Reporting of Research - Articles

The following articles and publications were reviewed, a brief abstract was developed, and assigned based on assigned ratings, strength of evidence, consumer orientation, and readability. For more information on these ratings, see the KT Library Descriptor Scales.

---

American Dietetic Association. (2007). ADA evidence analysis manual (5th ed.)

Abstract: The American Dietetic Association manual provides a step-by-step process for evidence analysis including specific actions to be taken at each step. Numerous charts, checklists and worksheets to guide the user’s process, as well as a glossary of terms related to research design, are found in the appendices.

Descriptor Scales

---

American Educational Research Association Task Force on Reporting of Research Methods. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications.

Abstract: The American Educational Research Association (AERA) adopted standards on reporting empirical research in AERA publications in June, 2006. The standards were developed to assist researchers, editors, reviewers and readers of AERA journals. They are based on two major principles: that empirical research should be warranted, and that the research reporting process is transparent at every step. The standards are organized into the following areas: problem formulation, design and logic of the study, sources of evidence, measurement and classification, analysis and interpretation, extrapolation, ethics in reporting and, title.

Descriptor Scales

---

Bozeman, B., & Rogers, J. D. (2002). A churn model of scientific knowledge value: Internet researchers as a knowledge value collective, Research Policy, 31, 769-794.

Abstract: Bozeman and Rogers propose the "churn" theory in the value of knowledge. The theory represents a shift from the value of knowledge being based on the economic marketplace to its being based on the use (and potential use) of the knowledge. The authors contend that knowledge has no value until it is put to use. Therefore, scientific and technical work that produces many uses, thus creating new knowledge and uses, is considered to be most valued. Such knowledge is generated by "knowledge value collectives," consisting of people with varying objectives as well as individuals outside of the scientific community working across fields, disciplines, and institutions. Therefore, research should focus on the capacity of "knowledge value collectives" to produce scientific and technical knowledge with widespread uses. Note that companion articles are available in this collection entitled, "Public Value Mapping of Science Outcomes: Theory and Method" (Bozeman, 2003) and "Theoretical Consideration of Collaboration in Scientific Research" (Rogers, 2000).

Descriptor Scales

---

Bozeman, B. (2003). Public Value Mapping of science outcomes: Theory and method. Vol. 2, Sec. 1, Knowledge Flows and Knowledge Collectives: Understanding the Role of Science and Technology Policies in Development. Washington, DC: Columbia University, Center for Science, Policy and Outcomes.

Abstract: Bozeman describes "public value mapping" (PVM), a theory and method for determining the impact of scientific research on social outcomes, which is applicable to any large-scale program with a scientific mission. Bozeman presented PVM as a tool for determining the factors impacting social outcomes and includes key questions in the article. In addition, the author noted that PVM is based on the churn model of knowledge value and is best understood in terms of "knowledge value collectives" which consist of people with varying objectives as well as individuals outside of the scientific community working across fields, disciplines, and institutions. Companion articles are available in this collection entitled, "A Churn Model of Scientific Knowledge Value: Internet Researchers as a Knowledge Value Collective" (Bozeman & Rogers, 2002) and "Theoretical Consideration of collaboration in Scientific Research" (Rogers, 2000).

Descriptor Scales

---

Center for Mental Health in Schools at UCLA. (2014). Bringing New Prototypes into Practice: Dissemination, Implementation, and Facilitating Transformation. 1-38.

Abstract: This report begins by presenting prominent examples in the field of implementation and translational research from the CDC and other prominent institutions. The authors then utilize their own work on directions for schools to address learning, behavior, and emotional problems; as well as define and clarify key terms such as direct implementation and facilitation. The overarching goal of this report is to broaden the understanding and discussions on research of translation, dissemination, implementation, and system transformation.

Descriptor Scales

---

Clayback, D., Hostak, R., Leahy, J., Minkel, J., Piper, M., Smith, R. O., & Vaarwerk, T. (2014). Standards for assistive technology funding: What are the right criteria? Austin, TX: SEDL, Center on Knowledge Translation for Disability and Rehabilitation Research.

Abstract: Developed by the KTDRR's Assistive Technology (AT) Working Group, this white paper addresses the issue of the expectation of an evidence-based standard to determine AT product efficacy, and the impact of this standard on the transfer, use, and payment for assistive technologies designed for persons with disabilities. The highest level of evidence is produced through randomized controlled trials; however, that option is rarely feasible when establishing accuracy of effectiveness in assistive rehabilitation technologies because often the solutions provided are unique to an individual. This issue must be addressed so that it does not limit access to rehabilitation assistive technologies by those who need them.

Recommendations set forth by the AT Working Group in the white paper and webcast included conducting an intra-agency Department of Health and Human Services conference with agencies such as Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and NIDILRR to consider and define the hierarchy of evidence needed for the determination of AT safety and effectiveness, AT best clinical practices guidelines, the appropriateness and practicality of AT data collection methods, and the creation, utilization and promotion of a national AT usage and outcomes database. The AT working group also recommends that legislative action should be taken to define the types of AT that are designed to meet the long-term needs for persons with disabilities separate from the policies governing Durable Medical Equipment to allow improved recognition and policies, as well as to shift the AT reimbursement model from being purely a medical model to a model that also considers the social and functional context of the AT user.

Members of the AT Working Group represent five key stakeholder groups (AT Consumers, AT Service Providers, AT Researchers and Methodologists, AT Manufacturers/Product Developers, and AT Payers and Policy Makers) that comprise the entire system of manufacture, prescription, application, funding, reimbursement, and efficacy research within each field of AT devices and services.

Descriptor Scales

---

Clayback, D., Hostak, R., Leahy, J., Minkel, J., Piper, M., Smith, R. O., & Vaarwerk, T. (2015). Standards for assistive technology funding: What are the right criteria? Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefit, 9(1), 38-53. Retrieved from: http://sphhp.buffalo.edu/cat/kt4tt/dissemination/publications-and-presentations/journal-publications.html

(NOTE - similar to: Clayback, D., Hostak, R., Leahy, J., Minkel, J., Piper, M., Smith, R. O., & Vaarwerk, T. (2014). Standards for assistive technology funding: What are the right criteria? Austin, TX: SEDL, Center on Knowledge Translation for Disability and Rehabilitation Research.)

Abstract: Assistive technology developers, manufacturers, and service providers face new third-party pay or requirements to demonstrate supporting evidence about the effectiveness of Assistive Technology (AT). The level of evidence being required is comparable to standards of evidence used to support interventions in the medical arena, known as evidence-based medicine. The gold standard for this level of evidence is generally produced through conducting randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, the RCT is rarely practical or appropriate for showing the true effectiveness of assistive rehabilitation technologies for persons with disabilities. Therefore, alternative options for evidence of AT effectiveness must be identified and accepted.

In this paper, we address the expectation of an evidence-based standard to determine AT product efficacy, and the impact of this standard on the transfer, use, and payment for assistive technologies designed for persons with disabilities. Discussed are alternative options for evidence of AT effectiveness, recommendations on how to develop a useful and workable outcomes-reporting system to further demonstrate evidence of AT efficacy for AT funding, and pending and proposed federal legislative changes. Unless addressed, the lack of documented AT outcomes may limit future innovation as well as limit access to existing rehabilitation and assistive technologies for those who need it most.

Descriptor Scales

---

Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy. (2003). Identifying and implementing educational practices supported by rigorous evidence: A user friendly guide. NCEE EB2003. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

Abstract: The Coalition for Evidence-based Policy document provides educators with guidelines in evaluating the random assignment process, outcome data, and results report to determine whether or not the research is "evidence-based." The document includes a rationale for the guidelines as well as a checklist for use in the evaluation.

Descriptor Scales

---

Daumen, M. E. & Conley, D. J. (2009). FOCUS Technical Brief (23). The Use of CIRRIE's Database of International Rehabilitation Research in Conducting Systematic Reviews.

Abstract: This FOCUS authored by CIRRIE's Marcia E. Daumen and Daniel J. Conley, describes the Center for International Rehabilitation Research Information and Exchange's (CIRRIE) bibliographic database of International Rehabilitation Research. The database is useful for conducting systematic reviews. It includes research conducted in most geographic regions of the world as well as citations to articles originally published in languages other than English.

Descriptor Scales

---

Davis, D., Evans, M., Jadad, A., Perrier, L., Rath, D., Ryan, D., et al. (2003). The case for knowledge translation: Shortening the journey from evidence to effect. British Medical Journal, 327, 33-35.

Abstract: Davis et al. compare how continuing medical education (CME), continuing professional development (CPD), and knowledge translation promote the implementation of evidenced-based research into practice. The article notes that the passive education embraced by the CME and CPD models do not change physicians’ behavior. The authors posit that knowledge translation is more effective in producing change and present specific ways in which knowledge translation is different from CME and CPD as justification for their position.

Descriptor Scales

---

DeJong, G., & Horn, S. (2005). Randomized controlled trials in rehabilitation research. New Zealand Journal of Disability Studies, 11, 120-124. 

Abstract: DeJong and Horn present aspects of rehabilitation that make randomized controlled trials (RCT) difficult to accomplish. Acknowledging that rehabilitation involves the implementation of multiple interventions, the authors raise issues with RCT methods of isolating one intervention, creating a clinical environment controlling variables, restricting selection—thus affecting generalizability, statistical challenges of using very small numbers of participants, and the problem of not being able to provide an intervention that is "blind" to the participant and researcher. The authors suggest that researchers in rehabilitation look for alternative research designs that address the unique characteristics of rehabilitation practice and RCTs be restricted to less complicated interventions.

Descriptor Scales

---

Demner-Fushman, D., Few, B., Hauser, S. E., &Thoma, G. (2006). Automatically identifying health outcome information in MEDLINE records. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 13, 52-60.

Abstract: Demner-Fushman et al. target health care professionals with limited time to review research. The authors describe an automated evidence-based medicine model approach to identifying relevant information in medical research quickly without needing to analyze the entire document. The approach was ranked against PubMed Clinical Queries and the authors found that the outcome-based ranking provided significantly more accurate information.

Descriptor Scales

---

Dijkers, M. P. J. M., Brown, M., & Gordon, W. A. (2008). FOCUS Technical Brief (19). Getting Published and Having an Impact: Turning Rehabilitation Research Results Into Gold.

Abstract: The FOCUS authored by Drs. Marcel Dijkers, Margaret Brown, and Wayne Gordon from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, New York, suggests strategies that rehabilitation researchers can use to maximize their work-turning "research results into gold." In the disability and rehabilitation research community, it is important for researchers to be cognizant of how published results of research studies can facilitate or limit their use in answering important evidence-based questions.

Descriptor Scales

---

Dijkers, M. P. J. M. for the NCDDR Task Force on Systematic Review and Guidelines. (2009). When the best is the enemy of the good: The nature of research evidence used in systematic reviews and guidelines. Austin, TX: SEDL.

Abstract: When the Best is the Enemy of the Good: The Nature of Research Evidence Used in Systematic Reviews and Guidelines was developed in August, 2009, by the Task Force on Systematic Review and Guidelines. This task force paper explores critical issues related to the "gold standard" for research designs, the emergence of systematic reviews, and implications for evidence-based rehabilitation and clinical practice.

Descriptor Scales

---

Dijkers, M. P. J. M. (2011). FOCUS Technical Brief (27). Low-Cost and No-Cost Steps in Research Design to Improve the Quality of Evidence.

Abstract: This FOCUS authored by Marcel P. J. M. Dijkers, PhD, offers low-cost and no-cost steps that rehabilitation researchers can take to strengthen the quality of their evidence and, thereby, the likelihood of their work receiving a high evidence grade and being included in systematic reviews.

Descriptor Scales

---

Dijkers, M. P. J. M. (2012). FOCUS Technical Brief (33). External Validity in Research on Rehabilitative Interventions: Issues for Knowledge Translation.

Abstract: This FOCUS discusses external validity in rehabilitation research. A checklist of external validity items is provided to help researchers write research reports that include all the information practitioners need when they see a new or revised treatment described that they think of adopting. The reporting researcher should help them answer the question "How far can we generalize this finding - is it applicable to other clients/patients, with different characteristics, in dissimilar settings treated by other clinicians?" by providing detailed information on subjects, settings, interventions, treatments, etc. The checklist helps in complete reporting of the relevant information.

Descriptor Scales

---

Dromerick, A. W. (2003). Evidence-based rehabilitation: The case for and against constraint-induced movement therapy. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 40(1), viii - ix.

Abstract: Dromerick's editorial notes the lack of empirical research to support practices in rehabilitation. The author suggests that the widespread use of constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) as a rehabilitation treatment is not justified based on the lack of quality multicenter randomized control trials comparing CIMT to other active motor treatments. Dromerick does cite Vander Lee (2001) and Dromerick, Edwards & Hahn, (2006) as quality research in this field suggesting this work may be a preliminary research basis for CIMT.

Descriptor Scales

---

Ebell, M. H., Siwek, J., Weiss, B. D., Woolf, S. H., Susman, J. Ewigman, B., & Bowman, M. (2004). Strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT): A patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature. American Family Physician, 69, 548-556.

Abstract: Ebell et al. suggest using the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) scale to determine the quality of medical reviews, . The SORT scale was developed by representatives of family medicine and primary care journals as well as the Family Practice Inquiries Network. SORT is based on evaluation of quality of study design, quantity of studies included in the review and consistency with outcomes reported. In addition, the scale includes a determination of whether the outcomes are patient-oriented or disease-related. Further, the authors link SORT to other compatible taxonomies. The authors suggest that use of a single scale across studies and journals help to analyze outcomes for translation into practice.

Descriptor Scales

---

Elias, B, O'Neil, J. (2006). The Manitoba First Nations Centre for Aboriginal Health Research: Knowledge Translation with Indigenous Communities. Healthcare Policy, 1(4): 44-49.

Abstract: The Manitoba First Nations Center for Aboriginal Health Research (MFN-CAHR) has worked with the indigenous populations of Canada, researchers, policy makers, and other influential parties to incorporate meaningful research in their decision making process. The important changes made to access of available research, knowledge translation (KT) strategies involving research participation, and relevant shifts in research areas are discussed. Subsequent changes have resulted in the increased use of evidence-based practices regarding indigenous communities. However, increased funding and resources will be needed to continue.

