Background
Conceptual framework underpinning SEER: the SPIRIT action framework
Domains of the SPIRIT action framework measured by SEER
Aims
Methods
Development of items for each domain
Item generation
Item refinement
Pilot testing with policymakers: feasibility and acceptability
Testing the measurement properties of SEER
Eligibility criteria and sampling frame
Recruitment and consent of agencies and agency staff
Survey administration and sampling for validity and test-retest reliability analyses
Data management and scoring
Interpretability: assessment of missing data and distribution of scores
Reliability testing: stability over time (test-retest analysis) and internal consistency
Relations to other variables: convergent and criterion validity
Internal structure
Sample size
Results
Scales and items developed for each domain
Domains and factors measured by SEER scales | What the scale measures | Source of items | No. of items | Response options and scoring |
---|---|---|---|---|
Capacity – predisposing factors
| ||||
1. Value individual places on using research | Individual policymakers’ views on the value of research for informing each stage of policy work (e.g. deciding on policy content, designing evaluation) | New items were written for this scale because no suitable scales or items were identified | 7 | Five-point adjectival scale ranging from “not at all valuable” (score = 1) to “very valuable” (score = 5); scores are summed across items to create a scale score (range 7 to 35) |
2. Confidence in using research | Individual policymakers’ confidence in their ability (knowledge and skills) to engage with research (by accessing, appraising, generating and applying research) and researchers; items from these instruments were not suitable for measuring individual knowledge or skills | 7 | Five-point adjectival scale ranging from “not at all confident” (score = 1) to “very confident” (score = 5); scores are summed across items to create a scale score (range 7 to 35) | |
3. Value organisation places on research use | Individual policymakers’ perceptions of leaders’ beliefs and organisational expectations about the use of research | New items were written for this scale, informed by the concepts measured by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and SUPPORT instruments | 5 | Five-point adjectival scale ranging from “never” (score = 1) to “always” (score = 5); scores are summed across items to create a scale score (range 5 to 25) |
4. Tools and systems organisation has to support research use | Individual policymakers’ perceptions of the supports their organisation has in place for training, accessing research, guiding policy evaluation and research commissioning, and engaging with researchers | New items were written for this scale, informed by the CIHR and SUPPORT instruments | 7 | Four response options: ‘no’ (organisation does not have this tool or system) (score = 1), ‘yes, but limited’ (score = 2), ‘yes, well developed’ (score = 3), or ‘I don’t know’ (recoded as ‘no’, reflecting the interpretation that lack of awareness of support suggests a support that is not functional) Scores are summed across items to create a scale score (range 7 to 21) |
Research engagement actions
| ||||
5. Accessed synthesised research | Whether individual policymakers searched for or commissioned reviews of research over the last 6 months; responses were in relation to the policy on which most time had been spent | New items were written for this scale | 2 | Binary response to individual items (yes/no) A ‘yes’ response to either or both items attracts the maximum score doing both actions (commissioning or searching for syntheses) is unlikely to be necessary |
