The Development of a Questionnaire to Assess Research and Evaluation Capacity-Building

Abstract

This article describes the development of a questionnaire to assess research and evaluation capacity-building support. This support was provided to public health professionals via a capacity-building partnership, the Western Australian Sexual Health and Blood-borne Virus Applied Research and Evaluation Network (SiREN). Evaluating research and evaluation capacity-building initiatives can be challenging due to their complexity. The development of the questionnaire was informed by systems concepts that acknowledged the complex nature of capacity-building, a literature review and consultation and pilot testing with stakeholders. The final questionnaire contains 17 quantitative and seven qualitative questions. Pilot testing found that the questionnaire was easy to understand and acceptable and enabled service users to provide an accurate description of changes that occurred as a result of receiving support. The development of the questionnaire provides insight into how measurement tools to assess capacity-building initiatives can reflect complexity, including the influence of contextual factors, unintended consequences and the non-linear nature of the capacity-building process. The questionnaire could be adapted to evaluate similar capacity-building efforts and the findings used to strengthen capacity-building efforts.

Keywords

evaluation capacity-building survey design research capacity-building Systems thinking public health

What We Already Know

• Research and evaluation capacity is crucial to supporting effective decision-making in public health. Yet, research and evaluation capacity-building programs are not well-examined and there is a need for appropriate and evidence-based measurement tools to examine their impact.

• Evaluating capacity-building programs is challenging due to their complexity. For example, capacity-building programs can target multiple levels of change (e.g. individual, organisational and system), have multiple factors affecting their ability to create change (e.g. staffing and funding changes) and often have a long lag between program implementation and outcomes.

• Applying systems approaches can address some of the challenges associated with evaluating capacity-building programs. Systems concepts can provide new insights into how capacity is built.

The Original Contribution the Article Makes to Theory and/or Practice

• The questionnaire developed in this practice article is the first research and evaluation capacity-building questionnaire that includes process, impact and outcome questions and includes systems thinking concepts in the design.

• The application of systems concepts to the development of the questionnaire provides valuable insight for evaluators interested in incorporating systems approaches into the design of structured measurement tools.

• The questionnaire can be adapted to evaluate other research and evaluation capacity-building programs and the evidence it generates used to strengthen capacity-building efforts.

Introduction

This article describes the development of a questionnaire to assess research and evaluation capacity-building support. Public health professionals require research and evaluation capacity (Brownson et al., 2018; Cooke et al., 2018) and access to relevant evidence for effective decision-making (Edwards et al., 2016). Research and evaluation capacity is broadly defined as the motivation, knowledge, skills, and structures to engage in sustainable research and evaluation practice and apply research and evaluation evidence to decision-making (Cooke, 2005; Labin et al., 2012; Preskill & Boyle, 2008). Recognition of the importance of research and evaluation capacity is growing (Pulford et al., 2020; Schwarzman et al., 2019). Recent examples of research and evaluation capacity-building strategies include training (Ramanadhan et al., 2020), access to research and evaluation tools and resources (Bourgeois et al., 2023), for example, evidence portals, and personalised support in the form of brokers, mentoring or consultancy (Chauveron et al., 2021; Lindeman et al., 2018; Stone-Jovicich et al., 2019). One promising strategy is partnerships between researchers, evaluators and public health professionals (Lobo et al., 2016). These partnerships can strengthen research and evaluation practice and increase evidence-informed decision-making (Tobin et al., 2022b).

Evaluating capacity-building programs is challenging due to their complexity (Cooke et al., 2018; Pulford et al., 2020; Vang et al., 2021). For example, capacity-building programs can target multiple levels of change (e.g. individual, organisational and system) (Cooke et al., 2018; Norton et al., 2016), have multiple factors affecting their ability to elicit change (e.g. staffing and funding changes) (Brownson et al., 2018; Tobin et al., 2022b) and there is often a long lag between program implementation and outcomes (Bourgeois et al., 2018; Cooke et al., 2018; Tobin et al., 2022b). The evaluation of such programs needs to account for these intricacies.

Applying systems approaches can address some of the challenges associated with evaluating capacity-building programs (Klier et al., 2022). Systems thinking is a way of viewing a system that seeks to explore it as a whole, its component parts and the interactions between them (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2019; Peters, 2014). Hawe et al. (2009) has suggested that a systems perspective can improve understanding about how a program interacts with the system in which it is embedded and how the program contributes to change. In a study of evaluation capacity within a network, Grack Nelson et al. (2019) reported that using systems concepts provided a holistic understanding of how capacity was built and provided new insight into how capacity is built. There is value to utilising systems approaches in evaluation and a need for further studies exploring their application (McGill et al., 2021; Roche et al., 2021).

Despite numerous examples of capacity-building initiatives, it is not a well-examined field (Bourgeois et al., 2023; Bowen et al., 2021; Pulford et al., 2020). There is a need for appropriate and evidence-based measurement tools to examine the impact of these programs (Sauter et al., 2020; Schwarzman et al., 2019). Several measurement tools have been developed that assess existing evaluation capacity (Bourgeois & Cousins, 2013; Cousins et al., 2008; Gagnon et al., 2018; Mackay, 1999; Nielsen et al., 2011; Schwarzman et al., 2019; Taylor-Ritzler et al., 2013) and research capacity (Holden et al., 2012; Kothari et al., 2009; Smith et al., 2002; Van Mullem et al., 1999). Schwarzman et al. (2019) and Taylor-Ritzler et al. (2013) developed surveys to assess the evaluation capacity of an organisation, and could be used pre and post implementation of a capacity-building program to assess change. However, these surveys are not designed to examine the processes related to the quality of the implementation of a capacity-building program such as the presence of effective communication and trust, which are important processes to facilitate understanding of how and why a capacity-building program works or does not work.

