Table of Contents
Abstract
In the rapidly evolving field of Implementation Science, accurately measuring the outcomes of implementation efforts is just as crucial as evaluating clinical outcomes. The Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM), and Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) are a suite of brief, pragmatic psychometric tools designed to assess three foundational implementation outcomes. These measures act as leading indicators of whether an evidence-based practice or new intervention will be successfully adopted and sustained in real-world settings.
Developed to overcome the definitional ambiguities and overlapping item content that plagued earlier measurement attempts, these three scales provide researchers and practitioners with a rigorous way to quantify stakeholder perceptions. By isolating the distinct criteria that individuals use to evaluate a new practice—personal palatability, technical fit, and practical execution—these instruments allow for highly granular assessments of implementation barriers and facilitators. Ultimately, the AIM, IAM, and FIM represent a significant methodological advancement, offering the field standardized, reliable, and valid tools to build cumulative knowledge and guide quality improvement initiatives in clinical and community environments.
📊 Psychometric Scorecard
12
Multidimensional
0.85
0.960
Authors
Purpose
Historically, Implementation Science has struggled with a lack of robust, standardized measurement tools. Many existing instruments suffered from poor psychometric testing, conflated distinct concepts, or used nearly identical items to measure supposedly different constructs. This created a significant barrier to comparing results across studies or accurately diagnosing why an implementation effort was failing.
The AIM, IAM, and FIM were developed specifically to fill this critical methodological gap. By providing distinct, empirically validated scales for Acceptability, Appropriateness, and Feasibility, these tools allow stakeholders to precisely pinpoint where an intervention might be encountering resistance. For instance, a new clinical protocol might be viewed as highly appropriate for patient care but entirely unfeasible given current staffing levels. Having pragmatic, reliable measures enables researchers and clinical leaders to tailor their implementation strategies effectively, saving time and resources while improving the uptake of Evidence-Based Practices.
Construct
The theoretical framework underlying these measures centers on the concept of 'fit' or 'match' between an evidence-based practice and a specific criterion, evaluated from the perspective of implementation stakeholders. While the three constructs are semantically related and often covary in practice, they are conceptually distinct based on the specific criterion being judged.
Acceptability represents the personal dimension of fit. It captures whether an individual finds the intervention palatable, agreeable, or satisfactory based on their own preferences, needs, or expectations. Appropriateness, on the other hand, evaluates technical or social fit. It assesses whether the intervention is compatible with the setting's mission, the provider's professional norms, or the specific clinical needs of the patient population. Finally, Feasibility focuses on the practical dimension of fit. It measures the extent to which the intervention can actually be executed or integrated given the constraints of the real-world environment, such as available time, financial resources, and organizational capacity.
Validity
The development team employed a rigorous, multi-study approach to establish the validity of these measures. To ensure substantive and discriminant content validity, they utilized a quantitative methodology where implementation experts and mental health professionals rated how well items reflected their intended constructs versus competing constructs. Using the Hochberg correction for multiple tests, the researchers successfully identified items that uniquely mapped to Acceptability, Appropriateness, or Feasibility without conceptual bleeding.
Furthermore, structural validity was confirmed through an experimental vignette design. By manipulating the conditions in the vignettes, the researchers demonstrated that the scales could accurately detect known differences between groups. The ability of the items to strongly load onto their intended factors while maintaining distinction from the other constructs provides compelling evidence that the AIM, IAM, and FIM are capturing genuinely different facets of the implementation experience, rather than a single, generalized attitude toward an intervention.
Reliability
Psychometric precision was a primary focus during the refinement of these scales, resulting in excellent internal consistency. Following the removal of underperforming items to create streamlined, four-item measures, the scales demonstrated robust reliability metrics.
Specifically, the final trimmed scales yielded Cronbach's alpha coefficients of 0.85 for the Acceptability of Intervention Measure, 0.91 for the Intervention Appropriateness Measure, and 0.89 for the Feasibility of Intervention Measure. These values comfortably exceed the standard threshold of 0.70 typically required for research purposes, indicating that the items within each respective scale are highly correlated and reliably measure the same underlying latent construct. This high degree of internal consistency is particularly impressive given the brevity of the scales, making them highly efficient tools for field research.
Factor Analysis
The structural integrity of the measures was evaluated using both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). Initial exploratory models helped identify cross-loading items, allowing the researchers to trim the scales down to the most psychometrically sound items.
In subsequent confirmatory testing, the researchers compared competing structural models to determine the best fit for the data. An omnibus one-factor model, which assumed all items measured a single general implementation outcome, showed poor fit. In contrast, the hypothesized three-factor model demonstrated acceptable to excellent fit, highlighted by a Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of 0.96 and a Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) of 0.08. Factor loadings in this final model were strong, ranging from 0.75 to 0.89. These results empirically validate the theoretical distinction between Acceptability, Appropriateness, and Feasibility, proving that a three-factor structure best represents how stakeholders evaluate new interventions.