Descriptor Scales

---

Estabrooks, C. A., Thompson, D. S., Lovely, J. J. E., & Hofmeyer, A. (2006). A guide to knowledge translation theory. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(1), 25-36.

Abstract: Estabrooks et al. highlight the lack of an overarching or encompassing knowledge-translation model. Similar relevant terminologies are explored and highlighted, such as implementation research and knowledge utilization. Several social, organizational and research-based theories are also examined. It is concluded that in order to properly utilize knowledge translation's complex theory, we need a variety of detailed theories that may represent smaller components of an overall depiction of the concept.

Descriptor Scales

---

Flagg, J. L. (2013). The Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer: Success stories and resources for R&D Practitioners. FOCUS Technical Brief (38). Austin, TX: SEDL, Disability Research to Practice Program.

Abstract: This FOCUS Technical Brief invites you to explore the materials and insights the Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer (KT4TT) has compiled from 2008–2013. We hope they help you to avoid the most common barriers and overcome the most perilous struggles along the Research and Development (R&D) path to successfully commercialize your sponsored project outputs. To that end, we describe the outputs from our own R&D projects.

Descriptor Scales

---

Flagg, J. L., & Lockett, M. (2011). FOCUS Technical Brief (28). The Need to Knowledge Model: A Roadmap to Successful Outputs for NIDILRR Grantees.

Abstract: This FOCUS presents the Need to Knowledge (NtK) Model for new product development. The model was designed to encompass all activities from inception of a project through post-launch evaluation to paint a complete picture of the research, development, and production processes. This technical brief explains the details related to the model's stages and gates, while also introducing four specific opportunities to employ knowledge translation techniques.

Descriptor Scales

---

Flagg, J. L., Lockett, M. M., Condron, J., & Lane, J. P. (2015). Tools for analysis in assistive technology research, development, and production. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefit, 9(1), 20-37. Retrieved from: https://www.atia.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ATOBV9N1.pdf#page=34

Abstract: This paper describes a development project intended to increase awareness and use of new product development (NPD) tools within a specific segment of new product developers: federally funded "technology grantees" who are charged with generating innovations that have socio-economic impacts. To achieve this end, the authors review the creation of a NPD tool repository, designed to improve grantees' ability to generate outputs that are relevant to industry partners and the marketplace alike. A recently established operational model for NPD, called the Need to Knowledge (NtK) Model, frames this work. Tools specifically concerned with the inclusion and accommodation of user characteristics, particularly those reflecting the principles of Universal Design, are highlighted in order to improve the accessibility of products in the marketplace for all users.

Descriptor Scales

---

Fielden, S. J., Rusch, M. L., Masinda, M. T., Sands, J., Frankish, J., & Evoy, B. (2007). Key considerations for logic model development in research partnerships: A Canadian case study. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30, 115-124.

Abstract: Fielden advocate using a logic model for planning and implementing partnerships to bridge the gap between knowledge and practice. The authors describe the development of a community-academic research partnership to address issues regarding vulnerable populations. The article notes the advantage of logic models in establishing common purpose and vision; however, the authors also report the challenges of such relationships due to issues of trust, power, commitment, motivation, and accountability. The authors suggest how to address the issues raised.

Descriptor Scales

---

Gibbons, M. (2008). FOCUS Technical Brief (21). Why Is Knowledge Translation Important?

Abstract: This FOCUS highlights Michael Gibbons's plenary speech on knowledge translation presented at the KT08: Forum for the Future conference in Banff, Alberta, Canada, held on June 10, 2008. Dr. Gibbons is the coauthor of The New Production of Knowledge and Re-Thinking Science.

Descriptor Scales

---

Ginexi, E. M., & Hilton, T. F. (2006). What's next for translation research? Evaluation & The Health Professions, 29(3), 334-347.

Abstract: Ginexi and Hilton list several factors that inhibit the translation of research knowledge into daily practice. The article reports that meta-analysis research informs the field of "best practices." Finally, the authors note a current trend to large-scale research with the potential for large-scale dissemination.

Descriptor Scales

---

Glanville, J. M., Lefebvre, C., Miles, J. N. V., & Camosso-Stefinovic, J. (2006). How to identify randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE: Ten years on. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 94(2), 130-136.

Abstract: Glanville et al. examines whether the 1994 Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy to search for randomized controlled trials in MEDLINE could be improved after ten years of use. They found that "clinical trial" was the best discriminating term. In years in which Cochrane had assessed MEDLINE records, few additional records were found. However, for records not assessed by Cochrane, the term "randomized controlled trial" was very accurate at identifying non-indexed trials, almost equaling the precision of the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy.

Descriptor Scales

---

Glasgow, R. E., Lichtenstein, E., & Marcus, A. C. (2003). Why don't we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. American Journal of Public Health, 93(8), 1261–1267.

Abstract: Glasgow, Lichtenstein, and Marcus note the large discrepancy between the number of efficacy and effectiveness studies. The authors suggest that the gap is due to inherent differences in how the studies are planned and implemented. The article includes recommendations for placing greater emphasis on external validation. The authors suggest how to enhance Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) criteria for reporting randomized clinical trials that reflect consideration of external validity. A companion article is available in this collection entitled, "Evaluating the relevance, generalization, and applicability of research" (Green, L. W., & Glasgow, R. E., 2006).

Descriptor Scales

---

Gold, M., & Taylor, E. F. (2007). Moving research into practice: Lessons from the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's IDSRN program. Implementation Science, 2(9), 1-28.

Abstract: Gold and Taylor describe their methodology and results in evaluating the Integrated Delivery Systems Research network (IDSRN) program of the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The authors conducted interviews and reviewed program documents as well as analyzed projects and case studies. The results supported the concept of linking researchers with users of the research in a team-based approach. Further, IDSRN provided a mechanism to address issues in an expedited manner. The results noted weaknesses in the administrative structure of IDSRN, which resulted in its reorganization into ACTION (Accelerating Change and Transformation of Organizations and Networks).

Descriptor Scales

---

Green, L. W., & Glasgow, R. E. (2006). Evaluating the relevance, generalization, and applicability of research: Issues in external validation and translation methodology. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 29(1), 126-153. source.

Abstract: Green and Glasgow suggest that current research does not include sufficient emphasis on external validation or generalizability. The authors propose criteria to evaluate the external validity of research, such as the inclusion of members of the target population in the study; use of intended settings; reporting the expertise and training of people providing implementation, as well as any adaptations made for different settings; effects beyond primary outcomes including quality of life issues; and reporting costs. The article recommends that external validity should be included in the planning process, thus making the research relevant to the people who will use the outcomes for setting policy or for decision making on an individual level. A companion article is available in this collection entitled, "Why don't we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness translation" (Glasgow, 2003).

Descriptor Scales

---

Grimshaw, J., Eccles, M. Thomas, R., MacLennan, G., Ramsay, C., Fraser, C., & Vale, L. (2006). Toward evidence-based quality improvement: Evidence (and its limitations) of the effectiveness of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies 1966-1998. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21, S14-S20. source.

