Skip to main content

Table 2 Partnership tool review articles downloaded for detailed study

From: An exploration of inter-organisational partnership assessment tools in the context of Australian Aboriginal-mainstream partnerships: a scoping review of the literature

Author Year Aim of the review Methods Study location Audience
Joss N & Keleher H [62] 2011 Reports analysis of online self-assessment partnership tools which have data-generating capacity to determine what they measure and to understand how effective they can be in evaluating collaborative practice. Criteria for analysis developed from literature review to assess the value that partnership tools provide and determine whether they are worth the time and effort to administer and to what extent they generate meaningful data for future decision making. Melbourne, Australia Health promotion and community sector programs
Tools reviewed: The Partnership Analysis Tool (VicHealth Australia); Partnership Self-Assessment Tool (CACSH); The Partnership Assessment Tool (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, UK); Partnership Tool (FaHCSIA, Australia).
Other notes: Tool inclusion criteria: Partnership tools had to be self-administering; and the user should incur no cost. Exclusion criteria: Tools that did not generate evaluation data; tools which incurred a download cost to the users; and tools which provided partnership management templates.
Horton D, Prain G & Thiele G [61] 2009 To explore the current state of knowledge of the actual and potential roles of partnership in international agricultural research for development. Review of research studies, professional evaluation literature, practitioner-oriented reviews, guidelines, and assessment tools, CGIAR reviews, evaluations and policy documents related to partnership. Peru Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research
Tools reviewed: 13 partnership tools reviewed including VicHealth Tool, Nuffield and Markwell.
Other notes: provides comprehensive summaries of a wide range of partnership tools. Assess partnership literature in general without critique on the partnership tools.
Granner ML & Sharpe PA [59] 2004 To identify published measurement tools for assessing coalition or partnership functioning, and to report the available evidence for validity and reliability of each. Review of literature conducted through web-based databases. Internet search through Google search engine to identify tools and reports. Included measures that provide at least a conceptual definition of the construct measured. Columbia, USA Health Education Research
Tools reviewed: 146 measurement scales/indexes were identified from six tools (Assessing your collaboration: a self-evaluation tool by Borden and Perkins; The Plan Quality Index by Butterfoss, Goodman & Wandersman; Evaluation rubric from Center for Prevention Research and development; Community coalitions: a self-assessment tool by Goldstein; Empowerment praxis in community coalitions by McMillan etc; Coalition self-evaluation instrument by National Network for Health; Evaluating Collaboratives: research and potential by Taylor-Powell et al.
Other notes: partnership tools included were dated between 1995 to 2001
Ball R, Forbes T, Parris M & Forsyth L [57] 2010 To apply developed methodology to evaluate both the ‘process’ and ‘outcome’ aspects of three Community Health Partnerships in Central Scotland. Development of a methodology based on Hardy and Hudson’s Partnership Assessment Tool with adapted structure to incorporate the views of stakeholders. A modified tool was developed to evaluate outcomes incorporating interview components and objectives of particular importance to the Scottish Executive. Central Scotland Community Health Partnership
Tool reviewed: Hardy B, Hudson R, and Waddington E (2003) Assessing Strategic Partnerships – The Partnership Assessment Tool. Strategic Partnership Task Force, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Other notes: Reporting positive experience of applying an adapted partnership tool.
Sunderland N, Domalewski D, Kendall E & Armstrong K [84] 2009 Focuses on partnership manager’s observation on the use of a partnership self-evaluation tool in local health partnerships in Australia. A mix of open-ended questions and 7-point rating scales to gather data on partnership manager’s experience in using an adapted partnership tool. Content domains include uptake of partnership tool, uptake of the partnership tool, utility of partnership tool, validity of the partnership tool and future use of the partnership tool. Queensland Australia Australian Local Health Partnerships
Tool reviewed: a tool adapted from the VicHealth Partnership Analysis Tool developed by a private consultant.
Other notes: Empirical study on partnership manager’s experience of using a partnership analysis tool.
Serafin R, Stibbe D, Bustamante C & Schramm C [64] 2008 To assess the ‘how and what’ of what concerns partnership practitioners in evaluating the cross-sector partnerships in which they are involved. The motivation was to identify the ingredients of a successful partnership evaluation and to identify priorities for further research and development of tools for evaluating cross-sector partnerships. A combination of desk research, literature review, questionnaire surveys and face to face interviews. Longdon, UK The Partnership Initiative (TPI)
Tools reviewed: This paper contains a section on selection of tools without reviewing any particular tool.
Other notes: An assertion to justify priority be given for research and development to develop more effective tools, methods, frameworks and approaches for evaluating the totality of performance, benefit and impact of cross-sector partnerships.
Halliday J, Asthana SNM, & Richardson S [60] 2004 To explore the contribution of formal tools to the understanding of partnership drawing on the experience of applying an adapted tool to two Health Action Zone evaluations. Documenting experience. United Kingdom Area-based initiatives such as Health Action Zones.
Tool reviewed: a tool adapted from the Nuffield Partnership Assessment Tool and the Verona Benchmark.
Other notes: Discussion on the experience of applying an adapted tool.