In addition to assessing existing research and evaluation capacity, there are tools to examine partnerships (Kegler et al., 2020). Relevant to this article are tools to assess partnerships between researchers, community organisations and community members. For example, the Community Impacts of Research Oriented Partnerships (CIROP) questionnaire (King et al., 2009) measures the impacts of research partnerships from the perspective of the community (individuals and organisations). While the CIROP provides a comprehensive assessment of the kinds of changes that research partnerships can achieve, it does not assess the interactions between partners or changes in evaluation capacity. Another tool that focuses on research partnerships is the Partnership Indicators Questionnaire, developed to assess the performance of knowledge creation and exchange partnerships between researchers and government that aim to generate policy-relevant research (Kothari et al., 2011). This tool includes process concepts such as clear leadership and respectful communication. Concepts or outcomes relevant to non-government organisations or evaluation capacity-building, such as increased evaluation skills, are not included. A need remains for measurement tools that are sensitive to the complexity of capacity-building programs.

This article describes the evidence-informed and consultative approach used to develop a questionnaire to evaluate the research and evaluation support delivered by a capacity-building partnership. The development of the questionnaire contributes to addressing the limitations and considerations described earlier, particularly concerning how measurement tools can reflect the complexity of capacity-building programs.

Background and Context

The questionnaire assessed a capacity-building partnership, the Western Australian Sexual Health and Blood-borne Virus Applied Research and Evaluation Network (SiREN). SiREN builds program planning, research and evaluation capacity within public health organisations working to prevent and manage sexually transmissible infections and blood-borne viruses and promote sexual health (the system). This system includes a range of research, clinical, government and non-government organisations staffed by researchers, clinicians, educators, peer-based outreach staff, health promotion practitioners and policymakers.

SiREN utilises strategies operating at the individual, organisational and system level. SiREN strategies include personalised program planning, research and evaluation support; fostering partnerships between research, government and non-government organisations; seeking grant funding; developing and participating in collaborative research and evaluation projects; and creating and sharing a wide variety of resources and services to build research, evaluation and evidence-informed decision-making capacity amongst public health professionals. Management of SiREN is undertaken by a team of five university-based academics alongside a steering group comprising stakeholders from government, research and non-government organisations. Together, they provide input into the strategic direction of SiREN. Detailed descriptions of SiREN have been published previously (Lobo et al., 2016; Tobin et al., 2019, 2022, 2022b).

Questionnaire Purpose

The purpose of the questionnaire was to evaluate the program planning, research and evaluation support provided by SiREN to service users (staff working within the system defined above). Specific examples of the kinds of support the questionnaire was required to assess include writing a manuscript for publication; planning a public health program; creating an evaluation plan; developing a new evaluation method; writing a conference abstract; presenting at conferences; preparing an ethics application; or developing a grant proposal. The provision of this support forms a partnership between SiREN and the service user, as both parties combine their skills and knowledge to develop solutions to a shared concern. SiREN staff who provide this support are university-based with expertise in service delivery, program planning, research and evaluation. The aims of the questionnaire are to:

1. Assess process factors that contribute to the achievement of outcomes and impacts, for example, expectations are met.

2. Identify changes that occurred to research and evaluation capacity, evidence-informed decision-making and program planning.

3. Determine the contribution of SiREN and external influences in achieving these changes.

Methods

The Questionnaire Origin and Development Appraisal Tool (Hamzeh et al., 2019) guided questionnaire development and reporting. The questionnaire was constructed using processes aligned with previous questionnaire development studies (Cousins et al., 2008; Holden et al., 2012; King et al., 2009; Kothari et al., 2009; Palinkas et al., 2016; Taylor-Ritzler et al., 2013) and received ethical approval from the Curtin University Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number: HRE2017-0090). The three key inputs are described below and presented in Figure 1:

1. Findings from a previous study conducted by the authors (Tobin et al., 2022b) informed the conceptual basis of the questionnaire.

2. A literature review to identify existing tools and methods that could be used in the development of the questionnaire.

3. Consultation with the research team; SiREN management team; and SiREN steering group to establish the purpose and general structure of the questionnaire, select questions and assess face validity.

Figure 1.

Questionnaire Development

Input 1 – Conceptual Basis

A previous study conducted by the authors used systems concepts and methods to examine the influence of SiREN on research and evaluation practices (Tobin et al., 2022b). A systems approach was selected to reflect the complexity of the system and SiREN. The previous study (Tobin et al., 2022b) consolidated data collected from a range of sources, including an online survey (n = 104), interviews (n = 17) and a workshop (n = 9). Data were analysed and used to develop two causal loop diagrams, a type of systems thinking model (Sterman, 2006). The authors wanted to develop a measurement tool that could reflect the understanding gained from the application of systems thinking. Table 1 describes these insights and how they were incorporated into the questionnaire design.

Table 1.