Abstract: The Grimshaw et al. systematic review addresses the effectiveness and costs of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. The authors included studies from 1966 through 1998 and found them to be weak in reporting of methodology. The authors noted the advantages of using paper or electronic reminders to improve care rather than a multifaceted approach of educational outreach. However, the article cautions that after 30 years of research on guideline dissemination and implementation, there continues to be a lack of quality studies to inform the field about quality improvement strategies.

Descriptor Scales

---

Harbour, R., & Miller, J. (2001). A new system for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines. British Medical Journal, 323, 334–336.

Abstract: Harbour and Miller provide the rationale and framework for the development of guidelines by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) for evaluating the quality of evidence based clinical research. The guidelines for determining levels of evidence and grades of recommendation are based on study design and quality of methodology. SIGN developed a hierarchy of study types as well as key stages in developing recommendations. The authors recommend the use of a checklist to ensure all aspects are considered. An additional checklist is suggested for the evaluation of diagnostic tests.

Descriptor Scales

---

Harden, A. (2010). FOCUS Technical Brief (25). Mixed-Methods Systematic Reviews: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Findings.

Abstract: This FOCUS is adapted from Dr. Angela Harden's presentation at the "National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) Knowledge Translation Conference," held July 29, 2009, in Washington, DC. Widely known for her methodological work integrating qualitative research into systematic reviews, she is an active contributor to the Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations and has a keen interest in research synthesis and knowledge translation. She has conducted extensive research into the health of young people and the communities in which they live.

Descriptor Scales

---

Harmsworth, S., Turpin, S., & the TQEF National Co-ordination Team. (2000). Creating an effective dissemination strategy: An expanded interactive workbook for educational development projects

Abstract: The Harmsworth and Turpin document is a step-by-step workbook for research teams to use in developing an effective plan for dissemination of their findings. The authors focus attention on what is to be disseminated, identification of the target populations, establishment of reasonable timeframes, and venue of dissemination. The authors note that effective dissemination involves the recipient to participate in the awareness, understanding or action dictated by the new knowledge.

Descriptor Scales

---

Hasnain, R. et al. (2011). FOCUS Technical Brief (31). Do Cultural Competency Interventions Work? A Systematic Review on Improving Rehabilitation Outcomes for Ethnically and Linguistically Diverse Individuals with Disabilities.

Abstract: This FOCUS describes a systematic review that was conducted to address a critically important research question about cultural competency by taking stock of the current literature and evidence. The review examined whether cultural competency interventions improve rehabilitation outcomes for ethnically and linguistically diverse individuals with disabilities, and if so, for whom and under what conditions.

Descriptor Scales

---

Haynes, R. B., Cotoi, C., Holland, J., Walters, L, Wilczynski, N., Jedraszewski, D.,McKinlay, J., Parrish, R., & McKibbon, K. A. (2006). Second-order peer review of the medical literature for clinical practitioners. JAMA, 295(15), 1801-1808.

Abstract: Haynes et al. describe The McMaster Online Rating of Evidence (MORE) system that utilizes practicing physicians to rate peer-reviewed journal articles in their discipline as the basis for inclusion in the McMaster Premium Literature Service (PLUS) Internet access program. Following a review by staff, volunteer physicians rate articles by whether the article is important to the field (relevance) and whether it is new information (newsworthy). The ratings provide a screen for articles to be included in an Internet service that notifies physicians of recent research. The project demonstrated the value of a peer review of published journal articles by discipline.

Descriptor Scales

---

Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165-179.

Abstract: Horner et al. provide guidelines for consideration of single-subject research as evidence-based to include: precise description that allows for replicability; clear explanation of context as well as outcomes; documentation of fidelity, and demonstration of causal relationship between the practice and change while controlling for extraneous variables. The authors present an overview of the features of single-subject research as well as suggestions for judging the quality of such research.

Descriptor Scales

---

IOM (Institute of Medicine). (2011).Finding what works in health care: Standards for systematic reviews. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Abstract: This is a report from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) on a consensus study from the Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research, Board on Health Care Services. The IOM suggests a number of standards for conducting systematic reviews, including standards for: initiating a systematic review, finding and assessing individual studies, synthesizing evidence, reporting, and improving the quality of systematic reviews.

Descriptor Scales

---

Johnston, M. V., Sherer, M., & Whyte, J. (2006). Applying evidence standards to rehabilitation research. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85, 292-309. full-text source.

Abstract: Johnston et al. explain evidenced based practice standards used in systematic reviews. In addition, the authors apply the evidence based methods to analyze the quality of research in spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, and burn rehabilitation. The article concludes that although the rehabilitation field has experienced a dramatic increase in systematic reviews published each year, the number of studies that met the highest level of criteria was very small in all three areas of research.

Descriptor Scales

---

Johnston, M. V., Vanderheiden, G. C., Farkas, M. D., Rogers, E. S., Summers, J. A., & Westbrook, J. D., for the NCDDR Task Force on Standards of Evidence and Methods. (2009). The challenge of evidence in disability and rehabilitation research and practice: A position paper. Austin, TX: SEDL.

Abstract: The Challenge of Evidence in Disability and Rehabilitation Research and Practice: A Position Paper was developed in November, 2009, by the NCDDR's Task Force on Standards of Evidence and Methods. This task force position paper focuses on evidence for interventions in the field of disability and rehabilitation (D&R). The document's specific objectives are to clarify what is meant by the term evidence and to describe the nature of the contemporary systems used to identify and evaluate evidence in intervention research; to identify the challenges in meeting contemporary standards of evidence in the field of D&R interventions and to propose next steps for examining related issues and for taking action to promote the availability of evidence-based services and information in the field of D&R interventions.

Descriptor Scales

---

Lane, J. P. (2010). FOCUS Technical Brief (26). Facilitating Technology-Based Knowledge Utilization.

Abstract: This FOCUS presents a framework for integrating two distinct processes: knowledge translation (KT) and technology transfer (TT). The integration permits stakeholders involved in technology-based research and development activities to identify and coordinate their respective roles, and to optimize the eventual use of research by industry for production purposes.

Descriptor Scales

---

Lane, J. P. (2012). FOCUS Technical Brief (34). Tracking Evidence of Knowledge Use Through Knowledge Translation, Technology Transfer, and Commercial Transactions.

Abstract: This FOCUS extends ideas presented in No. 26, which considered the processes of knowledge translation (KT) and technology transfer (TT) in technological innovation. Here, we explain that both KT and TT contribute to accomplishing yet a third process—commercial transaction—which is the actual transformation of knowledge embodied in products and services into beneficial socioeconomic impacts. Planning, managing, and documenting the progression of knowledge use through the technological innovation pipeline culminates in an exchange of utility between the producers and consumers of knowledge through this market mechanism.

Descriptor Scales

---

Lane, J. P. (2015). Bridging the persistent gap between R&D and application: A historical review of government efforts in the field of assistive technology. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefit, 9(1), 1-19. Retrieved from: http://atia.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageID=4642

Abstract: The United States government funds research and development programs to advance the state of technological innovations across many fields. One targeted field is assistive technology devices and services for persons with disabilities. Although these sponsored programs intend to benefit society, they channel most of their funding to university-based scholars. This approach leaves a gap between the specific project outputs (academic papers, patent claims), and their transformation into products, services and related outcomes capable of delivering beneficial socio-economic impacts. One participant/ observer recounts one government agency's efforts to bridge this gap over the past twenty-five years, by initiating projects addressing the transformational processes of technology transfer and knowledge translation.