6. Accessed primary research | Whether individual policymakers searched for single studies or government websites over the last 6 months; responses were in relation to the policy on which most time had been spent | New items were written for this scale | 2 | Binary response to individual items (yes/no) Items are summed to create a scale score (ordinal scale score: 0, 1, 2) |
7. Appraised research | Whether individual policymakers assessed the methods, reliability of results, and generalisability of research used to inform a specific policy over the last 6 months; responses were in relation to the policy on which most time had been spent | New items were written for this scale | 3 | Binary response to individual items (yes/no) Items are summed to create a scale score (ordinal scale score: 0, 1, 2, 3) Items are administered only if respondents answer ‘yes’ to an item asking if they found research |
8. Generated research | Whether individual policymakers generated research or analyses to inform a specific policy through an internally conducted project, commissioning or partnering with researchers, or evaluation of a policy or program; responses were in relation to the last 6 months and the policy on which most time had been spent | One item was adapted from Campbell et al.’s [11] five item scale measuring links with researchers and two new items were written | 3 | Binary response to individual items (yes/no) A ‘yes’ response to one or more items attracts the maximum scale score because undertaking one of the three actions is sufficient |
9. Interacted with researchers | The extent to which individual policymakers contributed to academic research through collaboration, advisory roles or attending research fora; responses were in relation to the last 6 months | Items were based on Campbell et al.’s [11] seven item scale measuring involvement in research; items were collapsed (e.g. combining ‘collaboration on research write up’ with ‘authorship of a research publication’) with minor rewording; one item was adapted from Campbell et al.’s ‘links with researchers’ scale | 6 | Responses are on a 4-point adjectival scale ranging from ‘not at all’ (score = 1) to ‘more than twice’ (score = 4); items are summed to create a scale score (range 6 to 24) |
Research use – extent of use
| ||||
10. Extent of research use | Use of research in each stage of the policy development process (agenda setting/scoping, development, implementation, evaluation) over the last 6 months | New items were written for this scale | 4 | Responses are on a 6-point adjectival scale ranging from ‘none’ (score = 1) to ‘extensive’ (score = 6); a ‘not applicable’ option is provided for stages not yet addressed (e.g. for a policy at the scoping stage, items about extent of use of research in policy evaluation are not applicable) The highest score across the four items is taken as the measure of the extent of research use (range 1 to 6) |
Research use – type of use
| ||||
11. Conceptual research use | Use of research to understand an issue over the last 6 months | A new item was written for this measure | 1 | Binary response to individual items (yes/no) |
12. Instrumental research use | Use of research to decide about content or direction of a policy or programme over the last 6 months | A new item was written for this measure | 1 | Binary response to individual items (yes/no) |
13. Tactical research use | Use of research to persuade others to a point of view or course of action over the last 6 months | A new item was written for this measure | 1 | Binary response to individual items (yes/no) |
14. Imposed research use | Use of research to meet organisational requirements over the last 6 months | A new item was written for this measure | 1 | Binary response to individual items (yes/no) |