Subscales
| Subscale | Items | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) | 4 items | Measures the extent to which stakeholders perceive an intervention as agreeable, palatable, or satisfactory based on personal preferences. |
| Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) | 4 items | Measures the perceived technical or social fit of an intervention for a specific setting, provider, or patient problem. |
| Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) | 4 items | Measures the extent to which an intervention can be practically and successfully carried out given existing resources and circumstances. |
Instrument
| Test Type | Self-report questionnaire |
| Format | 12 items total (4 items per scale) |
| Scoring | Items are scored to yield separate totals or averages for Acceptability, Appropriateness, and Feasibility. |
| Language | English |
| Population | Healthcare professionals |
| Administration | Self-administered survey |
Acceptability of Intervention Measure, Intervention Appropriateness Measure, and Feasibility of Intervention Measure Items
Items are currently not available
The individual items of this scale are not publicly available. Researchers interested in using this instrument should contact the original authors directly to request the scale materials.
Sample
The psychometric evaluation utilized multiple samples, including a panel of PhD-trained implementation scientists and implementation-experienced mental health professionals for the content validity phase, and a sample of mental health counselors participating in an online experimental vignette study for structural validity and reliability testing.
Cite This Paper
Bryan J. Weiner, Cara C. Lewis, Cameo Stanick, Byron J. Powell, Caitlin N. Dorsey, Alecia Clary, Marcella H. Boynton, Heather Halko (2017). Acceptability of Intervention Measure, Intervention Appropriateness Measure, and Feasibility of Intervention Measure. Implementation Science. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3
References
39 references
- Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Admin Pol Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76. doi:
10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7 - Lewis CC, Fischer S, Weiner BJ, Stanick C, Kim M, Martinez RG. Outcomes for Implementation Science: an enhanced systematic review of instruments using evidence-based rating criteria. Implement Sci. 2015;10:155. doi:
10.1186/s13012-015-0342-x - Martinez RG, Lewis CC, Weiner BJ. Instrumentation issues in Implementation Science. Implement Sci. 2014;9:118. doi:
10.1186/s13012-014-0118-8 - Lewis CC, Weiner BJ, Stanick C, Fischer SM. Advancing Implementation Science through measure development and evaluation: a study protocol. Implement Sci. 2015;10:102. doi:
10.1186/s13012-015-0287-0 - Bowen DJ, Kreuter M, Spring B, Cofta-Woerpel L, Linnan L, Weiner D, et al. How we design Feasibility studies. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(5):452–7. doi:
10.1016/j.amepre.2009.02.002 - Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing Implementation Science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50. doi:
10.1186/1748-5908-4-50 - Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. Predicting the performance of measures in a confirmatory factor analysis with a pretest assessment of their substantive validities. J Appl Psychol. 1991;76(5):732–40.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.732 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.732 - Huijg JM, Gebhardt WA, Crone MR, Dusseldorp E, Presseau J. Discriminant content validity of a theoretical domains framework questionnaire for use in implementation research. Implement Sci. 2014;9:11. doi:
10.1186/1748-5908-9-11 - Hinkin TR. A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organ Res Methods. 1998;1(1):104–21. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106
- Society for Implementation Research Collaboration.
https://societyforimplementationresearchcollaboration.org - Glasgow RE, Riley WT. Pragmatic measures: what they are and why we need them. Am J Prev Med. 2013;45(2):237–43. doi:
10.1016/j.amepre.2013.03.010 - Lewis CC, Stanick CF, Martinez RG, Weiner BJ, Kim M, Barwick M, et al. The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration Instrument Review Project: a methodology to promote rigorous evaluation. Implement Sci. 2015;10(2). doi:
10.1186/s13012-014-0193-x - Hochberg Y. A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika. 1988;75(4):800–2. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/75.4.800
- Dixon D, Pollard B, Johnston M. What does the chronic pain grade questionnaire measure? Pain. 2007;130(3):249–53. doi:
10.1016/j.pain.2006.12.004 - Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus user’s guide. seventh edition ed. Muthén & Muthén: Los Angeles; 2012.
- Schreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, Barlow EA, King J. Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: a review. J Educ Res. 2006;99(6):323–38. doi:
10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338 - Hox JJ, Bechger TM. An introduction to structural equation modelling. Fam Sci Rev. 1998;11:354–73.
- RC MC, Browne MW, Sugawara HM. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychol Methods. 1996;1(2):130–49. doi:
1082-989X/96/S3.00 - Messick S. Validity of psychological assessment: validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. Am Psychol. 1995;50(9):741–9. doi:
10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741 - Davidson M. Known-groups validity. In: Michalos AC, editor. Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Dodrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2014. p. 3481–2. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_1581
- Scott K, Lewis CC. Using measurement-based care to enhance any treatment. Cogn Behav Pract. 2015;22(1):49–59. doi:
10.1016/j.cbpra.2014.01.010 - Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999;6(1):1–55. doi:
10.1080/10705519909540118 - Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Second edition ed. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates: Hillsdale; 1988.
