Criterion and definition | Percent |
---|---|
1. Analytic level, e.g., individual, organizational, system | 58.02 |
2. Logical consistency/plausibility, i.e., inclusion of meaningful, face-valid explanations of proposed relationships | 56.13 |
3. Description of a change process, i.e., provides an explanation of how changes in process factors lead to changes in implementation-related outcomes | 53.77 |
4. Empirical support, i.e., use in empirical studies with results relevant to the framework or theory, contributing to cumulative theory-building | 52.83 |
5. Generalizability, i.e., applicability to various disciplines, settings, and populations | 47.17 |
6. Application to a specific setting (e.g., hospitals, schools) or population (e.g., cancer) | 44.34 |
7. Inclusion of change strategies/techniques, i.e., provision of specific method(s) for promoting change in implementation-related processes and/or outcomes | 44.34 |
8. Outcome of interest, i.e., conceptual centrality of the variable to which included constructs are thought to be related | 41.04 |
9. Inclusion of a diagrammatic representation, i.e., elaboration in a clear and useful figure representing the concepts within and their interrelations | 41.04 |
10. Associated research method (e.g., informs qualitative interviews, associated with a valid questionnaire or methodology for constructing one), i.e., recommended or implied method to be used in an empirical study that uses the framework or theory | 40.09 |
11. Process guidance, i.e., provision of a step-by-step approach for application | 38.68 |
12. Disciplinary approval, i.e., frequency of use, popularity, acceptability, and perceptions of influence among a given group of scholars or reviewers, country, funding agencies, etc.; endorsement or recommendation by credible authorities in the field | 33.96 |
13. Explanatory power/testability, i.e., ability to provide explanations around variables and effects; generates hypotheses that can be empirically tested | 32.55 |
14. Simplicity/parsimony, i.e., relatively few assumptions are used to explain effects | 32.08 |
15. Specificity of causal relationships among constructs, i.e., summary, explanation, organization, and description of relationships among constructs | 32.08 |
16. Disciplinary origins, i.e., philosophical foundations | 18.40 |
17. Falsifiability, i.e., verifiable; ability to be supported with empirical data | 15.09 |
18. Uniqueness, i.e., ability to be distinguished from other theories or frameworks | 12.74 |
19. Fecundity, i.e., offers a rich source for generating hypotheses | 9.91 |
None of the above | 0.00 |