Measurement properties of SEER
Sample and participant characteristics
Characteristic (response options) | Freq. (%) or mean (SD) |
---|---|
Number of policies contributed to in the last 6 monthsa
| |
Nonec
| 8 (5%) |
1 to 3 | 61 (41%) |
More than 3 | 81 (54%) |
Organisational tenurea
| |
0–1 years | 28 (19%) |
2–5 years | 72 (48%) |
6–10 years | 33 (22%) |
Over 10 years | 11 (7%) |
Did not respond | 6 (4%) |
Role tenurea
| |
0–1 years | 45 (30%) |
2–5 years | 66 (44%) |
6–10 years | 24 (16%) |
Over 10 years | 9 (6%) |
Did not respond | 6 (4%) |
Had received training in:b
| |
Evidence-based policy and programme development | 68 (45%) |
How to use research in policy and programme development | 59 (39%) |
Systematic reviews | 57 (38%) |
Percentage of time spent on: | |
Policy development/design (mean (SD); n = 137) | 11% (6) (IQR 7–16%) |
Policy implementation (mean (SD); n = 126) | 8% (5) (IQR 3–11%) |
Policy evaluation (mean (SD); n = 127) | 6% (6) (IQR 3–13%) |
Interpretability of SEER: missing data and distribution of scores
Reliability of SEER: stability over time (test-retest analysis)
Factor (items, scoring, possible range) | Test 1 | Test 2 | Test-retestc
| Organisationc
| Weighteda
| |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Higher scores indicate greater capacity, more research engagement actions and use
| Mean (SD) [n] or response options | IQR or freq. (%) | Mean (SD) [n] or response options | IQR or freq. (%) | ICC | (95% CI) | ICC | (95% CI) | Kappa | (95% CI) |
Capacity – Predisposing factors
| ||||||||||
1. Value individual places on using research (7 items, summed, range 7–35) | 29 (3.7) [143] | 26–32 | 29 (3.8) [57] | 27–31 | 0.59 | (0.40–0.75) | 0 | |||
2. Confidence in using research (7 items, summed, range 7–35) | 25 (6.0) [144] | 22–28 | 24 (5.6) [57] | 23–27 | 0.85 | (0.76–0.91) | 0.05 | (0.00–0.47) | ||
3. Value organisation places on using research (5 items, summed, range 5–25) | 19 (3.5) [144] | 18–21 | 19 (3.7) [57] | 16–21 | 0.76 | (0.63–0.85) | 0.13 | (0.03–0.44) | ||
4. Tools and systems organisation has to support research use (7 items, summed,d range 7–21) | 14 (3.6) [144] | 11–16 | 13 (3.6) [57] | 10–16 | 0.70 | (0.49–0.85) | 0.48 | (0.23–0.73) | ||
Research engagement actions
| ||||||||||
5. Accessed synthesised research (two items, binary – yes/noe) | Yes No | 112 (79) 30 (21) | Yes No | 44 (79) 12 (21) | 0.40 | (0.10–0.69) | ||||
6. Accessed primary research (two binary items, summed, ordinal – 0, 1, 2) | 0 1 2 | 20 (14) 27 (19) 95 (67) | 0 1 2 | 6 (11) 10 (18) 40 (71) | 0.49 | (0.21–0.75)b
| ||||
7. Appraised research (three binary items, summed, ordinal – 0, 1, 2, 3) | 0 1 2 3 | 10 (8) 7 (6) 15 (12) 89 (74) | 0 1 2 3 | 3 (6) 6 (12) 7 (14) 34 (68) | 0.34 | (0.04–0.69)b
| ||||
8. Generated research (three binary items, coded yes if response to any item is yes, binary – yes, no) | Yes No | 107 (76) 33 (24) | Yes No | 39 (70) 17 (30) | 0.39 | (0.12–0.66) | ||||
9. Interacted with researchers (6 items, summed, range 6–24) | 12 (4.7) [140] | 8–15 | 11 (4.2) [55] | 7–14 | 0.83 | (0.66–0.92) | 0 | |||
Research use
| ||||||||||
10. Extent of research use (4 items, choose item with highest score, range 1–6)f
| 5 (1.1) [140] | 4–6 | 5 (1.2) [54] | 4–6 | 0.65 | (0.47–0.79) | 0.14 | (0.03–0.44) | ||
11. Conceptual research use (one item, binary – yes, no) | Yes No | 125 (89) 15 (11) | Yes No | 51 (93) 4 (7) | 0.24 | (−0.22 to 0.69) | ||||
12. Instrumental research use (one item, binary – yes, no) | Yes No | 119 (85) 21 (15) | Yes No | 50 (91) 5 (9) | 0.49 | (0.11–0.88) | ||||
13. Tactical research use (one item, binary – yes, no) | Yes No | 117 (84) 23 (16) | Yes No | 46 (84) 9 (16) | 0.15 | (−0.18 to 0.47) | ||||
14. Imposed research use (one item, binary – yes, no) | Yes No | 66 (47) 74 (53) | Yes No | 24 (44) 31 (56) | 0.43 | (0.18–0.67) |
Relations to other variables: convergence with similar measures and relation to outcomes
TPB scales (number of items) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Behavioural intentions to use research (3) | Attitudes toward using research (4) | Subjective norms about using research (4) | Behavioural control – self efficacya (2) | Behavioural control – overall scaleb (4) | |
Capacity – Predisposing factors
| |||||
1. Value individual places on using research | 0.311 (143)d
| 0.419 (138)c
| 0.373 (143) | 0.149 (143) | 0.084 (143) |
2. Confidence in using research | 0.292 (144)d
| 0.449 (138)f
| 0.211 (144) | 0.671 (144)c
| 0.457 (144)c
|
3. Value organisation places on using research | 0.128 (144)d
| 0.185 (138) | 0.541 (144)c
| 0.137 (144) | 0.062 (144) |
4. Tools and systems organisation has to support research use | 0.174 (144)d
| 0.223 (138) | 0.480 (144)f
| 0.326 (144) | 0.167 (144) |
Research engagement actions
| |||||
5. Accessed synthesised research | 0.201 (136)e
| 0.150 (131)d
| 0.400 (136)d
| 0.230 (136)d
| 0.184 (136) |
6. Accessed primary research | 0.189 (136)e
| 0.148 (131)d
| 0.221 (136)d
| 0.137 (136)d
| 0.176 (136) |
7. Appraised research | 0.310 (119)e
| 0.231 (116)d
| 0.289 (119)d
| 0.299 (119)d
| 0.107 (119) |
8. Generated research | 0.173 (136) | 0.175 (131) | 0.150 (136) | 0.154 (136) | 0.179 (136) |
9. Interacted with researchers | 0.169 (136) | 0.145 (131) | 0.300 (136) | 0.232 (136) | 0.351 (136) |
Research use
| |||||
10. Extent of research use | 0.302 (136)e
| 0.313 (131)d
| 0.355 (136)d
| 0.278 (136)d
| 0.231 (136) |
11. Conceptual research use | 0.104 (136)e
| 0.216 (131)d
| 0.204 (136) | 0.057 (136)d
| 0.059 (136) |
12. Instrumental research use | 0.178 (136)e
| 0.141 (131)d
| 0.239 (136)d
| 0.162 (136)d
| 0.153 (136) |
13. Tactical research use | 0.204 (136)e
| 0.083 (131) | 0.088 (136) | 0.143 (136)d
| 0.052 (136) |
14. Imposed research use | 0.184 (136) | 0.182 (131) | 0.373 (136)d
| 0.160 (136) | 0.089 (136) |
Internal structure of SEER capacity scales
Separate modelsa
| Full modela
| Modified model (removal of item 2.3)a
| |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Factor/items | b | (95% CI) |
P value | b | (95% CI) |
P value | b | (95% CI) |
P value |
1. Value individual places on using research
| |||||||||
1.1. Identify issues that require a policy or programme response | 0.59 | (0.50–0.68) | < 0.001 | 0.60 | (0.52–0.69) | < 0.001 | 0.60 | (0.52–0.69) | < 0.001 |
1.2. Understand how to think about issues | 0.60 | (0.47–0.72) | < 0.001 | 0.59 | (0.48–0.70) | < 0.001 | 0.59 | (0.48–0.70) | < 0.001 |
1.3. Decide about content or direction of a policy or programme | 0.69 | (0.56–0.82) | < 0.001 | 0.71 | (0.59–0.82) | < 0.001 | 0.70 | (0.59–0.82) | < 0.001 |
1.4. Persuade others to a point of view or course of action | 0.52 | (0.40–0.65) | < 0.001 | 0.55 | (0.42–0.67) | < 0.001 | 0.55 | (0.43–0.68) | < 0.001 |
1.5. Design the implementation or evaluation strategy for a policy or program | 0.75 | (0.59–0.90) | < 0.001 | 0.72 | (0.55–0.90) | < 0.001 | 0.72 | (0.55–0.90) | < 0.001 |
1.6. Monitor implementation or evaluate the impact of a policy or program | 0.66 | (0.50–0.82) | < 0.001 | 0.63 | (0.47–0.80) | < 0.001 | 0.64 | (0.47–0.80) | < 0.001 |
1.7. Meet organisational requirements to use research | 0.41 | (0.17–0.66) | 0.001 | 0.43 | (0.18–0.67) | 0.001 | 0.43 | (0.18–0.67) | 0.001 |
2. Confidence in using research
| |||||||||
2.1. Find research to inform policy or programme development | 0.83 | (0.75–0.91) | < 0.001 | 0.82 | (0.74–0.91) | < 0.001 | 0.76 | (0.65–0.88) | < 0.001 |
2.2. Evaluate the quality of research | 0.88 | (0.84–0.93) | < 0.001 | 0.87 | (0.81–0.92) | < 0.001 | 0.79 | (0.69–0.89) | < 0.001 |
2.3. Interpret the results of research | 0.83 | (0.73–0.92) | < 0.001 | 0.81 | (0.70–0.92) | < 0.001 | |||
2.4. Apply research to policy or programme development | 0.81 | (0.67–0.94) | < 0.001 | 0.81 | (0.68–0.95) | < 0.001 | 0.82 | (0.70–0.94) | < 0.001 |
2.5. Design evaluations of policies or programmes | 0.81 | (0.70–0.91) | < 0.001 | 0.81 | (0.71–0.92) | < 0.001 | 0.85 | (0.79–0.90) | < 0.001 |
2.6. Commission research to support policy or programme development | 0.67 | (0.51–0.84) | < 0.001 | 0.69 | (0.52–0.86) | < 0.001 | 0.76 | (0.64–0.88) | < 0.001 |
2.7. Partner with researchers to generate research | 0.71 | (0.55–0.86) | < 0.001 | 0.72 | (0.56–0.88) | < 0.001 | 0.79 | (0.69–0.89) | < 0.001 |
3. Value organisation places on using research
| |||||||||
3.1. Leaders believe it is important to use research in policy or programme development | 0.87 | (0.81–0.94) | < 0.001 | 0.85 | (0.75–0.95) | < 0.001 | 0.85 | (0.76–0.95) | < 0.001 |
3.2. It is expected that research will be used in policy or programme development | 0.90 | (0.84–0.96) | < 0.001 | 0.88 | (0.77–0.99) | < 0.001 | 0.88 | (0.77–0.99) | < 0.001 |
3.3. Generation of new research to inform policy or programme development is encouraged | 0.62 | (0.42–0.82) | < 0.001 | 0.65 | (0.46–0.83) | < 0.001 | 0.65 | (0.46–0.83) | < 0.001 |
3.4. It is expected that policies/programmes will be evaluated | 0.54 | (0.28–0.80) | < 0.001 | 0.56 | (0.33–0.78) | < 0.001 | 0.56 | (0.33–0.78) | < 0.001 |
3.5. Interaction or collaboration with researchers or research organisations is encouraged | 0.67 | (0.53–0.80) | < 0.001 | 0.71 | (0.56–0.86) | < 0.001 | 0.71 | (0.56–0.85) | < 0.001 |
4. Tools and systems
| |||||||||
4.1. Has processes for policy or programme development that provide guidance on how research should be used | 0.61 | (0.50–0.71) | < 0.001 | 0.59 | (0.48–0.70) | < 0.001 | 0.59 | (0.48–0.70) | < 0.001 |
4.2. Has systems that encourage leaders to support use of research | 0.67 | (0.57–0.78) | < 0.001 | 0.67 | (0.57–0.76) | < 0.001 | 0.67 | (0.58–0.76) | < 0.001 |
4.3. Provides access to training in using research in policy or programme development | 0.52 | (0.29–0.75) | < 0.001 | 0.54 | (0.33–0.75) | < 0.001 | 0.54 | (0.33–0.74) | < 0.001 |
4.4. Has the resources needed to access research | 0.53 | (0.31–0.76) | < 0.001 | 0.55 | (0.34–0.76) | < 0.001 | 0.54 | (0.33–0.75) | < 0.001 |
4.5. Has established methods for commissioning reviews of research | 0.65 | (0.47–0.84) | < 0.001 | 0.64 | (0.46–0.82) | < 0.001 | 0.64 | (0.46–0.82) | < 0.001 |
4.6. Has documented processes for how policies or programmes should be evaluated | 0.60 | (0.42–0.77) | < 0.001 | 0.60 | (0.43–0.76) | < 0.001 | 0.60 | (0.45–0.76) | < 0.001 |
4.7. Has existing relationships, or established methods for engaging, with research organisations | 0.65 | (0.50–0.80) | < 0.001 | 0.64 | (0.47–0.81) | < 0.001 | 0.64 | (0.48–0.80) | < 0.001 |
Full model | Factor correlations (95% CI) P value | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Factor (score range) | Mean | SD | α | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
1. Value individual places on using research (7–35) | 29 | 3.7 | 0.80 | 0.26 (0.18–0.35) < 0.001b
| 0.38 (0.17–0.59) < 0.001b
| 0.25 (0.06–0.44) 0.010b
| |
2. Confidence in using research (7–35) | 25 | 6.0 | 0.92 | 0.20 (0.10–0.31) <0.001 | 0.15 (0.00–0.29) 0.047b
| 0.43 (0.28–0.59) < 0.001b
| |
3. Value organisation places on using research (5–25) | 16 | 3.5 | 0.85 | 0.38 (0.17–0.60) 0.001 | 0.12 (−0.03 to 0.26) 0.121 | 0.68 (0.55–0.80) < 0.001b
| |
4. Tools and systems organisation has to support research use (7–21) | 14 | 3.6 | 0.80 | 0.25 (0.06–0.44) 0.010 | 0.38 (0.19– 0.56) < 0.001 | 0.68 (0.55–0.81) < 0.001 |