Implementation Leadership Scale (ILS)
Implementation Leadership Scale · Also known as: ILS, Implementation Leadership, ILS-12
The Implementation Leadership Scale (ILS) is a 12-item self-report measure that assesses unit-level leadership behaviors critical to successful implementation of evidence-based practices and innovations. Developed by Aarons, Ehrhart, and Farahnak in 2014, the ILS measures four dimensions of implementation leadership: proactive leadership, knowledgeable leadership, supportive leadership, and perseverant leadership. This brief, validated instrument is designed to capture frontline leaders' (managers, supervisors, unit heads) implementation-specific behaviors as perceived by clinical staff, and is widely used in healthcare implementation research to evaluate leadership effectiveness and predict implementation success.
Read the full method
Sign in with a free account to read this section.
Method map
The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.
When to use it
The ILS is designed to assess unit or team leaders' implementation behaviors during planned organizational change. It is appropriate for evaluating managers, supervisors, and department heads responsible for overseeing evidence-based practice implementation in healthcare, mental health, educational, and social service organizations. Use the ILS early in implementation (baseline, pre-training) to establish leadership baseline and identify training needs; administer at 3–6 months and 12 months to monitor leadership development. The ILS is less suitable for assessing executive-level organizational leadership (use broader leadership scales) or individual clinicians without supervisory roles.
Strengths & limitations
- Brevity and feasibility—12 items, <3 minutes completion time, easily embedded in larger survey batteries or standalone administration
- Strong psychometric properties—Cronbach's α = 0.92 (total) and 0.83–0.88 per subscale demonstrate high internal consistency; test-retest correlation r = 0.82 over 6 weeks shows stability
- Implementation-specific focus—items target behaviors directly relevant to practice change (proactivity, knowledge, support, persistence) rather than generic leadership traits, improving predictive validity for implementation outcomes
- Multidimensional profile—four subscales allow nuanced assessment of leadership strengths and gaps, enabling targeted coaching rather than global feedback
- Validated across settings—tested in mental health, substance abuse treatment, medical clinics, and hospitals with consistent factor structure and score reliability
- Staff perception bias—ILS measures how staff perceive leader behavior, not objective behavior; leaders' self-reported ILS differs from subordinate reports (subordinates often rate lower), requiring staff-reported version for implementation research
- Context dependency—leadership behaviors deemed effective in one setting may not transfer across organizational cultures; high ILS in a supportive, well-resourced setting may indicate different underlying commitment than high ILS in a resource-constrained setting
- Limited scope—ILS does not measure executive leadership, organizational policies, financial incentives, or system-level drivers, which also predict implementation success; must combine with organizational-level measures
- Directional ambiguity on some items—respondents' perception of leader's proactivity may conflate with respondent's own readiness; separate assessment of organizational readiness (e.g., ORIC) is needed to isolate leadership effect
Frequently asked
Should I administer ILS only to direct reports of the leader, or can I include the leader's self-rating?
Best practice is to collect ILS ratings from direct staff only (subordinate perspective). Leaders consistently rate their own implementation leadership significantly higher than staff do (mean difference ~0.8 points on the 5-point scale). Staff-reported ILS is more predictive of implementation outcomes. If you must include self-report, report it separately and interpret with caution, acknowledging social desirability bias.
What is the minimum number of raters (staff) needed per leader?
Ideally, collect ILS ratings from all staff supervised by a leader (or at least 5–10 if the team is large). A minimum of 3 raters per leader is recommended to compute a reliable mean. If you have only 1–2 raters per leader, those individual responses provide directional feedback but should not be aggregated for statistical comparison across units; report qualitative feedback instead.
Can ILS be used to evaluate executive or C-suite leaders?
The ILS was developed for unit-level leaders (managers, supervisors) with direct clinical staff oversight. It is less suitable for executive leaders, as executive implementation behaviors differ (e.g., board engagement, strategic resource allocation) and are not captured by ILS items. For executive leadership assessment, use broader organizational leadership scales or supplemental items targeting strategic implementation behaviors.
How does the ILS differ from generic leadership measures like transformational leadership scales?
The ILS focuses specifically on implementation-relevant leader behaviors (proactivity, knowledge, support, persistence regarding EBP adoption), whereas transformational leadership scales measure generic traits (inspiration, individual consideration, vision). ILS predicts implementation outcomes better than generic leadership measures in EBP contexts. Use ILS when measuring implementation leadership; use transformational scales when assessing overall organizational leadership climate.
What if my unit leader's ILS mean is low despite high organizational resources?
Low ILS despite adequate resources indicates individual leader gaps in implementation knowledge, communication, or follow-through. This leader is a candidate for implementation leadership training, coaching, or potential reassignment to non-implementation-critical roles. Conversely, high ILS in resource-poor settings indicates strong leadership compensating for systemic constraints; prioritize improving organizational resources for this leader's unit to prevent burnout and ensure sustainability.
Sources
- Aarons, G. A., Ehrhart, M. G., Farahnak, L. R., & Sklar, M. (2014). Aligning leadership across systems and organizations to develop integrated care. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 41(2), 159–178. link ↗
- Aarons, G. A., Ehrhart, M. G., & Farahnak, L. R. (2014). The Implementation Leadership Scale (ILS): Development of a brief measure of unit level implementation leadership. Implementation Science, 9, 106. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-45 ↗
How to cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Implementation Leadership Scale. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/implementation-science/implementation-leadership-scale
Which method?
Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.
- EBPAS-36Implementation Science↔ compare
- ICSImplementation Science↔ compare
- KTAImplementation Science↔ compare
- ORICImplementation Science↔ compare
- PORASImplementation Science↔ compare