Improving the normalization of complex interventions: part 2 - validation of the NoMAD instrument for assessing implementation work based on normalization process theory (NPT)
Tracy L. Finch,Melissa Girling,Carl R. May,Frances S. Mair,Elizabeth Murray,Shaun Treweek,Elaine McColl,Ian Nicholas Steen,Clare Cook,Christopher R. Vernazza,Nicola Mackintosh,Samridh Sharma,Gaery Barbery,Jimmy Steele,Tim Rapley
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0591-x
2018-11-15
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Abstract:IntroductionSuccessful 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.MethodsDescriptive 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.ResultsWe 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, α = 0.71); Collective Action (7 items, α = 0.78); Cognitive Participation (4 items, α = 0.81); Reflexive Monitoring (5 items, α = 0.65). The normalisation scale overall, was highly reliable (20 items, α = 0.89).ConclusionsThe 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.
health care sciences & services