Study Findings that Informed the Design of the Questionnaire

Study finding	Implications for the questionnaire
The ability of SiREN to achieve its aims is inextricably linked to existing research and evaluation capacity. For example, if the service user works within an organisation where they are encouraged to undertake research and evaluation, they are more likely to engage with SiREN than if this culture was not present.	Have a way to capture the influence of contextual factors on outcomes.
SiREN and the system in which it is embedded are dynamic, existing in a constant state of change, and therefore, there may be effects that have not yet been identified.	Be flexible enough to capture unintended or unexpected consequences.
The relationship between SiREN and service users affects the kinds of outcomes that can be achieved. Long-term relationships that are built on trust and mutual understanding and combine the knowledge of both parties to address research and evaluation questions, have the potential to lead to greater outcomes when compared to brief interactions.	Have questions that assess the interaction between SiREN and service users.
Linking outcomes back to SiREN can be difficult due to a long-time lag between engagement and effect or the non-linear nature of outcomes.	Have questions that assess the interaction between SiREN and service users, for example, expectations met, and earlier stage changes, for example, knowledge and skills.
Change occurs across the individual, organisational and system level.	Be able to track changes across multiple levels.

In addition, the previous study (Tobin et al., 2022b) identified process, impact and outcome domains to guide the generation of questions. Process domains focused on the interactions that occur between SiREN and the service user during implementation. Outcomes were classified as short-term changes to which SiREN has contributed, such as confidence, knowledge or skills (Funnell & Rogers, 2011). Impacts were defined as longer-term changes that occur after an outcome, such as the creation of evidence (Funnell & Rogers, 2011). These domains are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Process, Outcome and Impact Domains Used to Inform the Development of the Questionnaire

Process domains	Outcome domains	Impact domains
• Expectations of support • Value of information provided by SiREN • Trusting relationship • Ability to work collaboratively	• Program planning, research or evaluation confidence, knowledge or skills • Attitudes towards research or evaluation • Evidence-informed decision-making abilities • Confidence to share research or evaluation findings • Understanding of program • Development of professional networks	• Development of research or evaluation methods • Creation of evidence • Changes to activities, services or programs

Input 2 – Literature Review

A literature review located tools and methods to support development of the questionnaire. Specifically, the search identified studies that developed tools to assess: partnership functioning, or outcomes associated with evidence-informed practice, research capacity or evaluation capacity-building programs. Search terms were developed based on the domains in Table 1 and through consultation with the research team and librarian. Databases searched included Proquest, PsycINFO and CINAHL. Reference lists of included articles were also reviewed to identify relevant studies. Articles were excluded if the questionnaire did not include questions relevant to the domains described in Table 2, was not tested, or could not be administered at an individual level. As the database search mainly identified quantitative measures, the Better Evaluation website (Better Evaluation, 2020) was reviewed to locate relevant qualitative methods. The Better Evaluation website was chosen as it is a freely available knowledge platform that provides information on over 300 evaluation methods and processes (Better Evaluation, 2020).

The literature review identified 12 relevant questionnaires, which were used to develop a pool of questions. These questions were reviewed to determine which ones best captured the domains presented in Table 2. The final questionnaire used questions from five questionnaires (Bronstein, 2002; Cousins et al., 2008; Jones & Barry, 2011a, 2011b; King et al., 2009). In addition, two qualitative evaluation methods were identified from the Better Evaluation website (Dart & Davies, 2003; Earl et al., 2001). These qualitative methods were used to address some of the implications described in Table 1 (e.g. capturing the influence of contextual factors). Where an appropriate item could not be located, a new question was developed through consultation with the research team. From this process, a draft questionnaire was developed.

Input 3 – Consultation

Group or individual consultation with members of the research team (n = 4), SiREN management team (n = 5) and SiREN steering group (n = 7) was used to refine the draft questionnaire and assess its face validity. These groups were selected for their expertise. At the time this study was undertaken, three members of the research team were members of the SiREN management team (RL, GC and JH), and two were paid SiREN employees (RL and RT). All research and management team members had experience in public health-related evaluation, research, capacity-building and questionnaire development. All groups had an in-depth understanding of SiREN’s activities and evaluation needs. Assessing face validity with a small group of experts, numbering between 9 and 24, has been used in similar studies (Sauter et al., 2020; Schwarzman et al., 2019). Feedback from all groups was sought on the selection of measurement method and timing of administration. The SiREN steering group provided feedback on general evaluation considerations. Feedback from the research and SiREN management team included inclusion and exclusion of questions; sequencing of questions; face validity of selected questions; clarity of the questionnaire instructions and questions; and the response formats (e.g. Likert scale choices).

An online questionnaire was identified as the most practical measurement tool to enable the efficient collection and analysis of data and minimise respondent burden. Findings from the consultation suggested that the inclusion of process questions was important in case outcomes were not achieved due to influences outside the control of SiREN (e.g. service user priorities changing or staff changes). Feedback on the timing of the questionnaire was that it should be administered immediately after support had ceased. Support provided by SiREN can be provided from a few weeks to over a year. Therefore, it was agreed that administering the questionnaire immediately after support ceased would allow enough time for most changes to occur and reduce issues with recall.

Pilot Testing

To assess content validity, individuals who had previously engaged with SiREN were purposefully selected to pilot test the questionnaire via an online survey. Assessing content validity with experts and refining the questionnaire based on feedback is recommended practice (Haynes et al., 1995). Criteria for inclusion were a current SiREN steering group member, received research or evaluation support from SiREN, or partnered with SiREN to undertake research or evaluation. Pilot testing assessed the usability and acceptability of the questionnaire. Specifically, it asked respondents to provide feedback on the clarity of the instructions and questions and the accuracy of questionnaire completion timing. If participants had received support from SiREN within the past 12 months, it asked if the questionnaire enabled them to provide an accurate description of changes that had occurred. Invitations to participate were delivered to participants by email which contained a link to review the questionnaire and a link to the pilot testing.

