Examining different forms of implementation and in early childhood curriculum research

Odom, Samuel L.; Fleming, Kandace; Diamond, Karen E.; Lieber, Joan; Hanson, Marci J.; Butera, Gretchen; Horn, Eva; Palmer, Susan B.; Marquis, Janet

doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.03.001

Cited by 50 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, a survey of 81 Safe and Drug Free School district coordinators found only 19% of schools implemented evidence-based programs with good fidelity (Hallfors & Godette, 2002). In other studies, implementers adapted more than 50% of the program (Knoche, Sheridan, Edwards & Osborn, 2010; Odom et al, 2010) with Durlak (1998) estimating that as many as 80% of program activities may be omitted during implementation. This is problematic because poorly implemented programs tend not to achieve positive outcomes (for review, see Durlak & DuPre, 2008).…”

Section: Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adherence and Delivery: Implementation Quality and Program Outcomes for the Seventh-Grade keepin’ it REAL Program

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Poor implementation quality (IQ) is known to reduce program effects making it important to consider IQ for evaluation and dissemination of prevention programs. However, less is known about the ways specific implementation variables relate to outcomes. In this study, two versions of the keepin’ it REAL, 7th grade drug prevention intervention were implemented in 78 classrooms in 25 schools in rural districts in Pennsylvania and Ohio. IQ was measured through observational coding of 276 videos. IQ variables included adherence to the curriculum, teacher engagement (attentiveness, enthusiasm, seriousness, clarity, positivity), student engagement (attention, participation), and a global rating of teacher delivery quality. Factor analysis showed that teacher engagement, student engagement, and delivery quality formed one factor, which was labeled delivery. A second factor was adherence to the curriculum. Self-report student surveys measured substance use, norms (beliefs about prevalence and acceptability of use), and efficacy (beliefs about one’s ability to refuse substance offers) at two waves (pretest, immediate posttest). Mixed model regression analysis which accounted for missing data and controlled for pretest levels examined implementation quality’s effects on individual level outcomes, statistically controlling for cluster level effects. Results show that when implemented well, students show positive outcomes compared to students receiving a poorly implemented program. Delivery significantly influenced substance use and norms, but not efficacy. Adherence marginally significantly predicted use and significantly predicted norms, but not efficacy. Findings underscore the importance of comprehensively measuring and accounting for IQ, particularly delivery, when evaluating prevention interventions.

show abstract

Section: Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adherence and Delivery: Implementation Quality and Program Outcomes for the Seventh-Grade keepin’ it REAL Program

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Assessment of teachers' implementation fidelity has been included in these studies as a feature of study methodology, given its status as a quality indicator for efficacy trials (Odom et al 2010) and its influence in determining whether a curriculum can be used atscale (O'Donnell 2008). Fidelity indices have also been included in these studies as an Table 3 Bivariate correlations among fidelity measures Child Youth Care Forum outcome measure, given that teachers' achievement of fidelity to key components of curriculum is conceived as an important mechanism for improving children's skills .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, some researchers have differentiated between teachers' fidelity to the procedural components of a curriculum and the more dynamic components or processes (e.g., Century et al 2010;O'Donnell 2008;Odom et al 2010). Procedural components reflect the static, structural features of a curriculum (sometimes referred to as structural fidelity), whereas the latter refers to the qualitative or dynamic features of a curriculum (sometimes referred to as a process fidelity).…”

Section: Dimensions Of Implementation Fidelitymentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comprehensive Examination of Preschool Teachers’ Implementation Fidelity When Using a Supplemental Language and Literacy Curriculum

Piasta

Justice

McGinty

et al. 2015

Child Youth Care Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, evidence-based programs developed and evaluated in a research context are rarely, if ever, delivered in the same way they were originally designed and adaptations to program models are the norm rather than the exception (Breitenstein et al ., 2010a, b; Dariotis et al ., 2008; Dusenbury et al ., 2003, 2005; Gottfredson, 2001; Greenberg et al , 2001; Ozer et al ., 2010; Ringwalt et al ., 2004a; Rohrbach et al ., 2010). Teachers often delete and/or change materials due to the time constraints (Hill et al ., 2007) with some reviews claiming adaptations occur to more than 50 percent of program content (Knoche et al ., 2010; Odom et al ., 2010). Durlak (1998) estimated that as much as 80 percent of program activities may be omitted during implementation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How prevention curricula are taught under real‐world conditions

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose As interventions are disseminated widely, issues of fidelity and adaptation become increasingly critical to understand. This study aims to describe the types of adaptations made by teachers delivering a school-based substance use prevention curriculum and their reasons for adapting program content. Design/methodology/approach To determine the degree to which implementers adhere to a prevention curriculum, naturally adapt the curriculum, and the reasons implementers give for making adaptations, the study examined lesson adaptations made by the 31 teachers who implemented the keepin' it REAL drug prevention curriculum in 7th grade classrooms (n = 25 schools). Data were collected from teacher self-reports after each lesson and observer coding of videotaped lessons. From the total sample, 276 lesson videos were randomly selected for observational analysis. Findings Teachers self-reported adapting more than 68 percent of prevention lessons, while independent observers reported more than 97 percent of the observed lessons were adapted in some way. Types of adaptations included: altering the delivery of the lesson by revising the delivery timetable or delivery context; changing content of the lesson by removing, partially covering, revising, or adding content; and altering the designated format of the lesson (such as assigning small group activities to students as individual work). Reasons for adaptation included responding to constraints (time, institutional, personal, and technical), and responding to student needs (students' abilities to process curriculum content, to enhance student engagement with material). Research limitations/implications The study sample was limited to rural schools in the US mid-Atlantic; however, the results suggest that if programs are to be effectively implemented, program developers need a better understanding of the types of adaptations and reasons implementers provide for adapting curricula. Practical implications These descriptive data suggest that prevention curricula be developed in shorter teaching modules, developers reconsider the usefulness of homework, and implementer training and ongoing support might benefit from more attention to different implementation styles. Originality/value With nearly half of US public schools implementing some form of evidence-based substance use prevention program, issues of implementation fidelity and adaptation have become paramount in the field of prevention. The findings from this study reveal the complexity of the types of adaptations teachers make naturally in the classroom to evidence-based curricula and provide reasons for these adaptations. This information should prove useful for prevention researchers, program developers, and health educators alike.

show abstract

Examining different forms of implementation and in early childhood curriculum research

Cited by 50 publications

References 31 publications

Adherence and Delivery: Implementation Quality and Program Outcomes for the Seventh-Grade keepin’ it REAL Program

Adherence and Delivery: Implementation Quality and Program Outcomes for the Seventh-Grade keepin’ it REAL Program

A Comprehensive Examination of Preschool Teachers’ Implementation Fidelity When Using a Supplemental Language and Literacy Curriculum

How prevention curricula are taught under real‐world conditions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About