title: Context matters: measuring implementation climate among individuals and groups.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  It has been noted that implementation climate is positively associated with implementation effectiveness. However, issues surrounding the measurement of implementation climate, or the extent to which organizational members perceive that innovation use is expected, supported and rewarded by their organization remain. Specifically, it is unclear whether implementation climate can be measured as a global construct, whether individual or group-referenced items should be used, and whether implementation climate can be assessed at the group or organizational level.
  
  
  METHODS
  This research includes two cross-sectional studies with data collected via surveys at the individual level. The first study assessed the implementation climate perceptions of physicians participating in the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP), and the second study assessed the perceptions of children's behavioral health clinicians implementing a treatment innovation. To address if implementation climate is a global construct, we used confirmatory factor analysis. To address how implementation climate should be measured and at what level, we followed a five-step framework outlined by van Mierlo and colleagues. This framework includes exploratory factor analysis and correlations to assess differences between individual and group-referenced items and intraclass correlations, interrater agreements, and exploratory factor analysis to determine if implementation climate can be assessed at the organizational level.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that implementation climate is a global construct consisting of items related to expectations, support and rewards. There are mixed results, however, as to whether implementation climate should be measured using individual or group-referenced items. In our first study, where physicians were geographically dispersed and practice independently, there were no differences based on the type of items used, and implementation climate was an individual level construct. However, in the second study, in which clinicians practice in a central location and interact more frequently, group-referenced items may be appropriate. In addition, implementation climate could be considered an organizational level construct.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The results are context-specific. Researchers should carefully consider the study setting when measuring implementation climate. In addition, more opportunities are needed to validate this measure and understand how well it predicts and explains implementation effectiveness.
authors.affiliation: Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, 1101 McGavran-Greenberg Hall, CB #7411, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7411, USA. jacobssr@live.unc.edu.
authors.forename: Sara R
authors.initials: SR
authors.lastname: Jacobs
authors.forename: Bryan J
authors.initials: BJ
authors.lastname: Weiner
authors.forename: Alicia C
authors.initials: AC
authors.lastname: Bunger
mesh_terms: D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D004059:Diffusion of Innovation; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D005163:Factor Analysis, Statistical; D005260:Female; D019983:Guideline Adherence; D006282:Health Personnel; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D015279:Organizational Culture; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic; D057170:Translational Research, Biomedical / Q000458:organization & administration*
references.citation: Qual Manag Health Care. 1998 Sep;6(4):1-13
references.pmid: 10339040
references.citation: Oncol Nurs Forum. 2006 Sep 01;33(5):951-9
references.pmid: 16955123
references.citation: J Appl Psychol. 2001 Feb;86(1):3-16
references.pmid: 11302231
references.citation: Cancer. 2010 Oct 1;116(19):4440-9
references.pmid: 20572032
references.citation: Med Care Res Rev. 2007 Jun;64(3):279-303
references.pmid: 17507459
references.citation: Child Abuse Negl. 2011 Aug;35(8):582-91
references.pmid: 21855998
references.citation: Implement Sci. 2012 May 08;7:41
references.pmid: 22568935
references.citation: Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 07;4:50
references.pmid: 19664226
references.citation: Prev Chronic Dis. 2012;9:E16
references.pmid: 22172183
references.citation: Child Abuse Negl. 2006 Aug;30(8):855-80; discussion 849-54
references.pmid: 16930699
references.citation: Child Abuse Negl. 2005 Feb;29(2):135-45
references.pmid: 15734179
references.citation: Child Maltreat. 2001 Nov;6(4):332-43
references.pmid: 11675816
references.citation: Child Abuse Negl. 2012 Sep;36(9):621-32
references.pmid: 22980071
references.citation: Implement Sci. 2012 Jun 22;7:56
references.pmid: 22726759
references.citation: J Appl Psychol. 2001 Oct;86(5):811-24
references.pmid: 11596799
references.citation: Implement Sci. 2013 May 10;8:51
references.pmid: 23663819
references.citation: Cancer Control. 2006 Oct;13(4):295-302
references.pmid: 17075567
references.citation: J Appl Psychol. 2003 Apr;88(2):356-62
references.pmid: 12731720
references.citation: Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1994 Summer;10(3):506-16
references.pmid: 8071011
references.citation: Multivariate Behav Res. 2006 Mar 1;41(1):65-83
references.pmid: 26788895
references.citation: Psychol Methods. 2001 Sep;6(3):297-310
references.pmid: 11570234
references.citation: Implement Sci. 2011 Jul 22;6:78
references.pmid: 21781328
references.citation: Contemp Clin Trials. 2012 Jan;33(1):46-54
references.pmid: 21986391
references.citation: BMC Health Serv Res. 2011 Sep 30;11:248
references.pmid: 21961925