Eighteen individuals were invited to participate, and 16 responses were received (89% response rate). Respondents were from non-government (n = 11, 69%), peak body (n = 3, 19%) and government (n = 2, 12%) organisations. All participants indicated that survey instructions and questions were clear. More than half had requested research or evaluation support from SiREN in the last 12 months (n = 9, 56%). Of these participants, all (n = 9, 100%) agreed that survey questions enabled them to provide an accurate picture of support and any resultant changes. Of those who had requested support, one (11%) reported that some of the questions were irrelevant to the support received. Three respondents (18%) suggested minor amendments to question ordering and wording (e.g. moving the first question to the third question). Questionnaire completion was estimated at 5 minutes. The majority (n = 13, 81%) agreed that the time taken to complete the survey was acceptable. Three participants (19%) reported that more time was required; as a result, this estimation was amended to 10 minutes to capture respondent burden more accurately.

The Questionnaire

The final Research and Evaluation Capacity-building Questionnaire (RECB-Q) contains 17 quantitative and seven qualitative questions that assess the processes, outcomes and impacts of the research and evaluation support provided by SiREN. Of the 24 questions, 14 were based on pre-existing tools with the remaining questions (n = 10) developed by the study team. The questions and their sources are described in the text below. The complete questionnaire is available in Supplemental Table 1.

Process Questions

The RECB-Q contains four process questions that assess the interactions between SiREN and the service user: expectations being met, relevance of information provided by SiREN, establishment of trust, and working together to effectively problem solve. Response options are always, often, sometimes, rarely and never. Questions relating to process factors such as the development of trust and effectively working together to problem solve were adapted from Jones and Barry’s trust and synergy scales (2011a, 2011b). These questions are shorter-term indicators that can determine if SiREN is on track to achieve change.

Quantitative Questions Assessing Outcomes and Impacts

Eleven questions assess the outcomes and impacts that occurred as a result of receiving support. Evidence-informed decision-making and research and evaluation capacity-related quantitative questions were modified from questionnaires developed by Cousins et al. (2008) and King et al. (2009) or were developed in consultation with the research team. While measured at the individual and organisational level, they can also indicate changes occurring at the system level, for example, networks, funding and culture.

Outcomes include changes to program planning, evidence-informed decision-making, research and evaluation confidence, knowledge and skills; receptiveness to new research and evaluation opportunities; confidence in sharing work (e.g. at conferences); the development of professional networks; and understanding of how their program fits or contributes to the broader response to sexual health and blood-borne virus issues. This last item reflected the increase in clarity around program purpose that is acquired from the provision of program planning and evaluation support.

Impacts include the development of research or evaluation methods; improvements in the organisation’s program planning, evaluation, or research-related processes, policies or practices; and changes in the activities, services or programs provided by the organisation. To capture the importance of SiREN in supporting change, service users are asked if the support led to outcomes that they, or their organisation, could not have achieved otherwise. This question was adapted from Bronstein (2002) and Jones and Barry (2011a).

Quantitative question response options are increased/decreased, no change or agree/disagree. These were chosen to allow service users to identify whether or not a change occurred, rather than assigning it a value (e.g. strongly agree, agree). This acknowledges that the degree of change depends on a wide variety of factors, many of which are outside SiREN’s control, including pre-existing skills and organisational capacity. The response option not relevant to the support received was also included as the support provided by SiREN is individualised; therefore, some of the changes included in the questions will not be relevant to all service users. For example, a service user who received assistance with developing an evaluation method is unlikely to see an increase in the development of their professional networks.

Qualitative Methods regarding Critical Changes

Qualitative questions aim to elicit story-based responses about important changes that occurred. The Most Significant Change (Dart & Davies, 2003) and Outcome Mapping (Earl et al., 2001) techniques informed the development of qualitative questions about outcomes that were valued by service users and SiREN’s contribution to those changes. To capture unintended or unexpected consequences, service users are asked to describe changes not listed in the previous quantitative section. They are then asked to describe the most valuable change that occurred, why the change was important to their work, how support provided by SiREN contributed to this change, and what other factors contributed to the change. These questions enable service users to describe what change they found most important and why, rather than selecting from a pre-determined list of changes. In addition, the response to these questions enables SiREN to differentiate between its influence and the effect of contextual factors on changes that occurred.

To strengthen the credibility of reported changes, supporting documentation of the changes that occurred (e.g. evaluation plan) is requested from respondents (Earl et al., 2001; Mayne, 2008). Final questions ask service users if they would have liked the support to have been different in any way, have any other feedback and would be happy to be contacted to discuss their feedback.

Analysis of Questionnaire Responses

The quantitative questions of the questionnaire generate ordinal data, which require different analytical approaches compared to continuous data (Lalla, 2017). These data can be summarised using descriptive statistics such as frequency distributions, mode, median and range. For larger sample sizes, appropriate inferential statistical tests for ordinal data may also be applied, depending on the research aims and design. Common tests include the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for paired samples and the Mann-Whitney U Test for independent samples (Lalla, 2017).

Qualitative data can be analysed by following the steps in the Most Significant Change technique described by Lennie (2011). This method involves collaboratively reviewing participant narratives within predefined domains of change (e.g. skills in evaluation methods) and selecting the stories that reflect the most meaningful changes for the organisation (Lennie, 2011).

