This blog post is a modified segment of my dissertation, done under the supervision of Dr. Tiffany Berry at Claremont Graduate University. You can read the full dissertation on the Open Science Framework here. The rest of the blog posts in this series on my dissertation are linked below:

1. Factors that promote use: A conceptual framework

2. Defining evidence use

3. Overview of my dissertation study: sample, recruitment, & measures

4. Question 1: To what extent are interpersonal and research factors related to use?

5. Question 2: To what extent do interpersonal factors relate to use beyond research factors?

6. Question 3: How do researchers and evaluators differ in use, interpersonal factors, and research factors? 

The first question was simply how interpersonal and research factors were correlated with evidence use, whereas this research question examined the added variance explained of interpersonal factors above and beyond research factors. To do this, I analyzed the data using a structural equation model (SEM) looking at the latent interpersonal factor, one of the four stakeholder involvement items that did not load onto the latent interpersonal factor, the two research factors, and years in the partnership related to evidence use. This model, shown below, had a good fit: χ2 (56) = 125.20, p < .001, CFI = .848, TLI = .913, RMSEA = .059, SRMR = .059.  

When examining all five predictor variables, interpersonal factors continued to be a significant correlate of instrumental, conceptual, and process use. Relevance was only significantly correlated with instrumental and conceptual use. Control of decision-making was weakly correlated to instrumental and process use. Years in the partnership was correlated with instrumental, conceptual, and process use. Rigor was not significantly correlated with use.

Overall, my hypothesis was partially supported: interpersonal factors were more strongly related to process use, somewhat equally strongly related to instrumental use, and less strongly related to conceptual use compared to relevance whereas rigor was not a significant explanatory variable. However, the number of years in the partnership was somewhat equally strongly related to each type of evidence use compared to both interpersonal factors and relevance.

The findings of both research questions support the importance of interpersonal factors—and especially relationship quality—as well as research relevance for instrumental, conceptual, and process use. The slight variations in correlation strength among interpersonal factors and relevance with the three types of use suggest it may be important to focus on some aspects over others to promote the type of use of interest. For example, it may be more beneficial to focus on relationships and promoting a commitment to use for process use, relevance for conceptual use, and relationships and communication for instrumental use.