Skip to main content

Table 1 Scoring system

From: Does health intervention research have real world policy and practice impacts: testing a new impact assessment tool

Independent corroboration Attribution Reach Importance
Did the materials provided to verify the research impact convince the Panel that the key impact claims had been corroborated? Was the link between the research and the claimed post-research impact clearly demonstrated? How broad was the reach of the impacts on the relevant constituencies, when reach is defined as spread and breadth of influence post-study? How important are the post-research impacts to products, processes, behaviors, policies, and/or practices, when importance is defined the significance and noteworthiness of an impact and its ability to endure?
8–9 – Corroborated 8–9 – Significant contribution 8–9 – Extensive reach because it has widespread reach in relevant constituencies in multiple countries 8–9 – Extremely important
6–7 – Probably corroborated 6–7 – Good contribution 6–7 – Broad reach because it has widespread reach in relevant constituencies across multiple regions, or states, in Australia or internationally 6–7 – Very important
5 – Possibly or partially corroborated 5 – Moderate contribution 5 – Moderate reach because it is reaching relevant constituencies in multiple discrete locations 5 – Moderately important
3–4 – Not corroborated but further information could provide a more convincing corroboration 3–4 – Small or some contribution 3–4 – Some reach (modest) because the impact has only modest reach in local constituencies, or has continued in the areas where the study was conducted 3-4 – Some import
1–2 – Not corroborated and it is unlikely that further information could provide a more convincing corroboration 1–2 – There is no discernible link between the underpinning research and the claimed post-study research 1–2 – Limited or no assessable post-study reach 1-2 – Limited or no assessable post-study importance