The development of measures of community capacity for community-based funding programs in Canada

Abstract

Improving community capacity for influencing actions on the determinants of health is an immediate outcome of many Public Health Agency of Canada-funding community-based programs. Despite the importance of this outcome, it has been difficult to measure and describe the contribution of funding programs to improving community capacity. This paper reports on a study conducted to develop and establish the psychometric properties of scales that measure community capacity to address health issues in the context of federally funded community-based programs. A literature review and national think tank with 21 experts informed the development of the first draft of the scales that outlined nine key domains of community capacity. Two focus groups with community practitioners provided information on the face and content validity and general usability of this draft instrument. The revised instrument was sent for pilot testing to 114 community organizations. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were performed to assess the validity, reliability and usability of the instrument. Twenty-nine organizations returned a completed instrument (25% response rate). Principal Component Analysis confirmed scale unidimensionality for eight multi-item scales: all of the component loadings were considered good with all scales loading between 0.60 and 0.92. Scale internal consistency was also considered high with alphas between 0.72 and 0.86 for six of these eight scales. Spearman's correlations were significant for the remaining two multi-item scales (composed of two items each), indicating that the two items for each scale were significantly correlated to each other. One scale could not be analyzed quantitatively, as it contained only a single item. Triangulation of qualitative and quantitative results found consistency in interpretations of scale response sets. Feedback on the instrument indicated interest in using it for project planning and evaluation. Psychometric analyses and triangulation provided evidence of the construct validity and reliability of the instrument. The final instrument covers 9 domains and has a total of 26 items, each with a four-point rating scale and a section for qualitative contextual comments. The instrument provides quantitative and qualitative information on community capacity within the context and scope of community-based funding programs.

Reflections on community-based population health intervention and evaluation for obesity and chronic disease prevention: the Healthy Alberta Communities project

“…In doing so, we were guided by assumptions of community-based participatory research (CBPR). CBPR integrates research with community capacity-building to bridge knowledge development and health promotion practice in communities, and is well suited to ''upstream'' interventions with emphasis on policy and environmental change (Viswanathan et al 2004) To structure our assessment, we used a validated and reliable capacity-building tool (Maclellan-Wright et al 2007). The instrument covers 9 capacity domains and contains 26 items.…”

“…In keeping with the methodology for assessing changes in community capacity over the course of interventions within each of the communities, the HAC project team (authors) used the same validated capacity-building tool (Maclellan-Wright et al 2007) for the overall HAC initiative to facilitate a process of reflection on the successes and challenges of implementing and evaluating community-based interventions for obesity and chronic disease prevention. Project team members most closely involved with the establishment and implementation of the HAC initiative completed the capacity-building tool together, and invited discussion, debate and reflection from other members of the project team at team meetings and in preparation of this manuscript.…”

“…The evaluation of outcome documents levels and nature of community capacity built as assessed through community coordinators completed community capacity-building tools (Maclellan-Wright et al 2007) for each communitydriven intervention. Strength and reach of community networks for chronic disease prevention are appraised via social network analysis (Wasserman and Faust 1994) to explore the relationships among organizations/agencies engaged in the project.…”

Turismo de base comunitária no Brasil. Insustentabilidade é uma questão de gestão

“…Além disso, é essencial analisar o comprometimento participação (Bond et al, 2001;Chapman & Kirk, 2001;Jones, 2005;Bray et al, 2005;Sebola & Fourie, 2006) e dinâmica de poder no que tange a organização comunitária (Wilson et al, 2001;Laverack & Thangphet, 2007;Maclellan et al, 2007), a liderança e tomada de decisão (Williams & Wade, 2002;Ife, 2002;Kirk & Kraft, 2004;Mills, 2005;Moscardo, 2008) …”

A Multidimensional model for child maltreatment prevention readiness in low- and middle-income countries

“…In the last decade, capacity and readiness have become central concerns in the fields of health promotion, prevention science, and public health more generally (Bangkok Charter for Health Promotion in a Globalized World, 2006;Ebbesen, Heath, Naylor, & Anderson, 2004;Laverack & Wallerstein, 2001;MacLellan-Wright et al, 2007). Furthermore, conducting a readiness or capacity assessment, while assumed to be critical for program success, can itself act as an important catalyst for change (Mittlemark et al, 2005;United Nation Development Program, 2008).…”