Searchable Title

Improving the normalization of complex interventions: Part 2 - validation of the NoMAD instrument for assessing implementation work based on normalization process theory (NPT). Copyright: Newcastle University

Reference Type

Journal Article

Authors, Section

Finch, Tracy L.; Girling, Melissa; May, Carl R.; Mair, Frances S.; Murray, Elizabeth; Treweek, Shaun; McColl, Elaine; Steen, Ian Nicholas; Cook, Clare; Vernazza, Christopher R.; Mackintosh, Nicola; Sharma, Samridh; Barbery, Gaery; Steele, Jimmy; Rapley, Tim

Title, Section

Improving the normalization of complex interventions: Part 2 - validation of the NoMAD instrument for assessing implementation work based on normalization process theory (NPT). Copyright: Newcastle University

Publication Year

2018

Journal Title

BMC medical research methodology

Volume

18

Issue

1

Pages

135

Availability

online

PMID

PMID: 30442094

DOI

10.1186/s12874-018-0591-x

Abstract

The full text is in Additional file 2 on the website. INTRODUCTION: Successful implementation and embedding of new health care practices relies on co-ordinated, collective behaviour of individuals working within the constraints of health care settings. Normalization Process Theory (NPT) provides a theory of implementation that emphasises collective action in explaining, and shaping, the embedding of new practices. To extend the practical utility of NPT for improving implementation success, an instrument (NoMAD) was developed and validated. METHODS: Descriptive analysis and psychometric testing of an instrument developed by the authors, through an iterative process that included item generation, consensus methods, item appraisal, and cognitive testing. A 46 item questionnaire was tested in 6 sites implementing health related interventions, using paper and online completion. Participants were staff directly involved in working with the interventions. Descriptive analysis and consensus methods were used to remove redundancy, reducing the final tool to 23 items. Data were subject to confirmatory factor analysis which sought to confirm the theoretical structure within the sample. RESULTS: We obtained 831 completed questionnaires, an average response rate of 39% (range: 22-77%). Full completion of items was 50% (n = 413). The confirmatory factor analysis showed the model achieved acceptable fit (CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.03). Construct validity of the four theoretical constructs of NPT was supported, and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) were as follows: Coherence (4 items, alpha = 0.71); Collective Action (7 items, alpha = 0.78); Cognitive Participation (4 items, alpha = 0.81); Reflexive Monitoring (5 items, alpha = 0.65). The normalisation scale overall, was highly reliable (20 items, alpha = 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: The NoMAD instrument has good face validity, construct validity and internal consistency, for assessing staff perceptions of factors relevant to embedding interventions that change their work practices. Uses in evaluating and guiding implementation are proposed.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS