Translation and psychometric assessment of the Chinese versions of the acceptability of intervention measure, intervention appropriateness measure, and feasibility of intervention measure

Acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility are the key indicators of successful implementation of practices. The Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM), Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM), and Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) serve as effective instruments for evaluating these indicators. They are brief, user-friendly, and possess strong psychometric properties. However, they have not undergone cross-cultural validation for use within the Chinese context. This article aimed to translate and cross-culturally adapt the AIM, IAM, and FIM in China and assessed their psychometric properties. The cross-cultural adaptation process adhered to the recommendations outlined in Sousa and Rojjanasrirat’s guideline, and the Chinese versions of the measures were developed through five steps. Psychometric assessments of the three Chinese measures were conducted aligning with the methods applied in the development of the original scale, and three samples of different stakeholders were recruited, including 249 medical postgraduates, 240 health workers, and 247 community residents. Construct and discriminant validity were assessed using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA and CFA), which were conducted separately in two randomly divided groups of each sample. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and McDonald’s omega coefficient were used to assess reliability. Moreover, medical postgraduates were invited to participate in the follow-up survey by assigning the same or opposite virtual scenarios and evaluating acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility again. Test-retest reliability was assessed using Pearson correlation coefficients and Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), while sensitivity to change was evaluated through linear regression. The Chinese versions of three measures, namely, the cAIM, cIAM, and cFIM, were developed successfully. EFA with varimax rotation revealed that all items loaded onto their respective constructs, with factor loadings ranging from 0.87 to 0.96. In the three samples, CFA exhibited acceptable model fit (CFI = 1.00, 0.99, and 0.98, and RMSEA = 0.00, 0.05, and 0.07) in the three samples. The Cronbach’s alpha for each construct and overall scale ranged from 0.87 to 0.98, and the McDonald’s omega ranged from 0.77 to 0.87, indicating acceptable reliability. The Pearson correlation coefficients ranged from 0.83 to 0.90 while the ICCs ranged from 0.76 to 0.87, demonstrating acceptable test-retest reliability. Regression analyses showed that test scores were sensitive to changes in virtual scenarios and consistently shifted in the same direction. The Chinese versions of the AIM, IAM, and FIM exhibit structural validity and demonstrate adequate reliability. These tools can be used to evaluate the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of intervention implementation, facilitating implementation research in China.