Evaluating the use of participatory system dynamics group model building for expanding systems thinking capacity among community-based stakeholders

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) methodologies align closely with the field of community psychology. System dynamics group model building (SD GMB) represents a CBPR-grounded approach that is centered on collaborating with stakeholders to develop a shared understanding of the dynamic complexity of a community problem, represented as a system dynamics (SD) model, and identifying potential solutions. Much is still unknown regarding the value of SD GMB for improving systems thinking capacity among community stakeholders. Therefore, this study evaluates systems thinking capacity among 32 stakeholders who participated in SD GMB workshops from two recent studies. Stakeholders completed a baseline survey before the first SD GMB workshop session and a final evaluation survey following the last session. This survey included a validated systems thinking scale (Dolansky et al., 2020) and a "systems thinking knowledge quiz" (only administered during the baseline survey) developed by the research team to assess stakeholder knowledge of key concepts. Among all stakeholders, the average systems thinking quiz score was nearly 45%, and knowledge quiz scores were higher among stakeholders who were older in age, had lived experience, were in healthcare provider or academic researcher/data professional roles, represented the nonprofit or grassroots sectors, reported prior experience with SD GMB, or did not attend the pre-session orientation. Overall, stakeholders' pretest scores and post-test scores did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference; however, increases in systems thinking mean scores were observed among stakeholders who were younger in age, had lived experience, were in community-based nonprofit staff roles, represented nonprofit or grassroots organizations, did not have prior SD GMB experience, or did not attend orientation. These findings underscore the importance of adopting a more differentiated and context-sensitive approach to evaluating SD GMB interventions. Future research should further explore how participatory modeling fosters systems thinking capacity across different stakeholder groups.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community
Published
2026-05-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2026.2668123
Primary Topic
Complex Systems and Decision Making
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluating the use of participatory system dynamics group model building for expanding systems thinking capacity among community-based stakeholders

Deneen Robinson, Kyrah K. Brown, Tiffany Kindratt, Saeideh Fallah-Fini et al.
Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community
Complex Systems and Decision Making
article

Evaluating the use of participatory system dynamics group model building for expanding systems thinking capacity among community-based stakeholders

Deneen Robinson, Kyrah K. Brown, Tiffany Kindratt, Saeideh Fallah-Fini, David W Lounsbury, Rhoda Ojo, Michael K. Lemke, Thanayi Lambert, Mercy Obasanya
article en

Abstract

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) methodologies align closely with the field of community psychology. System dynamics group model building (SD GMB) represents a CBPR-grounded approach that is centered on collaborating with stakeholders to develop a shared understanding of the dynamic complexity of a community problem, represented as a system dynamics (SD) model, and identifying potential solutions. Much is still unknown regarding the value of SD GMB for improving systems thinking capacity among community stakeholders. Therefore, this study evaluates systems thinking capacity among 32 stakeholders who participated in SD GMB workshops from two recent studies. Stakeholders completed a baseline survey before the first SD GMB workshop session and a final evaluation survey following the last session. This survey included a validated systems thinking scale (Dolansky et al., 2020) and a "systems thinking knowledge quiz" (only administered during the baseline survey) developed by the research team to assess stakeholder knowledge of key concepts. Among all stakeholders, the average systems thinking quiz score was nearly 45%, and knowledge quiz scores were higher among stakeholders who were older in age, had lived experience, were in healthcare provider or academic researcher/data professional roles, represented the nonprofit or grassroots sectors, reported prior experience with SD GMB, or did not attend the pre-session orientation. Overall, stakeholders' pretest scores and post-test scores did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference; however, increases in systems thinking mean scores were observed among stakeholders who were younger in age, had lived experience, were in community-based nonprofit staff roles, represented nonprofit or grassroots organizations, did not have prior SD GMB experience, or did not attend orientation. These findings underscore the importance of adopting a more differentiated and context-sensitive approach to evaluating SD GMB interventions. Future research should further explore how participatory modeling fosters systems thinking capacity across different stakeholder groups.

Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community
Albert Einstein College of Medicine (US), California Polytechnic State University (US), The University of Texas at Arlington (US), Technical Resource Group (United States) (US), Division of Undergraduate Education (US), The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Complex Systems and Decision Making
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.