The Influence of the Facilitator on Fidelity

Introduction:  The preservation and evaluation of fidelity is important as it allows researchers to determine if a program is effective, transferable to the “real world”, and highlights what changes may need to be made to improve a program.  Current research on fidelity is clear: programs delivered with high fidelity tend to produce positive outcomes more consistently than those with low fidelity.  Current research has shown that the facilitator and their traits have a significant influence on both the maintenance of program fidelity and programmatic outcomes.  The level of facilitator experience, buy-in, training, and competency all have been shown to influence not only fidelity, but program outcomes as well.  An area that is under-examined relates to facilitator beliefs about the importance of fidelity, experience, and training.  In the current study I examine the role of “conventionally researched” traits in addition to facilitator beliefs about the importance of fidelity, experience, and training and their corresponding influence on fidelity and outcomes as part of a student leadership development program.

Methods:  I administered surveys to facilitators prior to program implementation and immediately following the program completion.  Prior to program implementation facilitators reported on their facilitation experience, training, program buy-in, and beliefs about experience, training, and fidelity.  Upon program completion program facilitators reported on their fidelity to the program design and perceptions of participant responsiveness.  Students reported on their relationship development with peers, confidence, feeling of preparedness for college, and engagement upon commencement of the program.

Results:  Preliminary analyses revealed strong positive associations between facilitator beliefs about fidelity being important and reported fidelity (r = .56, p = .004) and with buy-in to the program (r = .46, p = .01).  Beliefs about fidelity were negatively correlated with hours of reported experience (r = -.58, p = .002) and hours of facilitation training (r = -.40, p = .04).  Facilitator beliefs about experience and training were positively correlated with hours of reported facilitation experience (r = .40, p = .04), but no significant relationship was found with beliefs about experience, reported training, or program buy-in.  Facilitator reported fidelity was positively associated with buy-in at a level approaching significance (r = .36, p = .08), participant responsiveness (r = .38, p = .06) and negatively associated with hours of facilitation training (r = -.40, p = .05).

Conclusions: These findings are the first to our knowledge that document the relationship between facilitator beliefs about fidelity, experience, and training with other facilitator traits, fidelity, and participant outcomes.  These results may have implications for facilitator selection and training, in addition to contributing to the measurement of facilitator fidelity.