Discussion

The RECB-Q was designed to assess the processes, outcomes and impacts of research and evaluation support provided by a capacity-building partnership (SiREN). To the authors’ knowledge, the RECB-Q is the first research and evaluation capacity-building questionnaire that includes process, impact and outcome questions and explicitly links systems concepts to design. Pilot testing demonstrated that the questionnaire was easy to understand, acceptable and enabled service users to provide an accurate description of the support they received from SiREN and any changes that occurred as a result.

To date, tools to assess capacity-building and partnerships have focused on pre-determined quantitative indicators (Cousins et al., 2008; King et al., 2009; Kothari et al., 2009, 2014). While the RECB-Q does include quantitative questions, its crucial point of difference from other tools is the inclusion of complexity-sensitive questions. These qualitative questions ask respondents about a change they found most important to their practice and why it was important. These questions were modified from the Most Significant Change technique (Dart & Davies, 2003). The inclusion of these questions adds value to the RECB-Q in two key ways. Firstly, these questions concentrate on what SiREN service users find most important rather than what SiREN values. This understanding can inform continuous improvement as activities can be refocused on how to enhance value from a service user’s perspective. Secondly, the support provided by SiREN and the sexual health and blood-borne virus system in which it operates is dynamic. Therefore, new impacts and outcomes may emerge that have not yet been identified. These qualitative questions can identify unanticipated changes which can be used to inform new directions, strengthening SiREN’s effectiveness.

Evaluation often ignores complexity through de-contextualising outcomes, limiting understanding of how change is achieved (Zappala, 2020). The RECB-Q attempted to address this limitation, seeking to understand the role of context by including questions that ask how SiREN and external factors contributed to the attainment of outcomes. This can establish credible causal links between observed changes and program strategies (Earl et al., 2001; Mayne, 2012). In addition, it builds an understanding of how contextual factors interact with SiREN to constrain or amplify outcomes (Hawe et al., 2009). This is an important consideration when evaluating capacity-building programs as external factors (e.g. organisational culture) influence their ability to elicit change (Brownson et al., 2018; Tobin et al., 2022b).

Another point of difference of the RECB-Q from other capacity-building measurement tools is that it contains process questions in addition to impact and outcome questions. The inclusion of process questions, such as the development of trust, is important as they affect the ability of SiREN to achieve its intended outcomes. While outcomes may differ depending on the kind of support requested or contextual influences, the processes of establishing trust and meeting expectations occur consistently. These are regularities or patterns in systems thinking and are beneficial points to monitor for evaluation (Dyehouse et al., 2009). Recent capacity-building studies have emphasised that capacity-building is more likely to succeed when the relationship between those building capacity and program staff is responsive, trusting and respectful. This is because a solid relationship facilitates learning through the free exchange of knowledge (Gibson & Robichaud, 2020). Therefore, process questions can act as initial indicators of success as they occur before the longer-term impacts, such as creating evidence. In this way, monitoring processes can assist with addressing challenges with the dynamic nature of capacity-building and the lag time between implementation and changes becoming evident.

The evaluation field is rapidly embracing complexity-sensitive approaches in various forms (Gates, 2016; McGill et al., 2021). At the same time, researchers increasingly acknowledge the complex nature of capacity-building (Hanlon et al., 2018; Lawrenz et al., 2018; Pulford et al., 2020). There are synergies between complexity-sensitive methods and the evaluation of capacity-building programs (Lawrenz et al., 2018). For example, there is a need for greater understanding of the mechanisms of action of capacity-building programs (Lamarre et al., 2020); complexity-sensitive methods may be able to address this by exploring context and causal relationships (McGill et al., 2020). Evaluators and researchers wishing to build a stronger evidence base of how capacity-building programs work could add systems concepts and methods to their toolkits, a call echoed in health promotion and public health practice more broadly (Gates, 2016; McGill et al., 2021).

Process questions included in the RECB-Q focused only on factors identified as essential to achieving outcomes for SiREN. There are no established process indicators for capacity-building programs that address both research and evaluation. Therefore, it is unclear if the RECB-Q process questions are reflective of similar capacity-building programs. The exploration of processes that support other research and evaluation capacity-building programs is warranted and would provide deeper insight into how to design and implement such efforts to maximise effectiveness. The relationally focused process factors included in the RECB-Q correlate with previously identified research partnership literature, such as the development of trust and good communication processes (Luger et al., 2020). Several tools have been constructed to assess research partnership functioning that could be used as a starting point to expand on the measures included in the RECB-Q (Arora et al., 2015; Kothari et al., 2011; Marek et al., 2014).

A key strength of the RECB-Q development was the empirical and collaborative approach. Similar to other questionnaire development studies (King et al., 2009; Kothari et al., 2009; Taylor-Ritzler et al., 2013), the creation of the RECB-Q was based on multiple methods, which increased its conceptual and methodological quality (Hamzeh et al., 2019; Haynes et al., 1995). The collaborative expert-led approach ensured appropriateness and relevance to the needs of SiREN and its service users. Its brief, online format makes it acceptable to service users and reduces the time taken for SiREN to collect and analyse data. The RECB-Q may be adapted to evaluate other similar capacity-building projects. While many of its questions align with what is known in the literature, it was developed based on a single capacity-building project. Therefore, before evaluating other programs, it should be tested and modified as required. The number of organisations that SiREN engages with is relatively small, consisting of approximately 15 research, government and non-government agencies. The size of SiREN and the local sexual health and blood-borne virus workforce limited the sample available for pilot testing and precluded the use of tests of statistical significance. The study findings that informed the generation of the questionnaire items were also derived from a small sample (n = 17) (Tobin et al., 2022b). This may have reduced the number and type of questionnaire items generated. Further reliability and validity testing, including test-retest reliability, is recommended (Hinkin, 1995) with a larger sample size from other health-related fields.

