# **Survey** Researchers wishing to use, adapt, or modify this instrument in their own URE Repository project should 'fork' this component, edit the forked survey instrument as appropriate, and link the modified survey to their main project describing their work. --- ## Item and Domain Generation Item generation and domain identification proceeded in four phases. 1. *Literature review:* The research team developed a set of questions based on a review of the literature on social and knowledge exchange and interorganizational collaboration. 2. *Semi-structured interview and focus groups:* Interview and focus group data were collected from 64 California child welfare directors, probation officers, and mental health department directors or consultants. 3. *Community Development Teams (CDT) Meetings:* Videotapes of CDT meetings were analyzed by members of the research team. 4. *Item generation:* Items were developed based on information gathered. *Literature review:* See article for results of review. The literature review included three types of studies: - Examination of the development of shared understandings of the principles and practice of research and clinical practice among researchers and practitioners - Studies of knowledge exchange between researchers and practitioners/policymakers - Collaborations between researchers and practitioners in community-based participatory research and research-practice partnerships. The literature highlighted both outcomes of exchange (knowledge, attitudes, behaviors) and process of exchange (collaboration focus, formality, frequency). # *Semi-structured interviews and focus groups:* The semi-structured interview and focus group centered on knowledge and implementation of TFCO and other EBPs at the county level. Participants were asked about sources of information about EBPs, acquisition and use of research evidence in deciding whether to implement EBPs, collaborations with researchers and other agencies, and the nature of these collaborations in the context of the CAL-OH study and other efforts to implement EBPs. Specifically, participants were asked to identify what made for a successful versus an unsuccessful collaboration and what impacts the collaboration had on their knowledge of and attitudes towards EBPs in general and TFCO in particular, and whether the collaboration led to any specific changes in their own practice. A methodology of ‘Coding Consensus, Co-occurrence, and Comparison’ outlined by Willms and colleagues and rooted in Grounded Theory (that is, theory derived from data and then illustrated by characteristic examples of data) was used to analyze semi-structured interviews. Audio-recorded interviews and the focus group session were transcribed and reviewed by three investigators, who developed lists of codes individually. These codes were subsequently discussed, matched and then integrated into a single codebook. Each text was independently coded by at least two investigators, and disagreements in assignment or description of codes was resolved through discussion between investigators and enhanced definition of codes. The final list of codes, or codebook, constructed through a consensus of team members, consisted of a numbered list of themes, issues, accounts of behaviors, and opinions that related to organizational and system characteristics that influence interorganizational collaboration and implementation of TFCO and other EBPs. Inter-rater reliability in the assignment of specific codes to specific transcript segments was assessed for a subset of randomly selected pages from 10 transcripts. For all coded text statements, the coders agreed on the codes 91% (range = 88%–94%) of the time, indicating good reliability in qualitative research. The computer program QSR NVivo was used for coding and generating a series of categories arranged in a tree-like structure connecting text segments as separate categories of codes or ‘nodes’. These nodes and trees were used to further the process of axial and pattern coding to examine the association between different a priori and emergent categories related to the topics of collaboration, use of research evidence, and exchange of knowledge, attitudes and practices in the context of EBP implementation in general and implementation of TFCO in particular. # *Community development teams (CDT) meetings:* Videotaped interactions among representatives from the two intermediary organizations (California Institute of Mental Health and Center for Innovative Practices), the treatment developer, and representatives of participating county agencies were coded to assess levels of collaboration, communication and compromise among stakeholders involved in the process of implementing an EBP. Using a system for coding micro-social interactions developed by Reid, we then coded interactions that occurred during these events. All audio and videotapes were coded to derive measures of the process of exchanges, including working together, understanding one another, showing respect for one another, level of commitment, and asking and answering questions. Reliability of coding performed by three different coders and procedures for creation of themes based on codes were conducted in the same manner as with the data from the interviews and focus group described above. *Item generation:* Information from the interviews and focus group and CDT meetings was then used to generate a 15-item instrument, 7 items assessing the interactions themselves and 8 items assessing changes in knowledge, attitudes and behaviors resulting from the interactions. The CEI includes questions concerning the extent to which he/she has contributed to these activities and the extent to which his/her agency has changed as a result of the cultural exchanges. All items were measured on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 7 (A great deal). --- ## Survey Administration #### **Administration Format** Web-based. #### **Survey Length** Single administration, taking approximately 15-20 minutes to complete. --- ## Survey Items and Structure ### *Preamble:* This set of questions asks about the exchange of ideas between you and collaborators. You may have extensive contacts with these groups or maybe very little. Please answer in the way that best describes your interactions. Complete a set of questions for each collaborator you have had on this project. Using a scale of 1-7 with 1 = not at all and 7 = a great deal, please answer the following questions. --- ## **Scale 1 (Exchange Process)** **Component Item # = 1.1 - 1.7** **Component Question Type = Likert Scale** **Component Likert Scale = Scale Points = 7; Anchor Values = 1(not at all) - 7(a great deal)** - **1.1** I feel like we are working well together to implement something in my county/state - **1.2** I feel like we understand one another - **1.3** I feel like we respect one another - **1.4** I feel like I am devoting a lot of time and energy to maintain this collaboration - **1.5** I feel like they are devoting a lot of time and energy to maintain this collaboration - **1.6** I feel like they answer all my questions - **1.7** I feel like I answer all their questions --- ## **Scale 2 (Exchange Output)** **Component Item # = 2.1 - 2.8** **Component Question Type = Likert Scale** **Component Likert Scale = Scale Points = 7; Anchor Values = 1(not at all) - 7(a great deal)** - **2.1** I feel like they are learning something from me - **2.2** I feel like I am learning something from them - **2.3** I feel like they are changing their opinions about something because of me - **2.4** I feel like I am changing my opinion about something because of them - **2.5** I feel like my agency is changing our practices because of this collaboration - **2.6** I feel like they are changing their practices because of this collaboration - **2.7** I feel they make some changes to accommodate my concerns or wishes - **2.8** I feel that I make some changes to accommodate their concerns or wishes