On Measuring Community Participation in Research

Abstract

Active participation of community partners in research aspects of community-academic partnered projects is often assumed to have a positive impact on the outcomes of such projects. The value of community engagement in research, however, cannot be empirically determined without good measures of the level of community participation in research activities. Based on our recent evaluation of community-academic partnered projects centered around behavioral health issues, this article uses semi-structured interview and survey data to outline two complementary approaches to measuring the level of community participation in research - a “three-model” approach that differentiates between the levels of community participation and a Community Engagement in Research Index (CERI) that offers a multidimensional view of community engagement in the research process. The primary goal of this article is to present and compare these approaches, discuss their strengths and limitations, summarize the lessons learned, and offer directions for future research. We find that while the three-model approach is a simple measure of the perception of community participation in research activities, CERI allows for a more nuanced understanding by capturing multiple aspects of such participation. Although additional research is needed to validate these measures, our study makes a significant contribution by illustrating the complexity of measuring community participation in research and the lack of reliability in simple scores offered by the three-model approach.

Evaluating Community Engagement in Research: Quantitative Measure Development

“…Several DEAC meetings were dedicated to discussing the evaluation framework, developing consensus on the principles that should guide community participation in research, and examining how to classify projects based on the level of participation by members of the specified community or population, as well as the activities used to encourage or sustain this participation. This bidirectional communication led PECaD to adopt a community-engaged partnership framework and seek to align projects with 11 EPs that have been previously developed in the literature (Israel et al, 1998; Israel, 2005; Israel et al, 2008; Khodyakov et al, 2011, 2013; McCloskey et al, 2012; Minkler & Wallerstein, 2010). …”

“…Although the utility of CER is perceived as well established in the literature (Campbell & Jovchelovitch, 2007; Israel et al, 1998; Israel, 2005; Minkler & Wallerstein, 2010; Nelson et al, 1998; Wallerstein & Duran, 2006; Wallerstein & Duran, 2010; Zeldin, 2004), measuring and evaluating community engagement in research activities (the extent to which community members are involved with the decisions and activities of the research project) have been limited and have primarily focused on qualitative approaches (Francisco, Paine, & Fawcett, 1993; Goodman et al, 1998; Khodyakov et al, 2013; Lantz, Viruell-Fuentes, Israel, Softley, & Guzman, 2001; McCloskey et al, 2012; Sanchez, Carrillo, & Wallerstein, 2011; Schulz, Israel, & Lantz, 2003). Qualitative methods are effective at assessing community engagement at a project or program level; however, they are time consuming, do not easily scale up for the evaluation of large-scale or multicommunity projects.…”

“…This article describes the development process of a quantitative measure that assesses the level of community engagement among community members, building on limited existing quantitative measures of community engagement in public health research (Israel, 2005; Khodyakov et al, 2013; Schulz et al, 2003; Weir, D’Entremont, Stalker, Kurji, & Robinson, 2009). When developed, this measure should provide scores on the overall engagement of people, as well as differentiating the level of engagement among groups in the project.…”

Enhancing Stewardship of Community-Engaged Research Through Governance

“…8---13 These approaches have attraction because they can advance cocreation of the research, contribute culturally centered methods, and foster research capacity. 1,2,14,15 Although CEnR approaches have appeal, they still require governance to provide protection, oversight, guidance, legitimacy, and community benefit. Governance over CEnR is complex and involves numerous practices and policies.…”

Harnessing the Power of Community-Based Participatory Research: Examining Knowledge, Action, and Consciousness in the PROUD Study

“…Today, there is an extensive body of literature that examines participatory approaches to research. Some researchers highlight different aspects of participation including attention to who is involved and in what ways (e.g., Butterfoss, 2006;Khodyakov et al, 2012). Others focus on the quality and/or qualities of partnerships, exploring aspects such as collaboration (e.g., Marek, Brock, & Savla, 2014;Plumb, Collins, Cordeiro, & Kavanagh-Lynch, 2008), engagement (e.g., Lavelee, Williams, Tambor, & Deverka, 2012), involvement (Plumb et al, 2008), group dynamics (Barlow & Hurlock, 2012;Plumb et al, 2008;Schulz, Israel, & Lantz, 2003), and trust (e.g., Eder, Carter-Edwards, Hurd, Rumala, & Wallerstein, 2013).…”