Table 3.
Tool characteristics (n = 58 tools)
| 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] |
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 |
(·) conceptual underpinnings not explicitly identified
CBPR community-based participatory research, CTC Communities That Care, PPI public and patient involvement
aPsychometric data noted for multiple toolkit tools
bCompanion report