IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0241839.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Community partners’ responses to items assessing stakeholder engagement: Cognitive response testing in measure development

Author

Listed:
  • Vetta L Sanders Thompson
  • Nora Leahy
  • Nicole Ackermann
  • Deborah J Bowen
  • Melody S Goodman

Abstract

Background: Despite recognition of the importance of stakeholder input into research, there is a lack of validated measures to assess how well constituencies are engaged and their input integrated into research design. Measurement theory suggests that a community engagement measure should use clear and simple language and capture important components of underlying constructs, resulting in a valid measure that is accessible to a broad audience. Objective: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate how community members understood and responded to a measure of community engagement developed to be reliable, valid, easily administered, and broadly usable. Method: Cognitive response interviews were completed, during which participants described their reactions to items and how they processed them. Participants were asked to interpret item meaning, paraphrase items, and identify difficult or problematic terms and phrases, as well as provide any concerns with response options while responding to 16 of 32 survey items. Results: The results of the cognitive response interviews of participants (N = 16) suggest concerns about plain language and literacy, clarity of question focus, and the lack of context clues to facilitate processing in response to items querying research experience. Minimal concerns were related to response options. Participants suggested changes in words and terms, as well as item structure. Conclusion: Qualitative research can improve the validity and accessibility of measures that assess stakeholder experience of community-engaged research. The findings suggest wording and sentence structure changes that improve ability to assess implementation of community engagement and its impact on research outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Vetta L Sanders Thompson & Nora Leahy & Nicole Ackermann & Deborah J Bowen & Melody S Goodman, 2020. "Community partners’ responses to items assessing stakeholder engagement: Cognitive response testing in measure development," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-13, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0241839
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241839
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0241839
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0241839&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0241839?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schulz, Amy J. & Israel, Barbara A. & Lantz, Paula, 2003. "Instrument for evaluating dimensions of group dynamics within community-based participatory research partnerships," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 249-262, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Melody S. Goodman & Nicole Ackermann & Kristyn A. Pierce & Deborah J. Bowen & Vetta Sanders Thompson, 2021. "Development and Validation of a Brief Version of the Research Engagement Survey Tool," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-13, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Blackstock, K.L. & Kelly, G.J. & Horsey, B.L., 2007. "Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 726-742, February.
    2. José M. Díaz-Puente & José L. Yagüe & Ana Afonso, 2008. "Building Evaluation Capacity in Spain," Evaluation Review, , vol. 32(5), pages 478-506, October.
    3. Ward, Melanie & Schulz, Amy J. & Israel, Barbara A. & Rice, Kristina & Martenies, Sheena E. & Markarian, Evan, 2018. "A conceptual framework for evaluating health equity promotion within community-based participatory research partnerships," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 25-34.
    4. Wagemakers, Annemarie & Vaandrager, Lenneke & Koelen, Maria A. & Saan, Hans & Leeuwis, Cees, 2010. "Community health promotion: A framework to facilitate and evaluate supportive social environments for health," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 428-435, November.
    5. Izabela Simon Rampasso & Rodnei Bertazzoli & Thais Dibbern & Milena Pavan Serafim & Walter Leal Filho & Carolina Rojas-Córdova & Rosley Anholon, 2022. "Evaluating Research Partnerships through ISO 56003 Guidelines, RRI Concepts, and Ex Post Facto Cases," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-10, April.
    6. Mie Imanaka & Masahiko Ando & Tetsuhisa Kitamura & Takashi Kawamura, 2016. "Impact of Registered Dietitian Expertise in Health Guidance for Weight Loss," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-8, March.
    7. Dana H. Z. Williamson & Emma X. Yu & Candis M. Hunter & John A. Kaufman & Kelli Komro & Na’Taki Osborne Jelks & Dayna A. Johnson & Matthew O. Gribble & Michelle C. Kegler, 2020. "A Scoping Review of Capacity-Building Efforts to Address Environmental Justice Concerns," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-23, May.
    8. Theresia Krieger & Regina Specht & Babette Errens & Ulrike Hagen & Elisabeth Dorant, 2020. "Caring for Family Caregivers of Geriatric Patients: Results of a Participatory Health Research Project on Actual State and Needs of Hospital-Based Care Professionals," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-17, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0241839. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.