Measuring Organizational Readiness in a Community Health Promotion Program: Instrument Tailoring and Psychometric Testing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a need for tailored, psychometrically sound readiness assessment instruments that reflect the unique characteristics of community-based health promotion settings. We tailored the Readiness Diagnostic Scale (RDS) for use with community organizations using a health-promoting program for older adults (Choose to Move, CTM) as a case study. The 50-item RDS assesses organizational readiness across three domains: Motivation, Innovation-Specific Capacity, and General Capacity. Using a three-stage process we refined item wording for clarity during Stages 1 and 2, resulting in a 51-item prototype. In Stage 3, individuals from community-based organizations (n = 207) completed the prototype survey; data were used to assess psychometric properties of the prototype. Exploratory factor analysis supported a four-factor structure; nine items did not load on any factor and were removed, yielding a 42-item scale (RDS-CTM). Most items from original domains retained their structure; however, a new factor, General Capacity-Staff, emerged, emphasizing the role of staff in organizational readiness. The final model explained 59% of the variance, with strong factor loadings (0.48-0.92) and excellent reliability (α = .91-.95). The RDS-CTM is a practical tool for assessing organizational readiness to implement CTM. It can guide capacity-building efforts, inform resource allocation, and support decision-making around implementation support and program feasibility. Although specific for CTM, the RDS could be adapted for other health promotion programs in community settings, offering a standardized approach to readiness assessment across diverse initiatives. Future research should explore the RDS-CTM's broader applicability and construct validation, using larger samples and confirmatory methods such as structural equation modeling.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it