation

Hodge, Lauren M., Turner, Karen M. T., Sanders, Matthew R., Filus, Ania·2017·The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research

Abstract

An evaluation measure of enablers and inhibitors to sustained evidence-based program (EBP) implementation may provide a useful tool to enhance organizations' capacity. This paper outlines preliminary validation of such a measure. An expert informant and consumer feedback approach was used to tailor constructs from two existing measures assessing key domains associated with sustained implementation. Validity and reliability were evaluated for an inventory composed of five subscales: Program benefits, Program burden, Workplace support, Workplace cohesion, and Leadership style. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis with a sample of 593 Triple P-Positive Parenting Program-practitioners led to a 28-item scale with good reliability and good convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity. Practitioners sustaining implementation at least 3 years post-training were more likely to have supervision/peer support, reported higher levels of program benefit, workplace support, and positive leadership style, and lower program burden compared to practitioners who were non-sustainers.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11414-016-9505-z

Cites

104 of 104 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is emerging evidence for the reliability and validity of a small number of sustainability-specific assessments and tools designed to determine an organization's capacity in key factors linked to sustainment success and to develop strategic action plans.

    “There is emerging evidence for the reliability and validity of a small number of sustainability-specific assessments and tools, which are designed to determine an organization's capacity in key factors (e.g., partnerships, strategic planning) that have been shown to be linked to sustainment success (61, 76) and to develop a strategic action plan for building capacity in areas of weakness (19, 35,”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hodge, L. M., Turner, K. M. T., Sanders, M. R., & Filus, A.
Affiliations
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • University of Southern California (US)
Corresponding author
Hodge, Lauren M.
Venue
The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research
Published
2016-04-05
Volume
44
Issue
3
Pages
442-464
ISSN
  • 1094-3412 (ISSN-L)
  • 1556-3308
OpenAlex
W2313917495
Cited by
38
References
104
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
FWCI
6.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Australian Research Council (LP110200701)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
Keywords
evidence-based practice, Triple P-Positive Parenting Program, workplace support, leadership styles, workplace cohesion, implementation capacity, scale validation
MeSH terms
Humans, Leadership, Organizational Innovation, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Workplace

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review