Skip to main content

Table 3 Tool characteristics (n = 58 tools)

From: Tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts: a systematic review

Tool name

Tool purpose

Targeted partners

TOOL measures outcome (O), process (P), impact (I)?

Empirical psychometric evidence for: validity (V), reliability (R)

Tool evaluation score (%)

First author, year

V

R

The Committee Member Survey (CMS)a

The Plan Quality Index (PQI)a

CMS: to measure committees’ work and effectiveness

PQI: to measure committee plan quality

Organizational committee members

O, P

60

Butterfoss, 1996

questionnaire

To address coalition factors specified in the conceptual model and two outcomes: member satisfaction and participation

Coalition members

O, P

65

Kegler, 1998

Social Capital Index (scale adapted from the Partnership Self-Assessment Survey, Health Research & Educational Trust  [103])

To assess institutional social capital as a functional relationship based on trust, involvement and reciprocity among partners in a network

Partnership members

O, P

·

35

Chan, 2000

Capability Index [Partnership Self-Assessment Survey (PSAS)]

To assess the perceived effectiveness of the partnership

Coalitions

O, P

45

Shortell, 2002

Partnership Self-Assessment Tool

To measure partnership synergy and functioning dimensions, and gather descriptive info about partnerships and partners

Partnership coordinators

Partners

O, P

80

Weiss, 2002

survey

To examine partnership involvement in operational aspects and compare perceived benefits, costs, satisfaction, commitment and ownership

Partnership members

O, P, I

65

El Ansari, 2004

Partnership Member Survey

To assess nurses’ perceptions of 17 aspects of partnership functioning in the formation and implementation of community partnerships

Health services staff (nurses)

O, P, I

·

50

El Ansari, 2004b

Partnership Self-Assessment Survey (PSAS)-derived scales

To assess coalition participants' perceptions about coalition decision-making, conflict management, leadership and culture, and the effectiveness of their coalition in goal attainment, participation level and perceived participation costs/benefits

Coalition members

O, P

45

Metzger, 2005

Coalition Member Survey

To assess participants’ perceptions about the coalition and the project; to describe the relationship between partnership dimensions and both interim and community-wide outcomes, as perceived by coalition members

Coalition members [members from 13 communities funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)]

O, P, I

65

Kegler, 2005

Internal Coalition Effectiveness (ICE) Instrument

To measure outcomes and identify organizational strengths and areas for improvement

Coalition partners (leaders, members of public and private agencies)

O, P

55

Cramer, 2006

CTC Coalition Web-Based Self-Report Questionnaire

To determine whether coalition functioning or community characteristics predict either sustained CTC activity or new funding

Coalition members

Coalition staff

Coalition facilitators

O, P, I

55

Feinberg, 2008

CTC Coalition Web-Based Self-Report Questionnaire

To assess coalition functioning as a research tool and as part of a feedback system for technical assistance providers and coalition members

Coalition participants

Technical facilitation staff

O, P, I

65

Feinberg, 2008b

Partnership Self-Assessment Tool (PSAT) [80]

Social Capital Survey [104, 105, 106]

PSAT: to assess synergy and partnership function

Social Capital Survey: to assess trust between members and organizations, elements of reciprocity and perceptions of the value of membership, and social capital (individual, aggregated community) levels, and individual, organizational and community empowerment and control

Coalition members

O, P, I

75

Orr Brawer, 2008

60

Community Impacts of Research Oriented Partnerships (CIROP)

To measure community members’ perceptions of the impact of research partnerships addressing health or social issues

Partnership members [healthcare professionals (HCP), managers, researchers, teachers, principals]

I

75

King, 2009

Profile of Collaboration Survey [107]a

To assess stakeholder satisfaction with facets and results of collaboration

Stakeholders, evaluators

O, P

·

60

Tolma, 2009

Coordinated Action Checklist

To evaluate and facilitate coordinated action in community health promotion partnerships

Partnership members

O, P

75

Wagemakers, 2010

 • Community Impacts of Research Oriented Partnerships (CIROP) Questionnaire

 • Background Information Form for Research Partnerships

 • Research Contact Checklist

 • CIROP Respondent Form

CIROP questionnaire: To measure community members’ perceptions of medium-term impacts of partnerships addressing health or social issues Background Information Form for Research Partnerships: to assess partnership purpose, structural and functional features, outputs, people and organizations