Descriptor Scales

---

Lane, J. P., & Flagg, J. L. (2010.). Translating three states of knowledge--discovery, invention, and innovation. Implementation Science 5(9). doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-9.

© 2010 Lane and Flagg; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract: Knowledge Translation (KT) has historically focused on the proper use of knowledge in healthcare delivery. A knowledge base has been created through empirical research and resides in scholarly literature. Some knowledge is amenable to direct application by stakeholders who are engaged during or after the research process, as shown by the Knowledge to Action (KTA) model. Other knowledge requires multiple transformations before achieving utility for end users. For example, conceptual knowledge generated through science or engineering may become embodied as a technology-based invention through development methods. The invention may then be integrated within an innovative device or service through production methods.

Science and engineering focused on technology-based devices or services change the state of knowledge through three successive activities. Achieving knowledge implementation requires methods that accommodate these three activities and knowledge states. Accomplishing beneficial societal impacts from technology-based knowledge involves the successful progression through all three activities, and the effective communication of each successive knowledge state to the relevant stakeholders. The KTA model appears suitable for structuring and linking these processes.

Descriptor Scales

---

Lane, J. P., & Rogers, J. D. (2011). FOCUS Technical Brief (32). Knowledge Value Mapping of National Organizations: A Knowledge Translation Strategy to Efficiently Communicate Research-Based Knowledge to Multiple Stakeholder Audiences.

Abstract: This FOCUS describes the results from a series of comparative case studies exploring how selected national organizations, representing different stakeholder groups, can play an important role in communicating new research findings to diverse audiences. Knowledge value mapping helps understand the context of each organization's mission and the interests of their members.

Descriptor Scales

---

Lauer, P. A. (2004). A policymakers primer on education research: How to understand, evaluate, and use it. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

Abstract: The Lauer document to provides decision-makers and other interested persons with a comprehensive explanation of the various aspects of educational research. Its intended audience is people who have limited knowledge regarding educational research. A joint effort of the Education Commission of the States (ECS) and Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL), the Primer is "part of a larger project that seeks to improve the connection between research and policy" (p. iii). It offers sufficient information to support evidence-based decisions based on empirical research. The Web-based version also includes an interactive checklist to help determine if a piece of research should be used in making policy.

Descriptor Scales

---

Leahy, J. A. (2011). FOCUS Technical Brief (30). KT4TT: Knowledge Translation Embedded in Technology Transfer.

Abstract: This FOCUS provides examples of how technology-focused grantees funded by NIDILRR, such as Small Business Innovation Research projects and Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers, can embed knowledge translation (KT) efforts throughout the technology transfer (TT) process. This issue also describes the Product Utilization Support and Help (PUSH) Award in a broader context of knowledge translation.

Descriptor Scales

---

Leahy, J. A., & Chau, T. (2013). FOCUS Technical Brief (36). Infinity Communication Access Lab Recognized With 2012 Product Utilization Support and Help (PUSH) Award.

Abstract: This FOCUS issue describes the exemplary knowledge translation work of the winner of this year's Center on KT4TT's 2012 PUSH Award. The recipient, Infinity Communication Access Lab, is a partnership between Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital and the Toronto District School Board in Toronto, Canada. The lab aims to discover person-centered access solutions and to ensure that those solutions are transferred into environments true to where children live and learn. Dr. Tom Chau oversees the lab, which serves 130 public school students with a range of developmental conditions.

Descriptor Scales

---

Lencucha, R., Kothari, A., Rouse, M. (2007). The Issue is Knowledge Translation: A concept for occupational therapy? American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61, 593-596.

Abstract: Lenchucha et al. describe the concepts of evidence-based practice (EBP) and knowledge translation (KT) as they relate specifically to the Occupational Therapy community. The importance of research-based practices is recognized. Yet, a bi-directional relationship is proposed, where prior experiences and practice history should also influence research topics. The importance of focusing on the occupational community instead of singular examples within the research is also a central issue.

Descriptor Scales

---

Loveridge, R. (1997). Social science as social reconstruction: A celebration of discontinuity or a test of the resilience of belief? Human Relations, 50(8), 879-884. source.

Abstract: Loveridge, the editor of this special 50th year anniversary issue of the journal Human Relations, traces social science scholarship and its impact from the mid- to late 20th century. In the decades after World War II, a social science theory known as "Organizational Behavior" was applied to the management and social administration of organizations. Loveridge advocates rethinking these basic assumptions and convictions on which many institutions still base their practice. This issue of Human Relations explores the issue in specific contexts, such as the United Nations, international media and non-governmental organizations. The article may be of interest to researchers with interest in knowledge value mapping, since it examines the relationship between and among research, practice, and values.

Descriptor Scales

---

McClean, S., & Shaw, A. (2005). From schism to continuum? The problematic relationship between expert and lay knowledge–an exploratory conceptual synthesis of two qualitative studies. Qualitative Health Research, 15(6), 729-749.

Abstract: McClean and Shaw explore the relationship between expert and lay knowledge, suggesting that knowledge is on a continuum. They analyze two qualitative studies presenting both the lay and expert points of view via explication of three themes: a mistrust of biomedical knowledge; the role for intuitive, individuated and personalized knowledge; and the potential for different forms of lay expertise.

Descriptor Scales

---

National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research. (2005). Knowledge translation planning: Background information for the June 9-10, 2005 panel meeting. Paper presented at the meeting of the Knowledge Translation Planning Panel June 9-10, 2005, in Austin, Texas.

Abstract: The National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) produced this document as background information for the meeting of the Knowledge Transition Planning Panel on June 9-10, 2005. It includes information on panel members as well as NIDILRR’s knowledge translation goals, general information about knowledge translation, and NIDILRR Disability and Rehabilitation Research sample products. The Appendix contains a paper by Mark Johnston, PhD entitled "Applying Evidence Based Standards to Medical Rehabilitation Research: An Overview." The Johnston article is also available in this collection.

Descriptor Scales

---

NCDDR. (2005). FOCUS Technical Brief (9). What are the standards for quality research?

Abstract: This issue of FOCUS discusses principles and standards for quality research, the basis for these standards, and strategies for reporting quality research. In the fields of disability and rehabilitation research, there is a healthy debate regarding the specific criteria for quality research, and the specific checklists to be used to standardize reporting. As the debate ensues, there are many ideas emerging in the public domain related to quality research and quality evidence that can be used to help guide the discussion.

Descriptor Scales

---

NCDDR. (2005). FOCUS Technical Brief (10). What is knowledge translation?

Abstract: This issue of FOCUS discusses knowledge translation, a relatively new term that is used to describe a relatively old problem-the underutilization of evidence-based research in systems of care. This article describes relevant KT concepts, KT planning models, and suggests a working definition for KT that is designed to reflect NIDILRR's research and development priorities.

