Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 May 1.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Health Promot. 2014 Apr 10;29(5):e188–e202. doi: 10.4278/ajhp.130731-QUAN-398

Table 2.

Items and factor loadings

Domain Name of Scale Items
Context Project capacity

  1. Skills and expertise (0.56)

  2. Data and information (removed during modification)

  3. Diverse membership (0.42)

  4. Legitimacy and credibility (0.72)

  5. Ability to bring people together for meetings and activities (0.69)

  6. Connections to political decision-makers, government agencies, other organizations/groups (0.49)

  7. Connections to relevant stakeholders (0.64)
Initial trust

  1. At the beginning of your partnership, what type of trust did you have? (single item scale—no factor loading)
Structural/
Individual
Dynamics		 Bridging social capital

  1. Does the community research team have the knowledge, skills, and confidence to interact effectively with the academic researcher team? (0.61)

  2. Does the academic research team have members who are from a similar cultural background as the community research team? (0.56)

  3. Overall, does the academic research team have the knowledge, skills, and confidence to interact effectively with the community research team? (0.87)
Alignment with CBPR
principles: Partner focus

  1. This project builds on resources and strengths in the community (0.69)

  2. This project emphasizes what is important to the community (environmental and social factors) that affect wellbeing (0.78)

  3. This project views community-engaged research as a long term process and a long term commitment (0.69)

  4. This project fits local/cultural beliefs, norms, and practices (0.76)
Alignment with CBPR
principles: Community
focus

  1. This project facilitates equitable partnerships in all phases of the research (0.77)

  2. This project helps all partners involved to grow and learn from one another (0.81)

  3. This project balances research and social action for the mutual benefit of all partners (0.77)

  4. This project disseminates knowledge and findings to all partners and involves all partners in the dissemination process (0.70)
Core values

  1. Members of our partnership have a clear and shared understanding of the problems we are trying to address (0.78)

  2. There is a general agreement with respect to the mission of the partnership (0.86)

  3. There is general agreement with respect to the priorities of the partnership (0.86)

  4. Members agree on the strategies the partnership should use in pursuing its priorities (0.80)
Relational
Dynamics		 Task roles and
communication:
Background research

  1. Developing community-based theories of the problem or intervention (0.55)

  2. Grant proposal writing (0.66)

  3. Background research (0.63)

  4. Choosing research methods (0.77)

  5. Developing sampling procedures (0.61)
Task roles and
communication: Data
collection

  1. Recruiting study participants (0.41)

  2. Implementing the intervention (0.32)

  3. Designing interview and/or survey questions (0.72)

  4. Collecting primary data (0.57)
Task roles and
communication:
Analysis &
Dissemination

  1. Analyzing collected data (removed during modification)

  2. Interpreting study findings (0.70)

  3. Writing reports and journal articles (0.79)

  4. Giving presentations at meetings and conferences (0.69)
Dialogue and mutual
learning: Participation

  1. We showed positive attitudes towards one another (0.81)

  2. Everyone in our partnership participated in our meetings (0.62)

  3. We listened to each other (0.88)
Dialogue and mutual
learning: Cooperation

  1. Arguments that occurred during our meetings were constructive (0.72)

  2. When disagreements occurred, we worked together to resolve them (0.87)

  3. Even though we didn’t have total agreement, we did reach a kind of consensus that we all accept (0.76)
Dialogue and mutual
learning: Respect

  1. There were disrespectful remarks made during the conversation (0.64)

  2. There was hidden or open conflict and hostility among the members (0.85)

  3. The way the other members said some of their remarks was inappropriate (0.91)
Trust

  1. I trust the decisions others to make about issues that are important to our projects (0.76)

  2. I am comfortable asking other people to take responsibility for project tasks even when I am not present to oversee what they do (0.75)

  3. I can rely on the people that I work with on this project (0.84)

  4. People in this group/community have confidence in one another (0.80)
Influence and power
dynamics

  1. All partners had equal voice in deciding which funding opportunities were sought for this project. (0.42)

  2. I have influence over decisions that this partnership makes (0.50)

  3. Overall, I am satisfied with the amount of influence that each partner has over decisions that this partnership makes (0.94)
Participatory decision
making

  1. Feel comfortable with the way decisions are made in the project (0.84)

  2. Support the decisions made by the project team members (0.76)

  3. Feel that your opinion is taken into consideration by other project team members (0.77)

  4. Feel that you have been left out of the decision making process (−0.61)

  5. Feel pressured to go along with decisions of the project team even though you might not agree (removed during modification)
Leadership

  1. Taking responsibility for moving the project forward (0.82)

  2. Inspiring or motivating people involved in the project (removed during modification)

  3. Encouraging active participation of academic and community partners in the decision-making (0.83)

  4. Communicating the goals of the project (0.82)

  5. Working to develop a common language (0.84)

  6. Fostering respect between partners (0.84)

  7. Developing trust between partner

  8. Creating an environment where differences of opinion can be voiced (0.80)

  9. Resolving conflict among partners (0.83)

  10. Helping the partners be creative and look at things differently (0.80)

  11. Recruiting diverse people and organizations into the project (0.59)

  12. Providing orientation to new partners as they join the project (0.83)
Stewardship

  1. The team's financial resources (0.82)

  2. The team's in-kind resources (0.72)

  3. The team's time (0.83)
Intervention
/ Research		 Partnership synergy

  1. Develop goals that are widely understood and supported in this partnership (0.76)

  2. Develop strategies that are most likely to work for your community or stakeholders as a whole (0.76)

  3. Recognize challenges and come up with good solutions (0.79)

  4. Respond to the needs and problems of your stakeholders or community as a whole (0.79)

  5. Work together as a team (0.70)
Outcome Systems and capacity
changes: Partner
capacity building

  1. Enhanced my own reputation (0.80)

  2. Enhanced my ability to affect public policy (removed during modification)

  3. Increased utilization of my expertise or services (0.86)

  4. Increased my ability to acquire additional financial support (0.67)
Systems and capacity
changes: Agency
capacity building

  1. Enhanced the agencies' reputation (0.90)

  2. Enhanced the agencies' ability to affect public policy (0.78)

  3. Increased utilization of agencies' expertise or services (0.88)

  4. Increased agencies' ability to acquire additional financial support (removed during modification)
Systems and capacity
changes: Changes in
power relations

  1. Community team members have increased participation in the research process (0.78)

  2. Community team members can talk about the project in other settings such as a community or political meeting (0.76)

  3. Community team members can apply the findings of the research (0.68)

  4. Community team members can voice their opinions about research in front of researchers (0.63)

  5. Community team members have sought continuing formal or informal education (0.54)
Systems and capacity
changes: Sustainability
of partnership/project

  1. I am committed to sustaining the community-academic relationship with no or low funding (0.71)

  2. This project is likely to continue forward after this funding is over (0.70)

  3. Our partnership carefully evaluates funding opportunities to make sure they meet both community and academic partners' needs (0.69)
Health outcomes:
Community
transformation

  1. Improved the access, delivery, and quality of health services (broadly defined) in the community (removed during modification)

  2. Resulted in sustained partnerships among agencies (removed during modification)

  3. Resulted in policy changes (0.69)

  4. Improved the overall health status of individuals in the community (0.79)

  5. Received public recognition or acknowledgment from local policy makers and/or government officials (removed during modification)

  6. Resulted in acquisition of additional financial support (0.43)

  7. Improved the overall environment in the community (0.87)
Health outcomes:
Community health
improvement

  1. Overall, how much did or will your research project (insert name) improve the health of the community? (single factor scale so no factor loading)