Discriminant content validity of a theoretical domains framework questionnaire for use in implementation research

Huijg, Johanna M.; Gebhardt, Winifred A.; Crone, Mathilde R.; Dusseldorp, Elise; Presseau, Justin

doi:10.1186/1748-5908-9-11

Cited by 219 publications

(259 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

255

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The method demonstrated that many items contained a mixture of impairment, disability, and handicap constructs as defined by the model and were therefore unsuitable for testing causal pathways. By contrast, Huijg, Gebhardt, Crone, Dusseldorp, and Presseau (2014) used DCV methods to develop an entirely new questionnaire. Since then, the International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF) (2001) has been published with different construct definitions for impairment, activity limitations, and participation restrictions and without proposing causal relationships between constructs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discriminant content validity: A quantitative methodology for assessing content of theory‐based measures, with illustrative applications

Johnston

Dixon

Hart

et al. 2014

British J Health Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The DCV method allowed quantitative assessment of each item and can therefore inform the content validity of the measures assessed. The methods can be applied to assess content validity before or after collecting data to select the appropriate items to measure theoretical constructs. Further, the data reported for each item in Appendix S1 can be used in item or measure selection. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? There are agreed methods of assessing and reporting construct validity of measures of theoretical constructs, but not their content validity. Content validity is rarely reported in a systematic and transparent manner. What does this study add? The paper proposes discriminant content validity (DCV), a systematic and transparent method of assessing and reporting whether items assess the intended theoretical construct and only that construct. In three studies, DCV was applied to measures of illness perceptions, control cognitions, and theory of planned behaviour response formats. Appendix S1 gives content validity indices for each item of each questionnaire investigated. Discriminant content validity is ideally applied while the measure is being developed, before using to measure the construct(s), but can also be applied after using a measure.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discriminant content validity: A quantitative methodology for assessing content of theory‐based measures, with illustrative applications

Johnston

Dixon

Hart

et al. 2014

British J Health Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…27 The TDF is an amalgamation of 128 theoretical constructs from 33 theories of behaviour and behaviour change. It can be used to conduct a theoretically based assessment of the problem, 28,29 which identifies mechanisms of action to be targeted by the intervention. The advantage of using the TDF over a single theory of health behaviour is that it delineates multiple distinct explanatory domains, which may be more appropriate for the development of a complex intervention, as a greater number of potential influences on behaviour can be considered.…”

Section: The Behaviour Change Wheelmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Men’s Safer Sex project: intervention development and feasibility randomised controlled trial of an interactive digital intervention to increase condom use in men

Bailey

Webster

Hunter

et al. 2016

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThis report details the development of the Men’s Safer Sex website and the results of a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT), health economic assessment and qualitative evaluation.Objectives(1) Develop the Men’s Safer Sex website to address barriers to condom use; (2) determine the best design for an online RCT; (3) inform the methods for collecting and analysing health economic data; (4) assess the Sexual Quality of Life (SQoL) questionnaire and European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, three-level version (EQ-5D-3L) to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); and (5) explore clinic staff and men’s views of online research methodology.Methods(1) Website development: we combined evidence from research literature and the views of experts (n = 18) and male clinic users (n = 43); (2) feasibility RCT: 159 heterosexually active men were recruited from three sexual health clinics and were randomised by computer to the Men’s Safer Sex website plus usual care (n = 84) or usual clinic care only (n = 75). Men were invited to complete online questionnaires at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months, and sexually transmitted infection (STI) diagnoses were recorded from clinic notes at 12 months; (3) health economic evaluation: we investigated the impact of using different questionnaires to calculate utilities and QALYs (the EQ-5D-3L and SQoL questionnaire), and compared different methods to collect resource use; and (4) qualitative evaluation: thematic analysis of interviews with 11 male trial participants and nine clinic staff, as well as free-text comments from online outcome questionnaires.Results(1) Software errors and clinic Wi-Fi access presented significant challenges. Response rates for online questionnaires were poor but improved with larger vouchers (from 36% with £10 to 50% with £30). Clinical records were located for 94% of participants for STI diagnoses. There were no group differences in condomless sex with female partners [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 1.96]. New STI diagnoses were recorded for 8.8% (7/80) of the intervention group and 13.0% (9/69) of the control group (IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.89). (2) Health-care resource data were more complete using patient files than questionnaires. The probability that the intervention is cost-effective is sensitive to the source of data used and whether or not data on intended pregnancies are included. (3) The pilot RCT fitted well around clinical activities but 37% of the intervention group did not see the Men’s Safer Sex website and technical problems were frustrating. Men’s views of the Men’s Safer Sex website and research procedures were largely positive.ConclusionsIt would be feasible to conduct a large-scale RCT using clinic STI diagnoses as a primary outcome; however, technical errors and a poor response rate limited the collection of online self-reported outcomes. The next steps are (1) to optimise software for online trials, (2) to find the best ways to integrate digital health promotion with clinical services, (3) to develop more precise methods for collecting resource use data and (4) to work out how to overcome barriers to digital intervention testing and implementation in the NHS.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN18649610.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 91. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

