2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.10.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Measuring intervention fidelity from different perspectives with multiple methods: The Reflect program as an example

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
19
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
19
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Both the training group and the control group were surveyed at the beginning and shortly after completion of the project with selfreport online questionnaires. Detailed information about the data collection, methods, and results of the evaluation of the training program can be found in two original research articles dealing exclusively with the evaluation of REFLECT -Kollmayer et al (2019) for teachers and Schultes et al (2015) for students.…”
Section: Evaluation Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Both the training group and the control group were surveyed at the beginning and shortly after completion of the project with selfreport online questionnaires. Detailed information about the data collection, methods, and results of the evaluation of the training program can be found in two original research articles dealing exclusively with the evaluation of REFLECT -Kollmayer et al (2019) for teachers and Schultes et al (2015) for students.…”
Section: Evaluation Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, regarding teachers' subjective action space, REFLECT led to a higher increase in teachers' self-efficacy beliefs for enhancing students' motivation and to a stronger decrease in teachers' beliefs that gender differences are unchangeable. The effectiveness of REFLECT on the part of the students was analyzed in combination with the teachers' fidelity in implementing their class projects during the supervision phase (for details, see Schultes et al, 2015). Teachers had documented their class projects in portfolios, which were rated by two independent experts concerning intervention fidelity to the didactic principles of reflective coeducation.…”
Section: --mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The data was collected in 2011 in Vienna, Austria, as part of the REFLECT programme, a secondary school teacher training program funded by five Austrian federal ministries (see Kollmayer et al, 2019Kollmayer et al, , 2020Schultes et al, 2015). Teachers were recruited via phone and email and voluntarily participated in the data collection with their classes.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another possible explanation for the lack of agreement between the fidelity measures is that the fidelity measures were from different measurement sources (i.e., interview, direct observation, coded videotaped interactions). These sources of fidelity ratings may be measuring different components of fidelity (Schultes, Jöstl, Finsterwald, Schober, & Spiel, 2015; Sutherland, Conroy, McLeod, Algina, & Wu, 2018). For instance, the interview may be measuring teacher knowledge of the ASAP terminology, while the videotaped interactions may be measuring the quality of teacher–child interactions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%