Table 3.
Proportion of low- and high-sustainability programs with a positive construct rating, by construct
| CFIR domain and construct | % agreement between ratersa | N (%) Rated positiveb | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low-sustainability programs N=9 |
High-sustainability programs N=11 |
||
| 1. Interventions characteristics: program source | 75% | 3 (33.3%) | 4 (36.4%) |
| 2. Intervention characteristics: cost | 60% | 6 (66.7%) | 6 (54.5%) |
| 3. Outer setting: student/family needs and resources | 65% | 9 (100%) | 8 (72.7%) |
| 4. Outer setting: student/family needs and resources - built environment | 80% | 6 (55.7%) | 3 (27.3%) |
| 5. Inner setting: implementation climate | 40% | 7 (77.8%) | 8 (72.7%) |
| 6. Inner setting: relative priority | 75% | 3 (33.3%) | 5 (45.5%) |
| 7. Inner setting: organizational incentives and rewards | 90% | 5 (55.6%) | 9 (81.8%) |
| 8. Inner setting: leadership engagement | 85% | 6 (66.7%) | 8 (72.7%) |
| 9. Inner setting: available resources | 70% | 7 (77.8%) | 5 (45.5%) |
| 10. Inner setting: access to knowledge and information | 85% | 8 (88.9%) | 7 (63.6%) |
| 11. Process: planning | 90% | 8 (88.9%) | 10 (90.9%) |
| 12. Process: engaging route leaders | 45% | 5 (55.6%) | 5 (45.5%) |
| 13. Process: engaging students and parents | 70% | 5 (55.6%) | 11 (100%) |
| 14. Process: engaging external change agentsc | 93% | 4 (57.1%) | 5 (71.4%) |
| 15. Process: reflecting and evaluating | 85% | 3 (33.3%) | 6 (54.5%) |
aBased on the initial ratings, which were prior to discrepancies being reconciled
bBased on final ratings, which reflect consensus between raters established through reconciliation
cItem was only asked in the 7 low-sustainability and 7 high-sustainability programs that were coordinated by a parent or school member