Image: Research
Link: Click here to skip navigational elements
Image: orange spacer
Link: Home Link: About Link: Research Link: Training Link: Dissemination/Technical Assistance
 
Link: What's New
Link: Health Information
Link: Library
Link: Search
Link: Tools
Link: Site Map Link: Archive
Link: Barriers and Strategies Validation Study
Link: Clinic Access Checklist Reliability Study
Link: Health Care Access Intervention Study
Link: Validation Criteria for Health Promotion Study
Link: Ratings of Health Interventions Programs
Link: Review of Health Status Measures Study
Link: Analysis of BRFSS HRQOL Study
Link: Health Status Tools Development Study
  Image: Research

R4 Validation Criteria for Health Promotion Study

Principal Investigators: Charles Drum, JD, PhD; Tom Seekins, PhD

This study will utilize a panel of health promotion and disability experts to develop criteria for evaluating health promotion intervention programs for people with disabilities are acceptable to health promotion researchers, disability advocates, and program implementers. These criteria will be disseminated and used in a subsequent study (R5).

Hypothesis: Criteria developed by expert panel process for evaluating health promotion intervention programs for people with disabilities are acceptable to health promotion researchers, disability advocates, and program implementers.

Study Design: Expert panel process to develop consensus on criteria for evaluating health intervention programs.

Samples: 1) Panel comprised of 12 experts nationally recognized for their expertise in disability and health intervention and/or measurement. 2) Criteria for evidence-based practice (internal validity), translational generalizability of interventions (external validity), and social acceptability of interventions (social validity).
3) 6 external reviewers to assess the panel’s criteria from the perspective of disability and health research (2), disability advocacy (2), and health interventionists (2).

Data Collection and Measurement: Expert Panel Process: We will use an expert panel process in four related studies: the present studies, R4 (Interventions) and R6 (Measurement), and they will form workgroups to guide the work of R5, R7 and R8. The Expert Panel Process is used successfully in a range of service fields to identify and improve practice guidelines, to evaluate and highlight critical research findings, and to suggest priority directions for the future. Examples are the committees of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the Agency for Health Research Quality (AHRQ). With roots in nominal group consensus of the 1960s, it involves the recruitment and participation of informed and involved members who are experts in components of the study topic (Delbeq, Van de Ven A, & Gustafson, 1975; Fink, Kosecoff, Chassin, & Brook, 1984). Through the selection of the participants, the panel represents a wealth of experience and data to inform the decision-making process (Murphy et al., 1998). Experts recruited to serve on the panel for Intervention include: Tom Seekins (Chair), Tamar Heller, Jeff McCubbin, James Rimmer, and Glen White. Panelists for Measurement include Elena Andresen, Brad Cardinal, Glenn Fujiura, and Peg Nosek. Gloria Krahn and Charles Drum will serve on the panel and both resulting work groups. June Kailes will also serve on the panel and provide consultation to the workgroups. We will also invite one panel member from NIDRR and one from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, two agencies already collaborating to reduce health disparities for people with disabilities. Together, these members bring a wealth of expertise in assessment and intervention in disabilities and health to the panel process. Panelists will nominate consultants who can share additional areas of expertise to the full panel or the work groups. Areas in which we anticipate recruiting consultants include health insurance plans, psychometrics, and disability organizations.

Data Analysis Methods: We will use the following procedures modified from those recommended by Jones and Hunter (1995, 2000): 1) The PI will present the charge to the panel and its intended outcomes; 2) panel experts will nominate relevant reading material and external experts to present to the full panel; 3) staff will compile and present all relevant literature to the panelists prior to the initial meeting (evidence-based practice, translation generalizability criteria, social validity recommendations); 4) the panel will discuss and clarify the charge to the group and intended outcomes; 5) each participant will write a brief description of their views about the concepts and criteria; 6) each participant will present one (new) idea to the group, rotating among members until all views are presented; 7) similar ideas will be grouped together, using group discussion and clarification; 8) each participant will privately rank the ideas for appropriateness and applicability; 9) rankings will be presented and discussed to a point of consensus if possible, and to a 2/3 majority vote if consensus cannot reasonably be reached. These procedures will be used to structure a 2 ½ day meeting in the fall or winter of 2004. Experts will convene as one full panel initially, with intervention and measurement specialists sharing their experiences with the full panel for the first day. We anticipate the panel dividing up into its two workgroups for the second day of the meeting to begin their distinct work. The process outlined above will be used to structure the face-to-face meeting, with a committee structure being assumed for subsequent monthly work group meetings. Annual face-to-face meetings are included in the budget for subsequent years. Each workgroup will have one Graduate Research Assistant (GRA) available to staff the workgroup (one with Seekins for Intervention, one at OHSU with Krahn), and will alternate having a postdoctoral fellow assigned to them. The postdoctoral position may be posted for any of the panelists’ sites, depending on expertise needed and availability of supervision of the fellow. The criteria established by the panel will be distributed to the 6 external reviewers for their comments. These will be reviewed and incorporated by the panel. The panel’s modifications will be reviewed by the external reviewers.

Anticipated Findings: A set of criteria for evaluating health promotion and intervention as determined through consensus of the Intervention Workgroup of the Expert Panel. The criteria will be used in R5.

 

 


Feedback

We want your feedback! Please tell us what you think of the information on this page.

Take the short survey!


Home | About | Research | Training | Dissemination/Technical Assistance | Health Info | Library
Search | Tools | Site Map | What's New

© 2004, RRTC Health & Wellness Consortium. All Rights Reserved. Contact webmaster.

Updated 4/15/05