# **Results & Findings** --- #### **Summary of Findings** The CEI demonstrated strong internal consistency reliability with an overall alpha for the process and outcomes scales ranging from .95 to .99, depending on what organizations were participating in the exchanges. There was some support for the convergent validity of the measures as indicated by the significant correlations between the EBPAS openness subscale and the CEI outcomes scale in exchanges with two of the four collaborators. There was strong support for the discriminant validity of the CEI when examining associations with the climate and structure subscales for the OSC measures. All of the correlations between these measures for each collaboration were .12 or less for the CEI outcomes scale and .20 or less for the CEI process scale. The CEI was able to differentiate patterns of cultural exchanges across different collaborators. CEI process and outcome scores were associated with URE and program implementation as well as with different characteristics and responsibilities of respondents. #### **Implications for Studying URE** The CEI is the first measure ever developed to assess both the process and outcomes of bidirectional changes in knowledge, attitudes and practices that reflect a system of shared understandings. Such brief and pragmatic measures are needed to improve the understanding of the role of cultural exchanges among collaborators in EBP, as well as the implementation of research-supported treatments or the use of research-supported strategies to facilitate such implementation. #### **Caveats and Limitations** First, the measures are based on the perspective of practitioners only; it is further based on the perspective of only one of the two participants in the exchange; hence, the assessment that another organization (that is, intermediary organizations, treatment developers, other practitioners) may have changed their knowledge, attitudes and practices as a result of the collaboration may not correspond with the assessment of members of that organization. Second, the CEI does not measure all changes in knowledge, attitudes and behaviours that occur with implementation of an innovative programme or practice, but rather changes that can be attributed to the influence of others. Third, the specific context in which the study was conducted may have had an impact on the relevance and utility of the scale. As with knowledge mobilisation strategies, one would expect cultural exchanges to be influenced by their social, political and economic context. However, this concern is somewhat mitigated as community–academic collaborations and exchanges are often present in youth and adult service systems as well as other settings. Finally, while there is considerable debate as to the minimal sample size for an exploratory factor analysis, a larger sample could have produced more representative coefficients with greater stability, and would have also enabled us to split the sample in order to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis.