Melody S Goodman1, Nicole Ackermann2, Deborah J Bowen3, Vetta Thompson4. 1. Department of Biostatistics, College of Global Public Health, New York University, New York, New York. 2. Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 3. Bioethics and Humanities, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 4. Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.
Abstract
AIM: Using a stakeholder-engaged approach, this study conducted content validation and item reduction of a quantitative measure of research engagement. METHODS: A five-round modified Delphi process was used to reach consensus on items. Rounds 1-3 and 5 were conducted using web-based surveys. Round 4 consisted of a 2-day, in-person meeting. Delphi panelists received individualized reports outlining individual and aggregate group responses after rounds 1-3. RESULTS: Over the five-round process, items were added, dropped, modified, and moved from one engagement principle to another. The number of items was reduced from 48 to 32, with three to five items corresponding to eight engagement principles. CONCLUSIONS: Research that develops standardized, reliable, and accurate measures to assess stakeholder engagement is essential to understanding the impact of engagement on scientific discovery and the scientific process. Valid quantitative measures to assess stakeholder engagement in research are necessary to assess associations between engagement and research outcomes.
AIM: Using a stakeholder-engaged approach, this study conducted content validation and item reduction of a quantitative measure of research engagement. METHODS: A five-round modified Delphi process was used to reach consensus on items. Rounds 1-3 and 5 were conducted using web-based surveys. Round 4 consisted of a 2-day, in-person meeting. Delphi panelists received individualized reports outlining individual and aggregate group responses after rounds 1-3. RESULTS: Over the five-round process, items were added, dropped, modified, and moved from one engagement principle to another. The number of items was reduced from 48 to 32, with three to five items corresponding to eight engagement principles. CONCLUSIONS: Research that develops standardized, reliable, and accurate measures to assess stakeholder engagement is essential to understanding the impact of engagement on scientific discovery and the scientific process. Valid quantitative measures to assess stakeholder engagement in research are necessary to assess associations between engagement and research outcomes.
Authors: Jane W Peterson; Laurie L Lachance; Frances D Butterfoss; Christy R Houle; Elisa A Nicholas; Lisa A Gilmore; Marielena Lara; Amy R Friedman Journal: Health Promot Pract Date: 2006-04
Authors: Jonathan M Kagan; Scott R Rosas; Rona L Siskind; Russell D Campbell; Daniel Gondwe; David Munroe; William M K Trochim; Jeffrey T Schouten Journal: Prog Community Health Partnersh Date: 2012
Authors: Consuelo H Wilkins; Victoria Villalta-Gil; Mckenzie M Houston; Yvonne Joosten; Alan Richmond; Yolanda C Vaughn; Sarah C Stallings; Kenneth A Wallston Journal: J Comp Eff Res Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 1.744
Authors: Clayon B Hamilton; Alison M Hoens; Shanon McQuitty; Annette M McKinnon; Kelly English; Catherine L Backman; Tara Azimi; Negar Khodarahmi; Linda C Li Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Vetta L Sanders Thompson; Nicole Ackermann; Kyla L Bauer; Deborah J Bowen; Melody S Goodman Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2021-03-16 Impact factor: 3.046