CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 45Community Health and DevelopmentService-Learning and Community EngagementHealth Education and Validation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Measurement Approaches to Partnership Success: Theory and Methods for Measuring Success in Long-Standing Community-Based Participatory Research Partnerships

Open access
Israel, Barbara A., Lachance, Laurie, Coombe, Chris M., Lee, Shoou-Yih D., Jensen, Megan, Wilson-Powers, Eliza, Mentz, Graciela, Muhammad, Michael, Rowe, Zachary, Reyes, Angela G., Brush, Barbara L.·2020·Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action
DOI 10.1353/cpr.2020.0015PMC PMC7439287
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Numerous conceptual frameworks have been developed to understand how community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships function, and multiple measurement approaches have been designed to evaluate them. However, most measures are not validated, and have focused on new partnerships. To define and assess the meaning of success in long-standing CBPR partnerships, we are conducting a CBPR study, Measurement Approaches to Partnership Success (MAPS). In this article we describe the theoretical underpinnings and methodological approaches used. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to 1) develop a questionnaire to evaluate success in long-standing CBPR partnerships, 2) test the psychometric qualities of the questionnaire, 3) assess the relationships between key variables and refine the questionnaire and theoretical model, and 4) develop mechanisms and a feedback tool to apply partnership evaluation findings. METHODS: Methodological approaches have included: engaged a community-academic national Expert Panel; conducted key informant interviews with Expert Panel; conducted a scoping literature review; conducted a Delphi process with the Expert Panel; and revised the measurement instrument. Additional methods include: conduct cognitive interviews and pilot testing; revise and test final version of the questionnaire with long-standing CBPR partnerships; examine the reliability and validity; analyze the relationship among variables in the framework; revise the framework; and develop a feedback mechanism for sharing partnership evaluation results. CONCLUSIONS: Through the application of a theoretical model and multiple methodological approaches, the MAPS study will result in a validated measurement instrument and will develop procedures for effectively feeding back evaluation findings in order to strengthen authentic partnerships to achieve health equity.

Overview

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 · 10.1353/cpr.2020.0015

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • The few existing studies on long-standing partnerships suggest that partnership members often emphasise outcomes, including measurable research outcomes and tangible community and health benefits, as key indicators of success.

    “The few existing studies that focus on understanding the critical factors that contribute to the success of long-standing partnerships suggest that partnership members often emphasise the outcomes of partnerships, including measurable research outcomes and tangible community and health benefits, as key indicators of success (e.g. Israel et al., 2020; Lindquist-Grantz & Vaughn, 2016).”

    From ‘You feel part of something bigger’: Stakeholders’ experiences of a long-term community–academic participatory research partnership (2025) · cites this paper as Israel et al., 2020

    The Background says relatively little work has examined success in long-standing CBPR partnerships, and the Conceptual Framework identifies tangible community and health benefits as long-term outcomes. The Objectives and Methods describe asking panel members how they define success, but do not report that members often emphasise outcomes or identify measurable research outcomes as key indicators of success. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 55