Conclusion

The advancement of research and evaluation capacity-building in public health requires the development of evidence-informed evaluation tools. The RECB-Q is an evaluation tool that assesses processes, outcomes and impacts of research and evaluation support provided by a capacity-building partnership. It was informed by systems concepts and reflects the dynamic and complex nature of capacity-building. The RECB-Q addresses complexity through the inclusion of process indicators, consideration of contextual influences and capturing unanticipated outcomes. Applying systems concepts to the development of the RECB-Q provides insight for evaluators interested in incorporating systems approaches into the design of structured evaluation tools. The RECB-Q can be adapted to evaluate other research and evaluation capacity-building programs and the evidence it generates will be used to strengthen capacity-building efforts.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - The Development of a Questionnaire to Assess Research and Evaluation Capacity-Building

Supplemental Material for The Development of a Questionnaire to Assess Research and Evaluation Capacity-Building by Tobin Rochelle, Hallett Jonathan, Crawford Gemma, Maycock Bruce Richard and Lobo Roanna in Evaluation Journal of Australasia

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Rochelle Tobin

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Curtin University of Technology; Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship; and Sexual Health and Blood-borne Virus Applied Research and Evaluation Network (SiREN).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Arora

P. G.

Krumholz

L. S.

Guerra

Leff

S. S.

(2015). Measuring community-based participatory research partnerships: The initial development of an assessment instrument. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 9(4), 549–560. https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2015.0077

Better Evaluation . (2020). Approaches. https://www.betterevaluation.org/en/approaches

Bourgeois

Cousins

J. B.

(2013). Understanding dimensions of organizational evaluation capacity. American Journal of Evaluation, 34(3), 299–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214013477235

Bourgeois

Lemire

S. T.

Fierro

L. A.

Castleman

A. M.

Cho

(2023). Laying a solid foundation for the next generation of evaluation capacity building: Findings from an integrative review. American Journal of Evaluation, 44(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/10982140221106991

Bourgeois

Simmons

Buetti

(2018). Building evaluation capacity in Ontario's public health units: Promising practices and strategies. Public Health, 159, 89–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2018.01.031

Bowen

Botting

Graham

I. D.

Effective Partnerships In Canadian Health Research Research/Advisory Team

T. B. A. M.

(2021). Re-Imagining health research partnership in a post-COVID world: A response to recent commentaries. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 10(1), 39–41. https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2020.69

Bronstein

L. R.

(2002). Index of interdisciplinary collaboration. Social Work Research, 26(2), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/26.2.113

Brownson

R. C.

Fielding

J. E.

Green

L. W.

(2018). Building capacity for evidence-based public health: Reconciling the pulls of practice and the push of research. Annual Review of Public Health, 39, 27–53. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-014746

Cabrera

(2019). What is systems thinking? In Spector

M. J.

Lockee

B. B.

Childress

M. D.

(Eds.), Learning, design, and technology: An international compendium of theory, research, practice, and policy (pp. 1–28). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_100-1

10.

Chauveron

L. M.

Urban

J. B.

Samtani

Cox

Moorman

Hargraves

Buckley

Linver

M. R.

(2021). Promoting evaluation in youth character development through enhanced evaluation capacity building: Empirical findings from the PACE project. New Directions for Evaluation, 2021(169), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20447

11.

Cooke

(2005). A framework to evaluate research capacity building in health care. BMC Family Practice, 6(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-6-44

12.

Cooke

Gardois

Booth

(2018). Uncovering the mechanisms of research capacity development in health and social care: A realist synthesis. Health Research Policy and Systems, 16(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2018.01.031

13.

Cousins

J. B.

Elliott

Amo

Bourgeois

Chouinard

Goh

S. C.

Lahey

(2008). Organizational capacity to do and use evaluation: Results of a pan-Canadian survey of evaluators. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 23(3), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.0023.002

14.

Dart

Davies

(2003). A dialogical, story-based evaluation tool: The Most Significant Change Technique. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(2), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/109821400302400202

15.

Dyehouse

Bennett

Harbor

Childress

Dark

(2009). A comparison of linear and systems thinking approaches for program evaluation illustrated using the Indiana Interdisciplinary GK-12. Evaluation and Program Planning, 32(3), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.03.001

16.

Earl

Carden

Smutylo

(2001). Outcome mapping: Building learning and reflection into development programs. IDRC. https://www.idrc.ca/en/book/outcome-mapping-building-learning-and-reflection-development-programs

17.

Edwards

Stickney

Milat

Campbell

Thackway

(2016). Building research and evaluation capacity in population health: The NSW health approach. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 27(3), 264–267. https://doi.org/10.1071/HE16045

18.

Funnell

S. C.

Rogers

P. J.

(2011). Purposeful program theory. Jossey-Bass.

19.

Gagnon

Aubry

Cousins

J. B.

Goh

S. C.

Elliott

(2018). Validation of the evaluation capacity in organizations questionnaire. Evaluation and Program Planning, 68, 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.01.002

20.

Gates

E. F.

(2016). Making sense of the emerging conversation in evaluation about systems thinking and complexity science. Evaluation and Program Planning, 59, 62–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.08.004

21.

Gibson

Robichaud

(2020). Evaluating dancing with Parkinson's: Reflections from the perspective of a community organization. Evaluation and Program Planning, 80, Article 101449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.05.010

22.