Descriptor Scales

---

NCDDR. (2005). FOCUS Technical Brief (11). Communities of practice: A strategy for sharing and building knowledge.

Abstract: This issue of FOCUS discusses the use of Communities of Practice (CoPs) as a knowledge transfer (KT) strategy. CoPs are "groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis" (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). By building on its members' shared knowledge, a CoP can be useful in developing new ideas and new strategies. The NCDDR's efforts to support a CoP for NIDILRR grantees are also described.

Descriptor Scales

---

NCDDR. (2005). FOCUS Technical Brief (12). What Consumers and Researchers Say About Research.

Abstract: The NCDDR and the Research Utilization Support and Help (RUSH) project at the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory conducted two studies in 2005 with different audiences in order to learn more about their perceptions of research and how best to get information to diverse groups of end users. This issue of FOCUS shares the findings from the two studies and suggests potential implications.

Descriptor Scales

---

NCDDR. (2006). FOCUS Technical Brief (13). Meet the new NCDDR.

Abstract: This issue of FOCUS describes how the impetus for NCDDR's reorganization relates to NIDILRR's new emphasis on knowledge translation. It also outlines several of the services the NCDDR will offer to NIDILRR grantees and, in some cases, to interested consumers.

Descriptor Scales

---

NCDDR. (2006). FOCUS Technical Brief (14). Overview of international literature on knowledge translation.

Abstract: This issue of FOCUS summarizes the KT process as described by several international authors. International scholars, particularly from Canada and Europe, have published numerous articles on KT processes and strategies. While the majority of these KT articles are published in medical and health-care journals, there is a growing interest in applying the KT concept more generically (i.e., knowledge to action) and to other disciplines, including disability and rehabilitation research.

Descriptor Scales

---

NCDDR. (2008). FOCUS Technical Brief (20). Campbell Collaboration Establishes Disability Subgroup.

Abstract: This FOCUS highlights exciting new developments within the international Campbell Collaboration (C2) establishing a disability subgroup. A previous issue of FOCUS (Technical Brief, No. 16, 2007) provides background information about C2 and its work regarding systematic reviews.

Descriptor Scales

---

NCDDR. (2011). FOCUS Technical Brief (29). The Cochrane Collaboration: A Valuable Knowledge Translation Resource.

Abstract: This FOCUS provides a brief overview of The Cochrane Collaboration and highlights entities and resources of the Collaboration that can assist disability and rehabilitation researchers and knowledge users in their knowledge translation efforts. The Cochrane Collaboration has become the premier source worldwide of high-quality systematic reviews in health care and its efforts apply in many ways to disability and rehabilitation, particularly in the health and function domain.

Descriptor Scales

---

Nelson, T. D., & Steele, R. G. (2007). Predictors of practitioner self-reported use of evidence-based practices: Practitioner training, clinical setting, and attitudes toward research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 34(4), 319 - 330.

Abstract: Nelson and Steele present the results of an online survey of 214 mental health practitioners in 15 states regarding the implementation of evidence-based practice (EBP). The survey instrument consists of 97 items requiring the practitioner to make a judgment on a 4-point scale. The authors examine the relationships between self-reported EBP use and several factors: perceived openness of the clinical setting toward EBP; theoretical orientation (i.e. cognitive-behavioral, behavioral, family systems, psychodynamic, humanistic); the practitioner’s attitudes toward treatment research (i.e. positive or negative); the practitioner’s receipt of training in EBP; practitioner’s academic degree; and practitioner’s years of experience.

Descriptor Scales

---

Nobrega, A. R., Lane, J. P., Flagg, J. L., Stone, V. I. Lockett, M. M., Oddo, C., Leahy, J. A., & Usiak, D. J. (2015). Assessing the roles of national organizations in research-based knowledge creation, engagement and translation: Comparative results across three assistive technology application areas. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefit, 9(1), 54-97. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3180429/

Abstract: Research and development projects funded by scholars and government agencies are increasingly expected to demonstrate evidence of impact resulting from their efforts. Scholars traditionally relied on passive diffusion to spread their study findings out among broader communities. However, scholars are now being held accountable and are required to actively support and track the post-output paths of their research projects. Therefore, they must reach non-traditional stakeholder groups extending beyond their scholarly community. Mapping the value systems of organizations representing diverse stakeholders (i.e. Knowledge Value Mapping) is explored as a means to improve knowledge translation, thereby increasing impact. This paper expounds upon a prior analysis conducted in augmentative and alternative communication to two additional assistive technology application areas: Recreational access and wheeled mobility. The purpose is to determine the extent to which the original findings can be generalized. Results indicate that 1) findings from the initial study are, in fact, generalizable to various assistive technology fields of application; 2) national organizations are an appropriate channel for translating and disseminating new research-based knowledge to diverse stakeholders; 3) national organizations engage with knowledge mechanisms at different levels and in different capacities. These results suggest that researchers should identify organizations representing the stakeholder groups most relevant to their own area of study, and then conduct the Knowledge Value Mapping process with those organizations to identify the best approach to knowledge translation.

Descriptor Scales

---

Palsbo, S. E., & Kailes, J. I. (2006). Disability-competent health systems. Disability Studies Quarterly, 26.

Abstract: Palsbo and Kailes outline of the Disability-Competent Health System, using the framework of the commonly-used Chronic Medical Model. The authors challenge health care systems to be more accessible and "disability-competent." Suggestions are made throughout the article on how to modify current practice to meet the needs of persons with disabilities. The article includes an 11-point checklist to assist health care systems in evaluating their ability to serve people with disabilities properly.

Descriptor Scales

---

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Utilization-focused evaluation (U-FE) checklist.

Abstract: The Patton checklist provides step-by-step procedures for implementing a utilization-focused evaluation (U-FE). The U-FE is a process in which the evaluator and intended user collaborate on the design and implementation of the evaluation as well as the projected use of the outcomes. The process may be applied to any evaluation design, purpose, topic or type of data. The checklist also includes challenges for the evaluation facilitation at each step in the process.

Descriptor Scales

---

Renger, R., & Hurley, C. (2006). From theory to practice: Lessons learned in the application of the ATM approach to developing logic models. Evaluation and Program Planning, 29(2),106–119.

Abstract: Renger and Hurley give an overview of the three-step systematic Antecedent, Target, Measurements (ATM) approach to developing logic models. The authors offer the advantages of the ATM approach in comparison to others that have been developed. Further, the article includes practical lessons for implementing the model in a variety of settings.

Descriptor Scales

---

Rimmer, J. H., Wang, E., Yamaki, K., & Brienne, D. (2010). FOCUS Technical Brief (24). Documenting Disparities in Obesity and Disability.

Abstract: This FOCUS presents NIDILRR-funded research highlighting the disparities in obesity experienced by youth and adults with disabilities, potential consequences of those disparities, and suggestions for addressing these disparities. Authors James H. Rimmer, PhD; Edward Wang, PhD; Kiyoshi Yamaki, PhD; and Brienne Davis, MPH conducted the research for the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Project (DRRP) "Reducing Obesity and Obesity-Related Secondary Conditions in Adolescents with Disabilities" (H133A060066), Center on Health Promotion for Persons with Disabilities, University of Illinois at Chicago.

