Skip to main content

Table 3 NoMaD instrument as adapted for revalidation

From: The implementation of medical revalidation: an assessment using normalisation process theory


Sub- domains

Sub-domain questions



How does revalidation differ from usual ways of working?

Communal Specification

Do participants have a shared understanding of the purpose of revalidation?

Individual Specification

How does revalidation affect the work for participants?


Can participants see the potential value of revalidation?

Cognitive participation


Are there key people who drive the revalidation forward and get others involved?


Do participants believe that being involved in revalidation is a legitimate part of their role?


Are participants open to working with others in new ways for the purposed of revalidation?


Are participants willing to support revalidation?

Collective action

Interactional workability

Can participants easily integrate revalidation into their existing work?

Relational integration

Does being involved in revalidation disrupt working relationships?

Do participants have confidence in other people’s ability to carry out revalidation?

Skill set workability

Do participants believe work is assigned to those with appropriate skills to carry out revalidation?

Is sufficient training provided to enable participants to enact revalidation?

Contextual integration

Are sufficient resources available to support revalidation?

Do management adequately support revalidation?

Reflexive monitoring


Are participants aware of reports about the effects of the revalidation?

Communal appraisal

Do participants agree that revalidation is worthwhile?

Individual appraisal

Do participants value the effects revalidation has on their work?


Is feedback about revalidation used to improve it in the future?

Do participants modify how they work with revalidation?

  1. Source: Finch et al. 2015 [18]