There is confusion and misunderstanding about the concepts of knowledge translation, knowledge transfer, knowledge exchange, research utilization, implementation, diffusion, and dissemination. We review the terms and definitions used to describe the concept of moving knowledge into action. We also offer a conceptual framework for thinking about the process and integrate the roles of knowledge creation and knowledge application. The implications of knowledge translation for continuing education in the health professions include the need to base continuing education on the best available knowledge, the use of educational and other transfer strategies that are known to be effective, and the value of learning about planned-action theories to be better able to understand and influence change in practice settings.

Context:The process of knowledge translation (KT) in health research depends on the activities of a wide range of actors, including health professionals, researchers, the public, policymakers, and research funders. Little is known, however, about health research funding agencies' support and promotion of KT. Our team asked thirty-three agencies from Australia, Canada, France, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, the United Kingdom, and the United States about their role in promoting the results of the research they fund.Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with a sample of key informants from applied health funding agencies identified by the investigators. The interviews were supplemented with information from the agencies' websites. The final coding was derived from an iterative thematic analysis. engagement in this process. The agencies' abilities to create a pull for research findings; to engage in linkage and exchange between agencies, researchers, and decision makers; and to push results to various audiences differed as well. Finally, the evaluation of the effectiveness of KT strategies remains a methodological challenge. Conclusions:Funding agencies need to think about both their conceptual framework and their operational definition of KT, so that it is clear what is and what is not considered to be KT, and adjust their funding opportunities and activities accordingly. While we have cataloged the range of knowledge translation activities conducted across these agencies, little is known about their effectiveness and so a greater emphasis on evaluation is needed. It would appear that "best practice" for funding agencies is an elusive concept depending on the particular agency's size, context, mandate, financial considerations, and governance structure.

Previous research supports the use of a variety of error-correction procedures to facilitate skill acquisition during discrete-trial instruction. We used an adapted alternating treatments design to compare the effects of 4 commonly used error-correction procedures on skill acquisition for 2 children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and 3 children with autism spectrum disorder. For all participants, multiple error-correction procedures were effective; however, 1 or 2 specific error-correction procedures led to more efficient skill acquisition for each individual. These results highlight the importance of evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of error-correction procedures for individual learners during discrete-trial instruction. We discuss the use of discrete-trial instruction with different populations, implications for using multiple measures of procedural efficiency, and several areas for future research.

No abstract

No abstract