Research Contact Checklist: To capture community members’ requests

CIROP Respondent Form: to capture respondents’ awareness of the partnership’s purpose, products and information-sharing, their relationship with the partnership and characteristics

Community members

O, P, I

80

King, 2010

Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory [108]

To assess the presence of successful collaboration factors in a partnership, organized by six partnership assessment domains

Coalition staff community members

O, P

55

Ziff, 2010

Jones Synergy Scale

To measure synergy in health promotion partnerships

Partnership members

O, P

50

Jones, 2011

Jones Trust Scale

To measure partnership trust and partnership functioning in health promotion partnerships

Health promotion partners

O, P

45

Jones, 2011b

CTC Websurvey for Agency Directors, Team Members

Web-Based Survey for Technical Assistants

CTC Websurvey: to assess perceptions about team functioning, individual, workplace and community characteristics

Web-Based Survey: to assess team dynamics perceived by technical assistants

Community members

Organizational administrators

Technical staff

O, P, I

45

Perkins, 2011

50

Self-Evaluation Tool for Action in Partnership [109, 110, 110] French and English Versions

To assess partnership functioning by identifying difficulties and aspects that work well using six effectiveness requirements

Partnership members

O, P

·

85

Bilodeau, 2011, 2019b

Survey

To assess the benefits and challenges of participation in the PEARL [Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research & Learning] practice-based research network

Clinician researchers

O, I

·

50

Curro, 2012

Survey

To explore partnership members' perceived internal, external, organizational, personnel features and outcomes

Partnership members (partnership staff, health and social services staff and clinicians, academics)

O, P

65

El Ansari, 2012

CTC Coalition Web-Based Survey

To assess internal coalition functioning, including leadership, interpersonal relationships, task focus, participation benefits/costs, and sustainability planning and external coalition functioning

Coalition members

Technical assistance providers

O, P

65

Brown, 2012

General Coalition Capacities Scale

General Coalition Capacity Rubric

Environmental Strategy (ES)-Specific Capacity Rubric

CLI: to quantitatively measure general coalition functioning

GCS: to measure coalition leadership, membership/staff turnover, meeting quality, level of community visibility, technological capacity

ES-specific capacity scale: to measure ES implementation capacity

Coalition members [grant coordinator or designee from each site; experts, state-level prevention professionals (HCP)]

O, P

·

45

Nargiso, 2013

·

40

·

45

Adapted survey [based on PSAT(S) [112, 113; 114]

To assess individual demographic, institutional, partnership and sustainability factors of academic practice partnerships

Advanced practice partners (affiliated with nursing, corporations, government, foundations, researchers, meeting attendees, nursing leaders, academic practice partnership participants)

O, P, I

60

Perkins, 2014

Taiwan Health Promotion in Schools (HPS) Support Network Evaluation Study Survey

To measure health promotion in schools (HPS) implementation and impact, and efficacy of implementation

Teachers, director, section chief, school nurse

O, P, I

·

60

Chang, 2014

• CTC Member Coalition Function Survey

• CTC Functioning Survey [Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD) technical assistance providers]

• Coalition function survey supplement K

• Coalition function survey supplement L

To assess coalition function in three domains (collaborative processes, coalition capacities, coalition activities)

Coalition partners

Coalition technical assistance providers

Mobilizers, voluntary chairs

O, P

70

Brown, 2015

65

65

65

Member Involvement in Physical Activity Coalitions (MIPAC) Survey

To measure organizational representatives’ perspectives about the characteristics of physical activity (PA) coalitions, the characteristics of organizational members, factors related to organizational member involvement, and perceived PA coalition success

Coalition members (nonprofit, for profit and government agency representatives)

I

70

Bornstein, 2015

Key Informant Survey (KIS)

Community Engagement Survey (CES)

KIS: To gather relevant information about projects and identify academic/community partners

CES: to assess perceptions of context, processes and outcomes using the CBPR conceptual model

Researchers

Researchers academic Partners

Community partners

O, P, I

85

Oetzel, 2015

85

Validation of 22 scales in Community Engagement Survey (CES)