- WMK T, JP D. The research methods knowledge base. 3rd ed. Cincinnati: Atomic Dog Publishing; 2006.
- Spearman C. The proof and measurement of association between two things. Am J Psychol. 1904;15(1):72–101. 🔗 https://doi.org/10.2307/1412159
- McKibbon KA, Lokker C, Wilczynski NL, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Davis DA, et al. A cross-sectional study of the number and frequency of terms used to refer to knowledge translation in a body of health literature in 2006: a Tower of Babel? Implement Sci. 2010;5:16. doi:
10.1186/1748-5908-5-16 - Glasgow RE. Critical measurement issues in translational research. Res Soc Work Pract. 2009;19(5):560–8. doi:
10.1177/1049731509335497 - Proctor EK, Powell BJ, Feely M. Measurement in dissemination and Implementation Science. In: Kendall RSBPC, editor. Dissemination and implementation of Evidence-Based Practices in child and adolescent mental health. New York: Oxford University Press; 2014. p. 22–43.
- Brownson RC, Jacobs JA, Tabak RG, Hoehner CM, Stamatakis KA. Designing for dissemination among public health researchers: findings from a national survey in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(9):1693–9. doi:
10.2105/AJPH.2012.301165 - Bauer MS, Damschroder L, Hagedorn H, Smith J, Kilbourne AM. An introduction to Implementation Science for the non-specialist. BMC Psychol. 2015;3:32. doi:
10.1186/s40359-015-0089-9 - Curran GM, Bauer M, Mittman B, Pyne JM, Stetler C. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. 2012;50(3):217–26. doi:
10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182408812 - Powell BJ, Proctor EK, Glisson CA, Kohl PL, Raghavan R, Brownson RC, et al. A mixed methods multiple case study of implementation as usual in children’s social service organizations: study protocol. Implement Sci. 2013;8:92. doi:
10.1186/1748-5908-8-92 - Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10:21. doi:
10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1 - Powell BJ, Weiner BJ, Stanick CF, Halko H, Dorsey C, Lewis CC. Stakeholders’ perceptions of criteria for pragmatic measurement in implementation: a concept mapping approach (oral presentation). 9th Annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination & Implementation. Washington, D. C: Academy Health and the National Institutes of Health; 2016.
- Beidas RS, Stewart RE, Walsh L, Lucas S, Downey MM, Jackson K, et al. Free, brief, and validated: standardized instruments for low-resource mental health settings. Cogn Behav Pract. 2015;22(1):5–19. doi:
10.1016/j.cbpra.2014.02.002 - Shea CM, Jacobs SR, Esserman DA, Bruce K, Weiner BJ. Organizational readiness for implementing change: a psychometric assessment of a new measure. Implement Sci. 2014;9:7. doi:
10.1186/1748-5908-9-7 - Aarons GA, Ehrhart MG, Farahnak LR. The Implementation Leadership Scale (ILS): development of a brief measure of unit level implementation leadership. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):45. doi:
10.1186/1748-5908-9-45 - Ehrhart MG, Aarons GA, Farahnak LR. Assessing the organizational context for EBP implementation: the development and validity testing of the Implementation Climate Scale (ICS). Implement Sci. 2014;9:157. doi:
10.1186/s13012-014-0157-1 - Jacobs SR, Weiner BJ, Bunger AC. Context matters: measuring implementation climate among individuals and groups. Implement Sci. 2014;9:46. doi:
10.1186/1748-5908-9-46
Cite this article
Mohammed looti (2026). Acceptability of Intervention Measure, Intervention Appropriateness Measure, and Feasibility of Intervention Measure. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Retrieved from https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/acceptability-of-intervention-measure-intervention-appropriateness-measure-and-feasibility-of-intervention-measure/
Mohammed looti. "Acceptability of Intervention Measure, Intervention Appropriateness Measure, and Feasibility of Intervention Measure." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 14 Aug. 2026, https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/acceptability-of-intervention-measure-intervention-appropriateness-measure-and-feasibility-of-intervention-measure/.
Mohammed looti. "Acceptability of Intervention Measure, Intervention Appropriateness Measure, and Feasibility of Intervention Measure." PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, 2026. https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/acceptability-of-intervention-measure-intervention-appropriateness-measure-and-feasibility-of-intervention-measure/.
Mohammed looti (2026) 'Acceptability of Intervention Measure, Intervention Appropriateness Measure, and Feasibility of Intervention Measure', PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. Available at: https://scales.arabpsychology.com/s/acceptability-of-intervention-measure-intervention-appropriateness-measure-and-feasibility-of-intervention-measure/.
[1] Mohammed looti, "Acceptability of Intervention Measure, Intervention Appropriateness Measure, and Feasibility of Intervention Measure," PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES, vol. X, no. Y, ص Z-Z, August, 2026.
Mohammed looti. Acceptability of Intervention Measure, Intervention Appropriateness Measure, and Feasibility of Intervention Measure. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCALES. 2026;vol(issue):pages.