show abstract

“…Fourth, they may differ in their degree of operationalizability , with some including definitions, tools, and suggested methodological approaches to facilitate use and promote consistent application [1]. For example, the CFIR has an online technical assistance website (www.cfirguide.org) with sample interview questions that tap included specific constructs, and Michie et al (2005), which introduces the TDF, contains sample interview questions for each TDF domain as well as a recently developed quantitative questionnaire [6, 9]. Atkins et al have a manual for TDF application currently under review for publication (personal communication, Lou Atkins, November 15, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combined use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF): a systematic review

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundOver 60 implementation frameworks exist. Using multiple frameworks may help researchers to address multiple study purposes, levels, and degrees of theoretical heritage and operationalizability; however, using multiple frameworks may result in unnecessary complexity and redundancy if doing so does not address study needs. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) are both well-operationalized, multi-level implementation determinant frameworks derived from theory. As such, the rationale for using the frameworks in combination (i.e., CFIR + TDF) is unclear. The objective of this systematic review was to elucidate the rationale for using CFIR + TDF by (1) describing studies that have used CFIR + TDF, (2) how they used CFIR + TDF, and (2) their stated rationale for using CFIR + TDF.MethodsWe undertook a systematic review to identify studies that mentioned both the CFIR and the TDF, were written in English, were peer-reviewed, and reported either a protocol or results of an empirical study in MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, or Google Scholar. We then abstracted data into a matrix and analyzed it qualitatively, identifying salient themes.FindingsWe identified five protocols and seven completed studies that used CFIR + TDF. CFIR + TDF was applied to studies in several countries, to a range of healthcare interventions, and at multiple intervention phases; used many designs, methods, and units of analysis; and assessed a variety of outcomes. Three studies indicated that using CFIR + TDF addressed multiple study purposes. Six studies indicated that using CFIR + TDF addressed multiple conceptual levels. Four studies did not explicitly state their rationale for using CFIR + TDF.ConclusionsDifferences in the purposes that authors of the CFIR (e.g., comprehensive set of implementation determinants) and the TDF (e.g., intervention development) propose help to justify the use of CFIR + TDF. Given that the CFIR and the TDF are both multi-level frameworks, the rationale that using CFIR + TDF is needed to address multiple conceptual levels may reflect potentially misleading conventional wisdom. On the other hand, using CFIR + TDF may more fully define the multi-level nature of implementation. To avoid concerns about unnecessary complexity and redundancy, scholars who use CFIR + TDF and combinations of other frameworks should specify how the frameworks contribute to their study.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42015027615 Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0534-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Discriminant content validity of a theoretical domains framework questionnaire for use in implementation research

Cited by 219 publications

References 56 publications

Discriminant content validity: A quantitative methodology for assessing content of theory‐based measures, with illustrative applications

Discriminant content validity: A quantitative methodology for assessing content of theory‐based measures, with illustrative applications

The Men’s Safer Sex project: intervention development and feasibility randomised controlled trial of an interactive digital intervention to increase condom use in men

Combined use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF): a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About