To assess perceptions of context, processes and outcomes using a CBPR conceptual model

Academics

HCP

Community members

O, P, I

85

Oetzel, 2015b

questionnaire (adapted from Morrow et al. [115])

To quantitatively evaluate quality of the PPI within the research user group (RUG) that may be generalized to other settings

Research user group

O, P, I

85

Stocks, 2015

Coalition Context and Capacity Assessment Survey

To assess coalition context and capacity constructs and gain a better understanding of how to improve substance abuse prevention by community coalitions

Coalition partners

O, P

70

Brown, 2016

Community Engagement Measure

To assess how engagement principles were adhered to by partnership members

Community member co-research trainees

O, P

·

90

Goodman, 2017

Coordinating Council Member Survey

To document members’ perception of the effectiveness of—and satisfaction with—adapting and implementing evidence-based health programmes based on the principles of effective partnerships

Coalition staff

O, P, I

·

45

Okazaki, 2017

Partnership survey

Partnership survey: To assess the contribution of factors that influence partnership trust and mistrust

Partnership members

O, P

65

Jones, 2018

Scale of Perceived Trustworthiness

To assess each respondent’s perception of their research partners’ trustworthiness

Research partnership members (community-based organization members, leaders, advisory boards, individuals in partnership roles; community partners, academic partners with dual roles, conference attendees, researchers)

O, P

60

West, 2018

Selected scales from:

 • Key Informant Survey (KIS)

 • Community Engagement Survey (CES)

KIS: to gather relevant information about projects and identify academic and community partners

CES: to explore perceptions of context, processes and outcomes corresponding to a community-based participatory research conceptual model

Researchers

Researchers, community members

O, P, I

90

Oetzel, 2018

90

• Key Informant Survey (KIS)

• Community Engagement Survey (CES)

To assess research context, process and outcome measures, including measures of power/resource-sharing and structural characteristics of projects

Researchers

Academics community partners

O, P, I

90

Duran, 2019

90

Modified Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PEET) [116]

To quantify engagement using evidence-informed criteria from the stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness research framework

Patients

Caregivers

Geriatricians

O, P

75

Soobiah, 2019

Key Informant Survey (KIS) (English and Spanish translation versions)

To capture key “factual” information about the project and partnership that could be identified by a principal investigator or designate

Researchers

Community members

O, P

90

Dickson, 2020

CBPR Processes and Practices, and outcomes scales (from E2 Key Informant (KIS) and Community-engagement Surveys (CES)

KIS: to gather collected project-related information (e.g. funding dates, financial resource-sharing and use of formal agreements)

CES: to obtain perceptions of CBPR model constructs including partnership processes (relational and structural dynamics) and individual and project outcomes

Community partners

Academic partners

O, P

90

Rodriguez Espinosa, 2020

CBPR Process Scales (synergy, trust, CBPR principles, participation, influence) and Trust Typology [from E2 Community Engagement Survey (CES)]

To test the quantitative structural elements of the trust typology, identify variability in trust correlates, and create an empirical foundation for the trust types

Researchers

Academic partners

Community partners

O, P

85

Lucero, 2020

Project Outcome Scale

To assess the self-perceived contribution of projects to the social position of young persons with chronic conditions

Patients

O, P, I

70

Van Schelven, 2021

Patient Engagement in Research Scale (PEIRS-22 shortened version) (modified from Hamilton et al. [117])

To assess the degree of meaningful engagement of patients and family caregivers as partners in research projects

Patients, family caregivers

O, P, I

75

Hamilton, 2021

Community Engagement Survey [scales (7) with subscales (23)]

To assess researcher and community member perceptions of CBPR contexts, mechanisms and outcomes

Researchers, community members

O, P, I

85

Boursaw, 2021

IMPACT [Innovative Models Promoting Access-to-care Transformation] Partnership Questionnaire [80, 86]

To assess partnership functioning and synergy

Partnership stakeholders

O, P, I

60

Loban, 2021

  1. (·) conceptual underpinnings not explicitly identified
  2. CBPR community-based participatory research, CTC Communities That Care, PPI public and patient involvement
  3. aPsychometric data noted for multiple toolkit tools
  4. bCompanion report