Grack Nelson

King

J. A.

Lawrenz

Reich

Bequette

Pattison

Kunz Kollmann

Illes

Cohn

Iacovelli

Cardiel

C. L. B.

Ostgaard

Goss

Beyer

Causey

Sinkey

Francisco

(2019). Using a complex adaptive systems perspective to illuminate the concept of evaluation capacity building in a network. American Journal of Evaluation, 40(2), 214–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214018773877

23.

Hamzeh

Kaur

Bush

P. L.

Hudon

Schuster

Vedel

Hong

Q. N.

Pluye

(2019). Towards a comprehensive questionnaire origin and development appraisal tool: A literature review and a modified nominal group. Education for Information, 35(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-180216

24.

Hanlon

Semrau

Alem

Abayneh

Abdulmalik

Docrat

Evans-Lacko

Gureje

Jordans

Lempp

Mugisha

Petersen

Shidhaye

Thornicroft

(2018). Evaluating capacity-building for mental health system strengthening in low- and middle-income countries for service users and caregivers, service planners and researchers. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 27(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796017000440

25.

Hawe

Bond

Butler

(2009). Knowledge theories can inform evaluation practice: What can a complexity lens add? New Directions for Evaluation, 124, 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.316

26.

Haynes

S. N.

Richard

Kubany

E. S.

(1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 238–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.238

27.

Hinkin

T. R.

(1995). A Review of Scale Development Practices in the Study of Organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967–988. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639502100509

28.

Holden

Pager

Golenko

Ware

R. S.

(2012). Validation of the research capacity and culture (RCC) tool: Measuring RCC at individual, team and organisation levels. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 18(1), 62–67. https://doi.org/10.1071/PY10081

29.

Jones

Barry

M. M.

(2011a). Developing a scale to measure synergy in health promotion partnerships. Global Health Promotion, 18(2), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1757975911404762

30.

Jones

Barry

M. M.

(2011b). Developing a scale to measure trust in health promotion partnerships. Health Promotion International, 26(4), 484–491. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dar007

31.

Kegler

M. C.

Halpin

S. N.

Butterfoss

F. D.

(2020). Evaluation methods commonly used to assess effectiveness of community coalitions in public health: Results from a scoping review. New Directions for Evaluation, 2020(165), 139–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20402

32.

King

Servais

Kertoy

Specht

Currie

Rosenbaum

Law

Forchuk

Chalmers

Willoughby

(2009). A measure of community members’ perceptions of the impacts of research partnerships in health and social services. Evaluation and Program Planning, 32(3), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.02.002

33.

Klier

S. D.

Nawrotzki

R. J.

Salas-Rodríguez

Harten

Keating

C. B.

Katina

P. F.

(2022). Grounding evaluation capacity development in systems theory. Evaluation, 28(2), 231–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/13563890221088871

34.

Kothari

Edwards

Hamel

Judd

(2009). Is research working for you? Validating a tool to examine the capacity of health organizations to use research. Implementation Science: IS, 4(36). https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-4-46

35.

Kothari

MacLean

Edwards

Hobbs

(2011). Indicators at the interface: Managing policymaker-researcher collaboration. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 9(3), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2011.16

36.

Kothari

Sibbald

Wathen

(2014). Evaluation of partnerships in a transnational family violence prevention network using an integrated knowledge translation and exchange model: A mixed methods study. Health Research Policy and Systems, 12, 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-12-25

37.

Labin

S. N.

Duffy

J. L.

Meyers

D. C.

Wandersman

Lesesne

C. A.

(2012). A research synthesis of the evaluation capacity building literature. American Journal of Evaluation, 33(3), 307–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214011434608

38.

Lalla

(2017). Fundamental characteristics and statistical analysis of ordinal variables: A review. Quality & Quantity, 51(1), 435–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0314-5

39.

Lamarre

D’Avernas

Raffoul

Riley

Jain

(2020). A rapid review of evaluation capacity building strategies for chronic disease prevention. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 35(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.61270

40.

Lawrenz

Kollmann

E. K.

King

J. A.

Bequette

Pattison

Nelson

A. G.

Cohn

Cardiel

C. L.

Iacovelli

Eliou

G. O.

Goss

Causey

Sinkey

Beyer

Francisco

(2018). Promoting evaluation capacity building in a complex adaptive system. Evaluation and Program Planning, 69, 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.04.005

41.

Lennie

(2011). The most significant change technique: A manual for M&E staff and others at equal access. https://www.betterevaluation.org/sites/default/files/EA_PM%2526E_toolkit_MSC_manual_for_publication.pdf

42.

Lindeman

P. T.

Bettin

Beach

L. B.

Adames

C. N.

Johnson

A. K.

Kern

Stonehouse

Greene

G. J.

Phillips II

(2018). Evaluation capacity building—results and reflections across two years of a multisite empowerment evaluation in an HIV prevention context. Evaluation and Program Planning, 71, 83–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.09.001

43.

Lobo

Crawford

Hallett

Laing

Mak

D. B.

Jancey

Rowell

McCausland

Bastian

Sorenson

Tilley

P. J. M.

Yam

Comfort

Brennan

Doherty

(2016). A research and evaluation capacity building model in Western Australia. Health Promotion International, 33(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daw088

44.

Luger

T. M.

Hamilton

A. B.

True

(2020). Measuring community‐engaged research contexts, processes, and outcomes: A mapping review. The Milbank Quarterly, 98(2), 493–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12458

45.

Mackay

(1999). Evaluation capacity development: A diagnostic guide and action framework. World Bank. Operations Evaluation Department. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/807321468765312873/016824232_200309275053013/additional/multi-page.pdf

46.

