Cited by 502Health Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and EducationClinical practice guidelines implementation

Assessing the organizational context for EBP implementation: the development and validity testing of the Implementation Climate Scale (ICS)

Open access
Ehrhart, Mark G, Aarons, Gregory A, Farahnak, Lauren R·2014·Implementation Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although the importance of the organizational environment for implementing evidence-based practices (EBP) has been widely recognized, there are limited options for measuring implementation climate in public sector health settings. The goal of this research was to develop and test a measure of EBP implementation climate that would both capture a broad range of issues important for effective EBP implementation and be of practical use to researchers and managers seeking to understand and improve the implementation of EBPs. METHODS: Participants were 630 clinicians working in 128 work groups in 32 US-based mental health agencies. Items to measure climate for EBP implementation were developed based on past literature on implementation climate and other strategic climates and in consultation with experts on the implementation of EBPs in mental health settings. The sample was randomly split at the work group level of analysis; half of the sample was used for exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and the other half was used for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The entire sample was utilized for additional analyses assessing the reliability, support for level of aggregation, and construct-based evidence of validity. RESULTS: The EFA resulted in a final factor structure of six dimensions for the Implementation Climate Scale (ICS): 1) focus on EBP, 2) educational support for EBP, 3) recognition for EBP, 4) rewards for EBP, 5) selection for EBP, and 6) selection for openness. This structure was supported in the other half of the sample using CFA. Additional analyses supported the reliability and construct-based evidence of validity for the ICS, as well as the aggregation of the measure to the work group level. CONCLUSIONS: The ICS is a very brief (18 item) and pragmatic measure of a strategic climate for EBP implementation. It captures six dimensions of the organizational context that indicate to employees the extent to which their organization prioritizes and values the successful implementation of EBPs. The ICS can be used by researchers to better understand the role of the organizational context on implementation outcomes and by organizations to evaluate their current climate as they consider how to improve the likelihood of implementation success.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13012-014-0157-1

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 an increasing number of measures of implementation determinants, such as implementation leadership, implementation climate, or implementation intentions.

    “Furthermore, there is an increasing number of measures of implementation determinants [74, 75] (e.g., implementation leadership [76], implementation climate [77, 78], or implementation intentions [79]).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [43]Aarons GA Farahnak LR Ehrhart MG Beidas RS Kendall PC Leadership and strategic organizational climate to support evidence-based practice implementation Child and adolescent therapy: Dissemination and implementation of empirically supported treatments 2014 New York, NY Guilford Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ehrhart, M. G., Aarons, G. A., & Farahnak, L. R.
Affiliations
  • San Diego State University (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
Corresponding author
Ehrhart, Mark G
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2014-10-23
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
157-157
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2128459358
Cited by
502
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 80 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 69 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 1
FWCI
30.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open Scholarship Institutional Repository (Washington University in St. Louis) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R21MH098124, P30MH074678, R21MH082731, R01MH072961, R25MH080916)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
evidence-based practice implementation, implementation climate, organizational context, mental health agencies, scale development, psychometric validation, clinician attitudes
MeSH terms
California, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Health Plan Implementation, Humans, Male, Mental Health Services, Middle Aged, Organizational Innovation, Patient Care Team, Pennsylvania, Evidence-Based Practice

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