Descriptor Scales

---

Rogers, J. D. (2000). Theoretical consideration of collaboration in scientific research. In J.S. Hauger and C. McEnaney (Eds.). Strategies for Competitiveness in Academic Research (Chapter 6).

Abstract: Rogers examines the interactions between the individual researchers and the factors that impact their research (e.g. policies of the university). Rogers endorses the concepts of "knowledge value collectives," consisting of people with varying objectives as well as individuals outside of the scientific community working across fields, disciplines, and institutions. He recommends the "knowledge value framework" as the basis to assess the impact of research because it takes into consideration the persons outside of the immediate research environment that affect the interpretation and use of the scientific work. Companion articles are available in this collection entitled, "A Churn Model of Scientific Knowledge Value: Internet Researchers as a Knowledge Value Collective" (Bozeman & Rogers, 2002) and "Public Value Mapping of Science Outcomes: Theory and Method" (Bozeman, 2003).

Descriptor Scales

---

Schlosser, R. W. (2006). FOCUS Technical Brief (15). The Role of Systematic Reviews in Evidence-Based Practice, Research, and Development.

Abstract: This issue of FOCUS written by Ralf W. Schlosser, PhD, is part one of a three part series on the topic of evidence-based technology. This issue provides an overview of systematic reviews in research and development. Systematic reviews aim to synthesize the results of multiple original studies by using strategies that delimit bias. Systematic reviews can be used to inform evidence-based practice, which is increasingly shaping the disability and rehabilitation research field.

Descriptor Scales

---

Schlosser, R.W. (2007). FOCUS Technical Brief (17). Appraising the Quality of Systematic Reviews.

Abstract: This issue of FOCUS written by Ralf W. Schlosser, PhD, is part two of a three part series on systematic reviews. This issue describes critical considerations for appraising the quality of a systematic review including the protocol, question, sources, scope, selection principles, and data extraction. The author also describes tools for appraising systematic reviews.

Descriptor Scales

---

Schlosser, R. W. (2009). FOCUS Technical Brief (22). The Role of Single-Subject Experimental Designs in Evidence-Based Practice Times.

Abstract: This FOCUS written by Ralf W. Schlosser, PhD, describes high quality single subject experimental designs (SSEDs) in terms of establishing empirically supported treatments and implementing evidence-based practice (EBP). The author also compares and contrasts SSEDs to n-of-1 randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Descriptor Scales

---

Scott, A. (2006). Peer review and the relevance of science. SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series 145.

Abstract: Scott analyzes of the use of peer reviews in funding decisions, academic publishing, and promotions in research institutions and universities. The author suggests that peer reviews tend to downplay social relevance and innovation in preference or judging potential research in comparison to existing knowledge. The article notes that social problems require a peer review process that includes a wider range of competencies and interests, such as external validity, relevance, interdisciplinary effort and level of risk. Further, the author recommends that peer reviews be conducted in a structured manner to make the process more transparent.

Descriptor Scales

---

Shadish, W., & Myers, D. (2004). Campbell Collaboration research design policy brief.

Abstract: The Research Design Policy Brief provides a rationale and proposed policies regarding The Campbell Collaboration's systematic reviews on the effectiveness of an intervention. The policies propose development of two databases for randomized and nonrandomized studies, standard design codes to be used in reviews, and designated searchable fields to identify research in the databases.

Descriptor Scales

---

Shadish, W. R., & Rindskopf, D. M. (2007). Methods for evidence-based practice: Quantitative synthesis of single-subject designs. New Directions for Evaluation, 113, 95-109.

Abstract: Shadish and Rindskopf describe the use of single-subject designs in meta-analyses. The article reviews methods for analyzing multiple single-subject designs, suggests methods for conducting a meta-analysis using single-subject designs, and includes a list of current meta-analyses.

Descriptor Scales

---

Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL) (2005), Utilizing measurement: Focusing on the "U" in "D&U". Research Utilization Support and Help (RUSH), Authority Section 202, 29 U.S. C. 761a; Federal Register, 2/6/97. pp. 5711-5721.

Abstract: This special report focuses on the importance of utilization as a part of the dissemination process. Information is presented on strategies that can be helpful in designing ways to measure the effectiveness of your dissemination activities through their use by intended audiences. The report also highlights the need for utilization evaluation to be a helpful tool for project staff by suggesting ways to improve dissemination and resulting utilization outcomes. Steps for planning and implementing an effective utilization evaluation effort are described.

Descriptor Scales

---

Stone, V. I., & Lane, J. P. (2012). FOCUS Technical Brief (35). Modeling Technology Innovation: Combining Science, Engineering, and Industry Methods to Achieve Beneficial Socioeconomic Impacts Systematically and Deliberately.

Abstract: This FOCUS summarizes a paper recently published in the open-access journal, Implementation Science (Stone & Lane, 2012). The full paper presents a conceptual framework that integrates scientific research, engineering development, and industry production into a logic model format, which is useful for planning, obtaining, and measuring the impacts that result from implementing knowledge in practice (Lane & Flagg, 2010).

Descriptor Scales

---

Stone, V. I., Lane, J. P., Tomita, M R., Nobrega, A. R., Flagg, J. L., Leahy, J. A., Lockett, M.M., Oddo, C., & Usiak, D. J. (2015).Effectively communicating knowledge to assistive technology stakeholders: Three randomized controlled case studies. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefit, 9(1), 98-159. Retrieved from: https://www.atia.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/ATOBV9N1.pdf#page=112

Abstract: Knowledge Translation (KT) proposes to achieve expected benefits for end-users from funded research through effective communication of new knowledge aimed at increased uptake and use by stakeholders. This paper describes a series of three randomized controlled case studies assessing the comparative effectiveness of two interventions designed to communicate new knowledge to members of multiple stakeholder groups: tailor-and-target versus target-only approaches, as well as comparing them to a control condition of passive diffusion. The study participants’ level of knowledge use was measured as any of four levels: Nonawareness, Awareness, Interest, or Use, through the validated Level of Knowledge Use instrument. Changes from Pretest to posttest levels were analyzed both for statistical significance and for practical meaningfulness. Across the three studies both intervention were effective with the total samples as compared to control. However, they did not differ from each other suggesting that the added effort involved in tailoring new knowledge might be unnecessary as a general rule. Tailoring appeared to be more effective with some stakeholder types as results showed differential effects between stakeholder groups and across the three studies. The recipient of new knowledge remains the chief arbiter for determining level of use, meaning that relevance is as crucial as rigor in the context of increasing uptake and use of new knowledge from scientific research studies. New research is needed on effective ways for incorporating user needs into the knowledge generation process.

Descriptor Scales

---

Sudsawad, P. (2007). Knowledge translation: Introduction to models, strategies, and measures. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research.

Abstract: Knowledge translation (KT) is a complex and multidimensional concept that demands a comprehensive understanding of its mechanisms, methods, and measurements, as well as its influencing factors at the individual and contextual levels—and the interaction between those levels. This literature review is not intended to be an in-depth or systematic review of knowledge translation, but is designed to bring together several aspects of KT from selected literature for the purpose of raising awareness, connecting thoughts and perspectives, and stimulating ideas and questions about KT for future research in this area of inquiry in rehabilitation. It begins with a review of definitions of knowledge translation and identifies and examines KT models. Next, several KT strategies and their effectiveness are explored, and finally, several methods and approaches to measure the use of research knowledge in various dimensions are presented.