Marek

L. I.

Brock

D. J. P.

Savla

(2014). Evaluating collaboration for effectiveness: Conceptualization and measurement. American Journal of Evaluation, 36(1), 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214014531068

47.

Mayne

(2008). Contribution analysis: An approach to exploring cause and effect. The Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative. https://www.betterevaluation.org/resources/guides/contribution_analysis/ilac_brief

48.

Mayne

(2012). Contribution analysis: Coming of age? Evaluation, 18(3), 270–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389012451663

49.

McGill

Penney

Egan

White

Meier

Whitehead

Lock

Anderson De Cuevas

Smith

Savona

Rutter

Marks

De Vocht

Cummins

Popay

Petticrew

(2021). Evaluation of public health interventions from a complex systems perspective: A research methods review. Social Science & Medicine, 272, Article 113697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113697

50.

McGill

Marks

Penney

Petticrew

Egan

(2020). Qualitative process evaluation from a complex systems perspective: A systematic review and framework for public health evaluators. PLoS Medicine, 17(11), Article e1003368. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003368

51.

Nielsen

S. B.

Lemire

Skov

(2011). Measuring evaluation capacity—results and implications of a Danish Study. American Journal of Evaluation, 32(3), 324–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214010396075

52.

Norton

Milat

Edwards

Giffin

(2016). Narrative review of strategies by organizations for building evaluation capacity. Evaluation and Program Planning, 58, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.04.004

53.

Palinkas

L. A.

Garcia

A. R.

Aarons

G. A.

Finno-Velasquez

Holloway

I. W.

Mackie

T. I.

Leslie

L. K.

Chamberlain

(2016). Measuring use of research evidence: The structured interview for evidence use. Research on Social Work Practice, 26(5), 550–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731514560413

54.

Peters

D. H.

(2014). The application of systems thinking in health: Why use systems thinking? Health Research Policy and Systems, 12(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-12-51

55.

Preskill

Boyle

(2008). A multidisciplinary model of evaluation capacity building. American Journal of Evaluation, 29(4), 443–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214008324182

56.

Pulford

Price

Amegee Quach

Bates

(2020). Measuring the outcome and impact of research capacity strengthening initiatives: A review of indicators used or described in the published and grey literature. F1000Research, 9, 517. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.24144.1

57.

Ramanadhan

Aronstein

Martinez-Dominguez

Xuan

Viswanath

(2020). Designing capacity-building supports to promote evidence-based programs in community-based organizations working with underserved populations. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, 14(2), 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2020.0027

58.

Roche

Brown

Clune

Shields

Lewis

(2021). Thinking with complexity in evaluation: A case study review. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 21(3), 146–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X211008263

59.

Sauter

Lindacher

Rueter

Curbach

Loss

(2020). How health promoters can assess capacity building processes in setting-based approaches-Development and testing of a monitoring instrument. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(2), 407. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17020407

60.

Schwarzman

Bauman

Gabbe

B. J.

Rissel

Shilton

Smith

B. J.

(2019). Understanding the factors that influence health promotion evaluation: The development and validation of the evaluation practice analysis survey. Evaluation and Program Planning, 74, 76–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.03.002

61.

Smith

Wright

Morgan

Dunleavey

Moore

(2002). The 'research spider': A simple method of assessing research experience. Primary Health Care Research and Development, 3(3), 139–140. https://doi.org/10.1191/1463423602pc102xx

62.

Sterman

J. D.

(2006). Learning from evidence in a complex world. American Journal of Public Health, 96(3), 505–514. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2005.066043

63.

Stone-Jovicich

Percy

McMillan

Turner

J. A.

Chen

White

(2019). Evaluating monitoring, evaluation and learning initiatives in the New Zealand and Australian agricultural research and innovation systems: The MEL2 framework. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 19(1), 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x18823567

64.

Taylor-Ritzler

Suarez-Balcazar

Garcia-Iriarte

Henry

D. B.

Balcazar

F. E.

(2013). Understanding and measuring evaluation capacity: A model and instrument validation study. American Journal of Evaluation, 34(2), 190–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214012471421

65.

Tobin

Crawford

Hallett

Maycock

B. R.

Lobo

(2022a). Critical factors that affect the functioning of a research and evaluation capacity building partnership: A causal loop diagram. PLOS One, 17(1), Article e0262125. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262125

66.

Tobin

Crawford

Hallett

Maycock

B. R.

Lobo

(2022b). Utilizing causal loop diagramming to explore a research and evaluation capacity building partnership. Frontiers in Public Health, 31(10), Article 857918. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.857918

67.

Tobin

Hallett

Lobo

Maycock

B. R.

(2019). Taking a systems approach to explore the impacts and outcomes of a research and evaluation capacity building partnership: A protocol. BMJ Open, 9(9), Article e026706. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026706

68.

Vang

Moore

Nicklin

(2021). Applying a systems and complexity lens to building evaluation capacity: Learning from a multicountry donor’s experience. New Directions for Evaluation, 2021(170), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20463

69.

Van Mullem

Burke

L. J.

Dohmeyer

Farrell

Harvey

John

Kraly

Rowley

Sebern

Twite

Zapp

(1999). Strategic planning for research use in nursing practice. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 29(12), 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005110-199912000-00008

70.

Zappala

(2020). Meaningful evaluation: A holistic and systemic approach to understanding and assessing outcomes. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12(2-3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.5130/ccs.v12.i2-3.7034

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.53 MB