Establishing the Psychometric Properties of Constructs in a Community-Based Participatory Research Conceptual Model

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to establish the psychometric properties of 22 measures from a community-based participatory research (CBPR) conceptual model. Design On-line, cross-sectional survey of academic and community partners involved in a CPBR project Setting 294 CPBR projects in the U.S. with federal funding in 2009 Subjects 312 (77.2% of 404 invited) academic and community partners and 138 principal investigators/project directors (69.0% of 200 invited) Measures 22 measures of CBPR context, group dynamics, methods, and health-related outcomes Analysis Confirmatory factor analysis to establish factorial validity and Pearson correlations to establish convergent and divergent validity Results Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated strong factorial validity for the 22 constructs. Pearson correlations (p < .001) supported the convergent and divergent validity of the measures. Internal consistency was strong with 18 of 22 measures achieving at least a .78 Cronbach’s alpha. Conclusion CBPR is a key approach for health promotion in underserved communities and/or communities of color and yet the basic psychometric properties of CBPR constructs have not been well established. This study provides evidence of the factorial, convergent, and discriminant validity, and internal consistency of 22 measures related to the CBPR conceptual model. Thus, these measures can be used with confidence by both CBPR practitioners and researchers to evaluate their own CBPR partnerships and advance the science of CBPR.

Patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making: A systematic review of evaluation tools

“…The fact that only a small number (11%) of instruments are informed by a literature review in at least 2 databases is disconcerting, pointing to a potential duplication of effort (new tools being created because existing ones are unknown) and misalignment with key dimensions of engagement documented in the scientific literature. Secondly, efforts must be made to address the lack of an explicit conceptual framework in most tools, which is significant given the importance of linking empirical evaluation with an explicit theoretical foundation . Lastly, the high level of literacy required to understand most instruments should be addressed, particularly because patients and members of the public are the target users of most evaluation tools and because engagement with vulnerable populations is a frequent concern …”

Community-Based Participatory Research Conceptual Model

“…This partnership received Native American Research Centers for Health funding (2009–2013) from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to study variability of community academic partnerships and to assess associations between partnering processes and CBPR and health outcomes. This mixed methods study design used the model’s constructs to build internet-survey instruments to measure many of the partnering and outcomes constructs, for its data collection of 294 NIH and CDC-funded research projects; and to create qualitative instruments to guide data collection for seven CBPR case studies across the country (Hicks et al, 2012; Lucero et al, submitted; Oetzel, Zhou, Duran, Pearson, Magarati, & Wallerstein, in press; Pearson et al, in press) for instruments and interview guides (see http://cpr.unm.edu/). Coupling the ongoing future analyses from the NIH cross-site research study with the community consultation reported here will continue to strengthen the model’s usefulness for partnership collective reflection and evaluation.…”

Health Extension and Clinical and Translational Science: An Innovative Strategy for Community Engagement

“…1 In its 2013 analysis of the CTSA program, the Institute of Medicine recommended that community engagement be ensured in all phases of clinical and translational research, citing a need for community stakeholders to partner in a bidirectional manner with CTSAs to identify health priorities, to provide critical input and decision making across all phases of research, to help develop ethically and culturally appropriate research protocols, to help promote enrollment and retention of study participants, and to disseminate and implement study results more effectively. 4 are some of the strategies that have evolved to engage local practitioners and community members in the research enterprise. Bootcamp translation takes evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and trains community stakeholders to become health topic experts who then work with the research team to 1) develop culturally and contextually relevant messaging, 2) identify ways to disseminate those messages, and 3) change local and community conversations about the health topic through their active participation in the bootcamp translation process.…”