(PS10-94) Acceptability, Feasibility, and Appropriateness of Intervention: Comparing Two Measures of Provider Training Perception

Abstract Text: The gap between research and practice of evidence-based intervention is well established. Efforts to reduce this gap often include provider training workshops. Although the impact of workshops alone on implementation may be minimal, providers are more likely to implement an evidence-based intervention if they have positive attitudes or perceptions towards the intervention. Two measures that evaluate provider perceptions of intervention following training workshops are the acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness scale ([AFAS]; Cho et al., 2022) and the acceptability of intervention measure (AIM), appropriateness of intervention measure (IAM), and feasibility of intervention measure (FIM) ([AIM-IAM-FIM], Weiner et al., 2017). We examined reliability, convergent, and divergent validity of AFAS and AIM-IAM-FIM in a sample of mental health providers who treat children and adolescents.
Participants (n = 116) were community-based mental health providers attending free, half-day workshops on evidence-based interventions for children and adolescents. The sample was predominantly female (87.9%), white (87.1%), and non-Hispanic (95.7%), with a mean of 8.40 years of experience (SD = 7.54). Most providers were master's level clinicians (65.5%), worked in outpatient clinics (37.9%), and came from social work (45.7%) and counseling (31%) disciplines. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. Construct validity was evaluated through Pearson correlations across subscales of each measure, with correlations ≥ 0.70 expected (Weiner et al., 2017). Convergent validity was examined by correlating subscales and total scores between the two measures. All analyses were conducted using SPSS 29.0.2.0.
The subscales within the AFAS were more correlated with each other than the same construct in the AIM-IAM-FIM. The subscales correlations ranged from .57 (Acceptability and Appropriateness) to .83 (Feasibility and Appropriateness). This was also found for the AIM-IAM-FIM where the subscales correlations ranged from .75 (Acceptability and Feasibility) to .92 (Acceptability and Appropriateness). Notably, the AFAS Feasibility and AIM-IAM-FIM Appropriateness subscales were highly correlated (r = .71, p < .001), a stronger relationship than the correlations within their respective subscales for Feasibility and Appropriateness. However, as evidence for divergent validity, the correlation between the AFAS Acceptability and AIM-IAM-FIM Appropriateness subscales was moderate (r = .57, p < .001).
These findings suggest that while the AFAS and AIM-IAM-FIM are based on the same framework and aim to assess similar constructs (acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness), they are not directly interchangeable. Concerns regarding redundancy and multicollinearity, along with the predictive validity of these measures, will be discussed.