Skip to main content

Table 2 CFIR construct definition adaptations for Project TRUST organized by domaina

From: Evaluation of a school-based participatory intervention to improve school environments using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

CFIR Construct TRUST operationalization of construct definition
I. Intervention Characteristics
Adaptability Degree that participatory processes allowed for intervention adaptations to meet stakeholder needs
Complexity Perceived complexity and flexibility of the TRUST intervention components (i.e., professional development, YPAR, and PPAR)
 General Intervention Logistical Complexityb Perceived complexity and flexibility of the TRUST research and evaluation components
Design Quality & Packaging Perceived quality in how TRUST was presented in terms of materials, process, and potential impact/return on investment
II. Outer Setting
Participant Needs & Resources Extent to which school/district understands and is oriented to the needs and preferences of students
Cosmopolitanism Degree to which school leadership is networked with other schools and/or community organizations
External Policy & Incentives External mandates that exerted pressure on schools to participate in TRUST (e.g., school improvement status and other federal, state or district policies)
III. Inner Setting
Social Structural Characteristics School contextual and social organizational components, such as demographics, school structure, degree of staff turnover, and concentration of decision-making autonomy
Networks & Communications Degree to which people involved in TRUST had strong working relationships
 Quality of Formal Communicationsc The nature and quality of formal and informal communications within the school and between TRUST and the school
 Social Capitalc The quality and the extent of relationships within schools and across partnering organizations
Culture School culture regarding student and parent voice
Implementation Climate A school’s capacity to change school practices and/or procedures
 Tension for Change Degree to which leaders see the identified issues as problematic and their openness to address them
 Compatibility Alignment with leadership beliefs about how to address the proposed recommendations, and how TRUST fits with existing school workflows and systems
 Relative Priority Importance of TRUST in comparison to other initiatives
 Organizational Incentives & Rewards Extrinsic incentives that TRUST offered for participants (e.g., awards, salary, performance reviews, stature, respect)
Readiness for Implementation Indicators of school’s commitment to implement TRUST
 Leadership Engagement Commitment, involvement, and accountability of those in school leadership roles with TRUST components
 Available Resources Level of resources within the schools themselves that can be dedicated for TRUST implementation and ongoing operations
 Access to Information & Knowledge Ease of access of school members without direct TRUST affiliation to digestible information about TRUST and how to incorporate it into work tasks
IV. Characteristics of Individuals
Knowledge & Beliefs About the Intervention School leadership and staff familiarity with, attitudes toward, and value placed on TRUST
Agencyd School leadership and staff socioculturally-mediated capacity to implement TRUST components
Individual Stage of Change Stage of change of school leadership and staff as they progress toward skilled, enthusiastic, & sustained use of the intervention
Individual Identification with the Organization How school leadership and staff perceive their relationship and degree of commitment to their school
V. Process
Planning Degree to which implementation methods were developed in advance and the quality of these methods
Engaging Degree to which appropriate individuals inside and external to the school were attracted to and involved with TRUST implementation
 Opinion leaders Individuals in the school who had formal or informal influence on the attitudes and beliefs of their colleagues relative to TRUST implementation
 Formally Appointed Internal Implementation Leaders Individuals within the school who were formally appointed for implementing TRUST
 Champions Individuals who dedicated themselves to supporting, marketing, and driving through TRUST implementation
 External Change Agents Individuals affiliated with an outside entity that formally (& positively) influenced or facilitated TRUST implementation decisions
Executing Degree to which TRUST implementation was carried out according to plans
Reflecting & Evaluating Degree to which participants debriefed throughout TRUST implementation as a means of promoting shared learning and improvements
  1. Bolded text indicates CFIR constructs within each domain; plain text denotes sub-constructs
  2. YPAR Youth Participatory Action Research
  3. PPAR Parent Participatory Action Research
  4. aAdapted from original CFIR construct definitions developed by Damschroder et al. 2009
  5. bNew sub-construct added to the framework
  6. cSub-construct developed from original framework construct definition
  7. dConstruct redefined as “the socioculturally mediated capacity to act” [31] to draw attention to contextual factors that influence an individual’s belief in their own capabilities to execute action within a participatory intervention