Coding examples for the outcome variable.

<p>Coding examples for the outcome variable.</p

Research specifications and article quality according to MMAT [15].

<p>Research specifications and article quality according to MMAT <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0080233#pone.0080233-Malo1" target="_blank">[15]</a>.</p

Research users and target public of KT strategies.

<p>Research users and target public of KT strategies.</p

Study identification strategy.

<p>Study identification strategy.</p

Types of utilization by public health field^*.

*<p>Some studies deal with more than one field.</p>**<p>The number of crosses matches the number of articles.</p

Characteristics of research utilization studies included in the scoping study.

<p>Characteristics of research utilization studies included in the scoping study.</p

Descriptive Characteristics of Organizational Readiness Measurement Instruments.

<p>Descriptive Characteristics of Organizational Readiness Measurement Instruments.</p

Assessment checklist for psychometric properties according to AERA/APA/NCME standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.

<p>Assessment checklist for psychometric properties according to AERA/APA/NCME standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.</p

Psychometric Properties of Organizational Readiness Measurement Instruments.

<p>EFA, Exploratory factor analysis; CFA, Confirmatory factor analysis.</p><p>Psychometric Properties of Organizational Readiness Measurement Instruments.</p

A Systematic Review of Instruments to Assess Organizational Readiness for Knowledge Translation in Health Care

<div><p>Background</p><p>The translation of research into practices has been incomplete. Organizational readiness for change (ORC) is a potential facilitator of effective knowledge translation (KT). However we know little about the best way to assess ORC. Therefore, we sought to systematically review ORC measurement instruments.</p><p>Methods</p><p>We searched for published studies in bibliographic databases (Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Web of Science, etc.) up to November 1^st, 2012. We included publications that developed ORC measures and/or empirically assessed ORC using an instrument at the organizational level in the health care context. We excluded articles if they did not refer specifically to ORC, did not concern the health care domain or were limited to individual-level change readiness. We focused on identifying the psychometric properties of instruments that were developed to assess readiness in an organization prior to implementing KT interventions in health care. We used the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing to assess the psychometric properties of identified ORC measurement instruments.</p><p>Findings</p><p>We found 26 eligible instruments described in 39 publications. According to the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, 18 (69%) of a total of 26 measurement instruments presented both validity and reliability criteria. The <i>Texas Christian University –ORC (TCU-ORC) scale</i> reported the highest instrument validity with a score of 4 out of 4. Only one instrument, namely the <i>Modified Texas Christian University – Director version (TCU-ORC-D)</i>, reported a reliability score of 2 out of 3. No information was provided regarding the reliability and validity of five (19%) instruments.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>Our findings indicate that there are few valid and reliable ORC measurement instruments that could be applied to KT in the health care sector. The TCU-ORC instrument presents the best evidence in terms of validity testing. Future studies using this instrument could provide more knowledge on its relevance to diverse clinical contexts.</p></div