TY - JOUR
T1 - Community partners' responses to items assessing stakeholder engagement
T2 - Cognitive response testing in measure development
AU - Thompson, Vetta L.Sanders
AU - Leahy, Nora
AU - Ackermann, Nicole
AU - Bowen, Deborah J.
AU - Goodman, Melody S.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Thompson et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PY - 2020/11
Y1 - 2020/11
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Adult
KW - Aged
KW - Cognition/physiology
KW - Female
KW - Humans
KW - Male
KW - Middle Aged
KW - Qualitative Research
KW - Stakeholder Participation
KW - Young Adult
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85096737717&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85096737717&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0241839
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0241839
M3 - Article
C2 - 33227007
AN - SCOPUS:85096737717
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 15
JO - PloS one
JF - PloS one
IS - 11
M1 - e0241839
ER -