Individualizing Intervention Coaching to Increase Fidelity of Implementation

PRESENTATION TYPE:  Individual Paper

CATEGORY/THEME: Dissemination and Implementation Science

TITLE:  Individualizing Intervention Coaching to Increase Fidelity of Implementation

ABSTRACT BODY

Introduction: A recent meta-analysis of social-emotional learning (SEL) programs, revealed significant improvements in SEL skills, attitudes, behavior and academic performance when implemented with high fidelity. In a national survey, however, only 19% of schools implemented programs with high fidelity. One way to increase fidelity of implementation (FOI) is through the used of intervention coaches. Coaches improve FOI because they individualize their training and support around the needs of each school and teacher. Coaches’ individualization, however, often occurs based on intuition rather than according to an articulated plan. The purpose of this study was to articulate how SEL coaches individualize their training for schools. The coaches for this analysis had relatively high levels of training and were described by teachers as highly effective. Specifically, we addressed two research questions. First, what teacher and school factors lead coaches to individualize? Second, how do coaches individualize their training and support based on those factors?

 Methods:  This study involved a qualitative analysis of four interviews of experienced SEL intervention coaches using the Responsive Classroom® Approach. Interviews were semi-structured, tape-recorded, de-identified and transcribed. A codebook was created based on a first cycle exploratory coding method and a second cycle focused coding method. Data was coded by two researchers and analyzed using the software program Dedoose. Reliability measures were within an acceptable range (>.70) using Dedoose analysis software. 

Results:  Coaches reported individualizing their training based on four teacher and school factors including, principal leadership quality, teacher experience, stress level and school climate. Further, coaches individualized by (1) altering the structure and format of training sessions, (2) varying the level of candidness and detail in feedback,  (3) changing the amount of program content covered, and (4) shifting the expectations for implementation. 

Conclusions: Coaches in the present study tailored their support for schools based on four main factors in effort to increase FOI levels and ultimately improve the well-being of students. These findings contribute to the extant prevention science literature by articulating an often-undocumented process of coaches’ individualization.