  1. [3]Minkler M Linking science and policy through community-based participatory research to study and address health disparities. American Journal of Public Health. 2010 4; 100(S1): S81– 7. 20147694 PMC2837446
  2. [4]Cacari-Stone L, Wallerstein N, Garcia AP, Minkler M. The promise of community-based participatory research for health equity: a conceptual model for bridging evidence with policy. Am J Public Health. 2014 9; 104(9): 1615– 23. 25033119 PMC4151933
  3. [5]Wallerstein N, Duran B. Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: the intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. Am J Public Health. 2010 4; 100(Suppl 1): S40– 6. 20147663 PMC2837458
  4. [6]Israel BA, Coombe CM, Cheezum RR, Schulz AJ, McGranaghan RJ, Lichtenstein R, Community-based participatory research: a capacity-building approach for policy advocacy aimed at eliminating health disparities. Am J Public Health. 2010 11; 100(11): 2094– 102. 20864728 PMC2951933
  5. [7]Viswanathan M, Ammerman A, Eng E, Garlehner G, Lohr KN, Griffith D, Community-based participatory research: assessing the evidence. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ). 2004 8;(99): 1– 8. PMC4780908 15460504
  6. [8]Chen PG, Diaz N, Lucas G, Rosenthal MS. Dissemination of results in community-based participatory research. Am J Prev Med. 2010; 39(4): 372– 378. 20837290
  7. [11]Currie M, King G, Rosenbaum P, Law M, Kertoy M, Specht J. A model of impacts of research partnerships in health and social services. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2005 Nov; 28(4): 400– 12. 19304326
  8. [12]Lasker RD, Weiss ES. Broadening participation in community problem solving: a multidisciplinary model to support collaborative practice and research. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine. 2003 3 1; 80(1): 14– 60. 12612096 PMC3456118
  9. [14]Israel BA, Lantz PM, McGranaghan RJ, Guzman JR, Lichtenstein R, Rowe Z. Documentation and evaluation of community-based participatory research partnerships: the use of in-depth interviews and closed-ended questionnaires In: Israel BA, Eng E, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, editors. Methods for community-based participatory research for health. 2nd ed. San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd; 2012 p. 369– 403.
  10. [15]Schulz A, Israel B, Lantz P. Instrument for evaluating dimensions of group dynamics within community-based participatory research partnerships. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2003 2 1; 26(3): 249– 62.
  11. [17]Sandoval JA, Lucero J, Oetzel J, Avila M, Belone L, Mau M, Process and outcome constructs for evaluating community-based participatory research projects: a matrix of existing measures. Health Educ Res. 2012 8; 27(4): 680– 90. 21940460 PMC3396879
  12. [18]Granner ML. Evaluating community coalition characteristics and functioning: a summary of measurement tools. Health Education Research. 2004 5 17; 19(5): 514– 32. 15150134
  13. [19]King G, Servais M, Kertoy M, Specht J, Currie M, Rosenbaum P, A measure of community members’ perceptions of the impacts of research partnerships in health and social services. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2009 Aug; 32(3): 289– 99. 19304326
  14. [20]Oetzel JG, Zhou C, Duran B, Pearson C, Magarati M, Lucero J, Establishing the psychometric properties of constructs in a community-based participatory research conceptual model. Am J Health Promot. 2015 6; 29(5): e188– 202. 24720389 PMC4819435
  15. [21]VanDevanter N, Kwon S, Sim S-C, Chun K, B Free CEED Coalition, Trinh-Shevrin C. Evaluation of community–academic partnership functioning: center for the elimination of hepatitis B health disparities. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action. 2011; 5(3): 223– 33. PMC3646378 22080771
  16. [22]Southerland J, Behringer B, Slawson DL. Using the give–get grid to understand potential expectations of engagement in a community–academic partnership. Health Promotion Practice. 2013 11; 14(6): 909– 17. 23539266
  17. [23]Brakefield-Caldwell W, Reyes AG, Rowe Z, Weinert J, Israel BA. Community partner perspectives on benefits, challenges, facilitating factors, and lessons learned from community-based participatory research partnerships in Detroit. Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2015; 9(2): 299– 311. 26412771
  18. [24]Israel BA, Krieger J, Vlahov D, Ciske S, Foley M, Fortin P, Challenges and facilitating factors in sustaining community-based participatory research partnerships: lessons learned from the Detroit, New York City and Seattle Urban Research Centers. J Urban Health. 2006 11; 83(6): 1022– 40. 17139552 PMC3261295
  19. [25]Hacker K, Tendulkar SA, Rideout C, Bhuiya N, Trinh-Shevrin C, Savage CP, Community capacity building and sustainability: outcomes of community-based participatory research. Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2012; 6(3): 349– 60. 22982848 PMC3557849
  20. [26]Weiss ES, Stevenson AJ, Erb-Downward J, Combs S, Sabino EE, Michel TA, Sustaining CBPR partnerships to address health disparities in times of economic instability. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2012 11; 23(4): 1527– 35. 23698667
  21. [27]Brush BL, Baiardi JM, Lapides S. Moving toward synergy: lessons learned in developing and sustaining community-academic partnerships. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action. 2011; 5(1): 27– 34. PMC6800205 21441666
  22. [29]Manning MA, Bollig-Fischer A, Bobovski LB, Lichtenberg P, Chapman R, Albrecht TL. Modeling the sustainability of community health networks: novel approaches for analyzing collaborative organization partnerships across time. Translational Behavioral Medicine. 2014 3; 4(1): 46– 59. 24653776 PMC3958587
  23. [30]Lantz PM, Viruell-Fuentes E, Israel BA, Softley D, Guzman R. Can communities and academia work together on public health research? Evaluation results from a community-based participatory research partnership in Detroit. J Urban Health. 2001 9; 78(3): 495– 507. 11564852 PMC3455911
  24. [31]Plumb M, Collins N, Cordeiro JN, Kavanaugh-Lynch M. Assessing process and outcomes: evaluating community-based participatory research. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action. 2008; 2(2): 87– 97. 20208242
  25. [32]Israel BA, Lichtenstein R, Lantz P, McGranaghan R, Allen A, Guzman JR, The Detroit Community-Academic Urban Research Center: development, implementation, and evaluation. JPHMP. 2001; 7(5): 1– 19. 11680026
  26. [34]Johnson D, Johnson F. Joining together: group theory and group skills. 12th ed. New York, NY: Pearson; 2017.
  27. [35]Kastelic SL, Wallerstein N, Duran B, Oetzel JG. Socio-ecological framework for CBPR: development and testing of a model In: Community-based participatory research for health: advancing social and health equity. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons; 2018 p. 77– 94.
  28. [40]Brush BL, Mentz G, Jensen M, Jacobs B, Saylor KM, Rowe Z, Success in long-standing community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships: A scoping literature review. Health Education & Behavior. 10 16, 2019 47(4); 556– 568. 10.1177/1090198119882989 31619072 PMC7160011 · DOI
  29. [42]Veney JE, Kaluzny AD. Evaluation & decision making for health services. 3rd ed. Chicago, Ill: Health Administration Press; 1998 436 p.
  30. [43]Tsai T-I, Lee S-YD, Tsai Y-W, Kuo KN. Methodology and validation of health literacy scale development in Taiwan. Journal of Health Communication. 2010 12 30; 16(1): 50– 61. 21058141
  31. [45]Willis GB. Cognitive interviewing: a tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications; 2005 335 p.
  32. [46]Willis GB, Royston P, Bercini D. The use of verbal report methods in the development and testing of survey questionnaires. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 1991 5; 5(3): 251– 67.
  33. [47]Bernard HR. Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches. 5th ed. Lanham, Md: AltaMira Press; 2011 666 p.
  34. [48]Campbell DT. The informant in quantitative research. American Journal of Sociology. 1955 1; 60(4): 339– 42.
  35. [49]Seidler J On Using informants: a technique for collecting quantitative data and controlling measurement error in organization analysis. American Sociological Review. 1974 12; 39(6): 816.
  36. [50]Tremblay M-A. The key informant technique: a nonethnographic application. American Anthropologist. 1957 8; 59(4): 688– 701.
  37. [51]Anthoine E, Moret L, Regnault A, Sébille V, Hardouin J-B. Sample size used to validate a scale: a review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes [Internet]. 2014 12 [ cited 2019 Jun 3]; 12(1). Available from: http://hqlo.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12955-014-0176-2 PMC4275948 25492701 · DOI
  38. [52]In’nami Y, Koizumi R. Review of sample size for structural equation models in second language testing and learning research: a Monte Carlo approach. International Journal of Testing. 2013; 13(4): 329– 353.
  39. [53]Maas CJM, Hox JJ. Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology. 2005 1; 1(3): 86– 92.
  40. [54]Mundfrom DJ, Shaw DG, Ke TL. Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses. International Journal of Testing. 2005; 5(2): 159– 168.
  41. [55]Anastasi A, Urbina S. Psychological testing. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall; 1997 721 p.
  42. [56]Ployhart RE, Holtz BC, Bliese PD. Longitudinal data analysis. The Leadership Quarterly. 2002 8; 13(4): 455– 86.
  43. [57]Bliese PD, Hanges PJ. Being both too liberal and too conservative: the perils of treating grouped data as though they were independent. Organizational Research Methods. 2004 10; 7(4): 400– 17.
  44. [58]Hox JJ, Kleiboer AM. Retrospective questions or a diary method? A two-level multitrait-multimethod analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2007 5; 14(2): 311– 25.
  45. [59]Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW. Systematic social observation of public spaces: a new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology. 1999; 105(3): 603– 51.
  46. [60]Raykov T, Marcoulides GA. On Multilevel model reliability estimation from the perspective of structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2006 1; 13(1): 130– 41.
  47. [61]Miller MB. Coefficient alpha: a basic introduction from the perspectives of classical test theory and structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 1995 1; 2(3): 255– 73.
  48. [62]Barile JP, Darnell AJ, Erickson SW, Weaver SR. Multilevel measurement of dimensions of collaborative functioning in a network of collaboratives that promote child and family well-being. American Journal of Community Psychology. 2012 3 1; 49(1–2): 270– 82. 21785885
  49. [63]Dyer NG, Hanges PJ, Hall RJ. Applying multilevel confirmatory factor analysis techniques to the study of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly. 2005 2; 16(1): 149– 67.
  50. [64]Raykov T Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement. 1997 6; 21(2): 173– 84.
  51. [65]Muthén BO. Multilevel covariance structure analysis. Sociological Methods & Research. 1994 2; 22(3): 376– 98.
  52. [66]Johnson VE. On Bayesian analysis of multirater ordinal data: an application to automated essay grading. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1996 3; 91(433): 42.
  53. [67]Johnson VE. An alternative to traditional GPA for evaluating student performance. Statistical Science. 1997; 12(4): 251– 69.
  54. [69]Cohen J A coefficient of agreement for nominal dcales. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1960 4; 20(1): 37– 46.
  55. [70]Cohen J Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin. 1968; 70(4): 213– 20. 19673146

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Israel, B. A., Lachance, L., Coombe, C. M., Lee, S.-Y. D., Jensen, M., Wilson-Powers, E., Mentz, G., Muhammad, M., Rowe, Z., Reyes, A. G., & Brush, B. L.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Israel, Barbara A.
ORCID
Venue
Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action
Publisher
Project MUSE
Published
2020
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
129-140
ISSN
  • 1557-0541 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-055X
DOI
10.1353/cpr.2020.0015
PMC
PMC7439287
OpenAlex
W3016258315
Cited by
45
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2
FWCI
6.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Progress in community health partnerships (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Nursing Research (R01NR016123)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Community Health and Development
  • Social Sciences › Education › Service-Learning and Community Engagement
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
community-based participatory research, research collaboration, partnership success, partnership evaluation, scale development, questionnaire validation, psychometric properties, feedback mechanisms, health equity, university-community collaboration
MeSH terms
Community-Institutional Relations, Cooperative Behavior, Humans, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Universities, Reproducibility of Results, Program Evaluation, Community-Based Participatory Research

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