Skip to main content

Table 3 Item frequencies and mean scores for Self-Assessment of Conceptual Fit-HIV (SACF-HIV) scale items: baseline (TMI N=115; YMHP N=24)

From: Adapting the self-assessment of contextual fit scale for implementation of evidence-based practices in adolescent HIV settings

Items

Strategy

Not at all

(0)

Slight extent

[1]

Moderate extent

[2]

Great extent

[3]

Very great extent

[4]

Item average (SD)

I believe I have or can gain the skills needed to implement … .

MI

0.9%

7.8%

12.2%

36.5%

42.6%

3.12 (0.97)

YMHP

0%

4.2%

37.5%

37.5%

20.8%

2.75 (0.85)

I believe I have implemented … in the past.a

MI

13.9%

20.9%

17.4%

24.3%

23.5%

2.23 (1.38)

YMHP

20.8%

20.8%

29.2%

12.5%

16.7%

1.83 (1.37)

I believe I would be comfortable implementing the different elements of … .a

MI

0%

7.0%

19.1%

32.2%

41.7%

3.09 (0.94)

YMHP

0%

12.5%

41.7%

20.8%

25.0%

2.58 (1.02)

As far as I can tell, the elements of … are consistent with the way I believe youth should be treated.

MI

0%

5.2%

20.9%

34.8%

39.1%

3.08 (0.90)

YMHP

0%

12.5%

29.2%

29.2%

29.2%

2.75 (1.03)

My clinic would ensure staff get trained before implementing … .

MI

0.9%

7.8%

20.9%

33.9%

36.5%

2.97 (0.99)

YMHP

4.2%

0%

25.0%

37.5%

33.3%

2.96 (1.00)

My clinic would provide staff time to practice … before implementing it with clients.

MI

0.9%

11.3%

23.5%

38.3%

26.1%

2.77 (0.99)

YMHP

0%

0%

29.2%

45.8%

25.0%

2.96 (0.75)

My clinic would provide the supervision support needed for effective implementation of … .

MI

2.6%

12.2%

26.1%

33.9%

25.2%

2.67 (1.07)

YMHP

0%

0%

33.3%

41.7%

25.0%

2.92 (0.78)

I believe … is in the best interest of the young people served at this clinic.

MI

0%

5.2%

21.7%

32.2%

40.9%

3.09 (0.91)

YMHP

0%

4.2%

54.2%

29.2%

12.5%

2.50 (0.78)

… is likely to help young people manage their health.

MI

0%

4.3%

23.5%

33.0%

39.1%

3.07 (0.90)

YMHP

0%

4.2%

41.7%

37.5%

16.7%

2.67 (0.82)

I think implementing … would be fairly easy.

MI

2.6%

14.8%

41.7%

26.1%

14.8%

2.36 (0.99)

YMHP

8.3%

12.5%

45.8%

25.0%

8.3%

2.13 (1.04)

… doesn’t seem like it will take a lot of time to implement.

MI

8.7%

26.1%

28.7%

26.1%

10.4%

2.03 (1.14)

YMHP

16.7%

20.8%

25.0%

33.3%

4.2%

1.88 (1.19)

Overall, as far as I can tell, I think … will fit well within our clinic.

MI

0%

5.2%

25.2%

40.0%

29.6%

2.94 (0.87)

YMHP

0%

12.5%

41.7%

33.3%

12.5%

2.46 (0.88)

  1. Scale range is not at all (score of 0) to very great extent (score of 4)
  2. aItem level mean comparison differences significant at p < 0.05 via Wilcoxon signed rank test (n=18)