Descriptor Scales

---

Task Force on Systematic Review and Guidelines. (2013). Assessing the quality and applicability of systematic reviews (AQASR). Austin, TX: SEDL, Center on Knowledge Translation for Disability and Rehabilitation Research.

Abstract: The basic purpose of the AQASR document and checklist is to help busy clinicians, administrators, and researchers to ask critical questions that help to reveal the strengths and weaknesses of a systematic review, in general, and as relevant to their particular clinical question or other practical concerns. Its primary audience is clinicians, as most systematic reviews are optimized to answer the clinical questions they have.

Descriptor Scales

---

Teutsch, S. M., & Berger, M. L. (2005). Evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision making: Related but distinct processes. Medical Decision Making, 25, 487-489.

Abstract: Teutsch and Berger note the increasing use of evidence syntheses to assist a variety of leaders and policymakers in evidence-based decision making. The authors reports that evidence-based reviews and syntheses have very specific guidelines, including an appeals process, in order to make the process transparent to decision makers. However, the authors add that although evidence-based decision making should be transparent to stakeholders, there are no similar standards guiding the use of the information in evidence-based decision making.

Descriptor Scales

---

Tetroe, J. (2005). A review of knowledge transfer conceptual models, frameworks and theories to facilitate best practice implementation. PowerPoint presentation at the September, 2005, biannual meeting of the Improved Clinical Effectiveness through Behavioural Research Group.

Abstract: Tetroe summarizes interim results from a study of conceptual models, frameworks, and theories on knowledge translation (planned change). Planned change refers to "deliberately engineering change that occurs in groups that vary in size and setting" (Tetroe, 2005). The review of 30 models/frameworks identified several planned action theories which "promote, plan or implement change" (Tetroe, 2005). Many of the models have concepts in common; however, most have not been empirically tested and generalizability is implied but not supported by data.

Descriptor Scales

---

Tetroe, J. (2007). FOCUS Technical Brief (18). Knowledge Translation at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research: A Primer.

Abstract: In this FOCUS, Jacqueline Tetroe describes the work of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and efforts to translate knowledge from the research setting into real-world applications for the benefit of Canadians.

Descriptor Scales

---

Tremblay, G.J.L., Drouin, D., Parker, J., Monette, C., Côté, D., & Reid, R.D. (2004). The Canadian Cardiovascular Society and knowledge translation: Turning best evidence into best practice. Canadian Journal of Cardiology, 20(12), 1195-1198.

Abstract: Tremblay et al. define knowledge translation as "turning best evidence into best practice" (p. 1195). The authors propose the Canadian Cardiovascular Society to take the lead in knowledge translation of biomedical literature as it relates to cardiology. Further, the article outlines the advantages of knowledge translation in comparison with current practitioners’ continuing medical education (CME) and continuing professional development (CPD).

Descriptor Scales

---

Turner, H. M. & Nye, C. (2007). FOCUS Technical Brief (16). The Campbell Collaboration: Systematic Reviews and Implications for Evidence-Based Practice.

Abstract: This issue of FOCUS written by Herb M. Turner III, PhD and Chad Nye, PhD, highlights the work of the Campbell Collaboration (C2) and the development of systematic reviews of research evidence.

Descriptor Scales

---

Valentine, J. C., Cooper, H.,,Patall, E. A., Tyson, D., & Robinson, J. C. (2010). A method for evaluating research syntheses: The quality, conclusions, and consensus of 12 syntheses of the effects of after-school programs. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(1), 20-38. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.3

Abstract: Valentine et al. examine the methods used in 12 research syntheses of after-school programs (ASPs). Their goals are to determine if "best practices" are demonstrated in these syntheses, to compare the conclusions from the syntheses with the data observed by this review team, and to look for consistency regarding conclusions about the effects of ASPs. Evaluation tools and a coding guide are created and implemented to compare the various syntheses. A wide variety of methods are identified across the syntheses and few consistencies in the findings are identified. The tools and procedures used by the authors can help researchers and policymakers to review more than one synthesis for decision making.

Descriptor Scales

---

Vanderheiden, G. (2013). FOCUS Technical Brief (37). Lessons Learned in Technology Transfer from Dr. Gregg Vanderheiden and the Trace Research & Development Center.

Abstract: This FOCUS describes the exemplary technology transfer (TT) and knowledge translation (KT) work of the 2013 winner of the Center on KT4TT's Product Utilization Support and Help (PUSH) Award. The recipient is Dr. Gregg Vanderheiden and the Trace Research & Development Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Descriptor Scales

---

Weigold, M. (2002). Communicating science. In Washington Research Evaluation Network Management Benchmarking Study (Section 4, Chap. 17).

Abstract: Weigold acknowledges the responsibility of scientists to make their research available to the public. The author notes conflicting priorities between scientists and journalists reporting on their research. In addition, the article categorizes the public’s receptivity to science research, noting that science reporting potential risks seem to garner the greatest audience. Science communication can impact public attitudes and policy-making.

Descriptor Scales

---

Woloshin, S., & Schwartz, L. M. (2006). What's the rush? The dissemination and adoption of preliminary research results. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 98(6), 372-373.

Abstract: Woloshin and Schwartz raise the issue of adopting the results of interim research into clinical practice. The authors recommended that meeting organizers and medical journal editors coordinate the presentation of results with the publication process, thus allowing for more complete information to be presented and establishing the expectation that research would be published near the same time as the meeting. The article includes a checklist for practitioners to consult in determining whether to use preliminary research findings. Finally, the authors recommend that any preliminary finding should include a caution that the information may change before the study is completed.

Descriptor Scales

---

World Health Organization. (2005). Bridging the "know-do" gap meeting on knowledge translation in global health.

Abstract: The World Health Organization (WHO) document provides a summary of proceedings of a meeting of international representatives on knowledge translation, hosted by WHO. In recognition of the gap between research evidence and practical application, the purpose of the meeting was to develop recommendations for action to bridge the "know-do" gap. The participants strongly supported knowledge translation as an important strategy in addressing the gap while promoting a culture of learning, critical thinking and innovation.

Descriptor Scales

---

Zaza, S., Carande-Kulis, V. G., Sleet, D. A., Sosin, D. M., Elder, R. W., Shults, R. A., et al. (2001). Methods for conducting systematic reviews of the evidence of effectiveness and economic efficiency of interventions to reduce injuries to motor vehicle occupants. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 21(4), (Suppl. 1), 23-30.

Abstract: Zaza et al. describe a step-by-step process for completing systematic reviews. To explain their methods, the authors used the topic of the economic efficiency of interventions that reduce injuries of motor vehicle occupants. The article describes selection of team members, development of a conceptual approach to identifying interventions to be included in the review, criteria for selection of studies, search strategy, assessing the quality of the studies, and recommendations as well as implications for future research. The authors also noted collection of barriers and ancillary data that may explain the findings.

Descriptor Scales