Skip to main content

Table 3 Descriptive analysis of results of Expert survey

From: From theory to 'measurement' in complex interventions: Methodological lessons from the development of an e-health normalisation instrument

   Considerations Decision Final Item
Q1 Allocation of financial resources to the system Ranked in top half of table. Correlates with q.2 (0.527) and q. 18 (0.531) retain Allocation of financial resources to the system
Q2 Allocation of organizational effort to the system Third highest mean rating score. Correlates with q.1 (0.527). retain Allocation of organizational effort to the system
Q3 Impact of the system on existing ways of working Ranked no 1 in importance. No r’s > 0.5. retain Impact of the system on existing ways of working
Q4 Balance of effort against rewards of using the system Ranked 5th. Doesn’t correlate well with any other item retain Balance of effort against rewards of using the system
Q5 Impact of the system on individual’s perceptions of autonomy in their work Mid-table in importance ratings. Correlates with q.9 (r 0.573). retain Impact of the system on individual’s perceptions of autonomy in their work
Q6 level of co-operation required from others within the organisation, in using the system Ranked 8th. Correlates with q.7 (0.560). Combine 6 and 7 Level of co-operation required by others in using the system
Q7 level of co-operation required from others outside the organisation, in using the system Correlates with q.6 (0.560), but most correlations near zero. (ranked 5th from bottom)   
Q8 Additional workload created by the system Ranked 4th in importance. No r’s above 0.5, but approaching that on q. 26 and 27. retain Additional workload created by the system
Q9 Impact of the system on allocation of work between individuals Correlates with q.5 (r 0.573). retain Impact of the system on allocation of work between individuals
Q10 Compatibility of the system with existing skills Ranked mid-table. Correlates with q.11 (0.519) retain Compatibility of the system with existing skills
Q11 Obtainability of new skills required to use the system Ranked 11th. Correlates with q.10 (0.519). Several significant (but low) correlations with other items. retain Obtainability of new skills required to use the system
Q12 Impact of the system on individuals’ perceptions of personal liability Ranked 3rd from bottom. Correlates with q. 17 (r .564) & 18 (r .569). Correlations < but approaching 0.5 for q. 13 & 14. exclude  
Q13 Individuals’ own confidence in the safety of using the system Ranked mid-table. High r (0.725) with q. 14. Correlates with q. 18 (0.565). Approaches 0.5 with q.12. Combine 13 and 14 Individuals’ own confidence in the safety of using the system
Q14 Individuals’ confidence in the safety of others’ use of the system Ranked least important. High r (0.725) with q. 13, and correlates with q.18 (0.531). Approaches 0.5 with q.12.   
Q15 Individuals’ perceptions of the efficiency of using the system Ranked mid-table. No correlations > 0.5. Retain Individuals’ perceptions of the efficiency of using the system
Q16 Impact of the system on the distribution of  responsibilities  between individuals Ranked in bottom half. No correlations > 0.5. Retain Impact of the system on the distribution of responsibilities between individuals
Q17 Impact of the system on individuals’ beliefs about their accountability for their work Ranked near bottom. High r with Q.18 (0.806). Correlates with q. 12 (r .564) retain Impact of the system on individuals’ beliefs about their accountability for their work
Q18 Impact of the system on individuals’ beliefs about  others’ expectations  of their accountability for their work Ranked second bottom. High r with Q.17 (0.806). Correlates with q. 12 (r .569), 13 (0.565) and q.14 (0.531). Exclude question  
Q19 Availability of  technical expertise  in using the system Ranked in top half. Correlates with q.21 (0.557) & 25 (0.581). retain Availability of technical expertise in using the system
Q20 Availability of an  evidence base  about the clinical effectiveness of the system Ranked in bottom half. High r with Q.21 (0.721). Also r 0.619 with Q.24. Combine 20 and 21 Availability of evidence about the clinical effectiveness of the system
Q21 Availability of  users’  knowledge of the clinical effectiveness of the system Ranked in bottom half. High r with Q.20 (0.721). Correlates with q.19 (0.557), q. 24 (0.517) & q.25 (0.514).   
Q22 How flexibly the system can be used for conducting work Ranked in top half. Correlates with q.23 (0.533). retain How flexibly the system can be used for conducting work
Q23 Perceived impact of the system on  ways of working with  patients Ranked 6th in importance. Correlates with Q.22 (0.533). & q.25 (0.586). Retain Perceived impact of the system on ways of working with patients
Q24 Perceived impact of the system on  outcomes  for patients Ranked mid-table. Correlates with Q.20 (0.619) & q.21 (0.517). retain Perceived impact of the system on outcomes for patients
Q25 Perceived impact of the system on  communication  with patients Ranked mid-table. Correlates with q.19 (0.581), q. 21 (0.514) & q.23 (0.586). Exclude (covered in q 23)  
Q26 Perceived impact of the system on the  amount of time  spent with patients Ranked in top half. Approaches 0.50 with q.8. & q.25. retain Perceived impact of the system on the amount of time spent with patients
Q27 Ease of using the system Ranked second highest in importance. Doesn’t correlate > .05 with any item. retain Ease of using the system