How Teacher Implementation of GBG Is Promoted By Specific Coaching Support Activities and Coach-Teacher Working Relationship

Objective: In considering the implementation of EBPs, numerous aspects, including dosage and quality, need to be included. Though some attention is being paid to the implementation supports needed to improve implementation, whether and how such processes are impactful remains unknown. This study examines how specific coaching activities and teacher report of the coaching working relationship relate directly to implementation dosage and quality of the PAX Good Behavior Game (GBG). The formation of a working relationship with the coach is also explored as a mediating pathway between coaching activities and implementation.

Method: Data come from a 27 school efficacy trial testing the PAX GBG and its integration with the PATHS curriculum against a control condition; coaching to promote teacher implementation was provided to intervention teachers. Teachers self-reported perceptions of the working relationship with their coach and coaches completed logs of their activities (i.e., check-ins, modeling, technical assistance, needs assessment). Implementation was measured by teacher report of the number of games played and observer ratings of implementation quality. Data from 138 coached teachers are included. Mediation analyses in MPlus examined the direct effects of each coaching activity and working relationship on both implementation variables. Working relationship was explored both as a predictor of implementation and as a mediator of the relationship of coaching activities on implementation. Intervention condition and teacher demographics were controlled for.

Results: The examination of direct effects of the 4 coaching activities demonstrated that needs assessment was related to more positive perceptions of the working relationship and modeling for teachers was related to higher dosage (i.e., more games played). Working relationship also had a direct effect on dosage. Needs assessment was associated with increased dosage indirectly, by increasing teacher report of the working relationship. Implementation quality was not associated with coaching activities or working relationship.

Conclusions: These findings suggest a differential relationship between coaching activities and implementation outcomes. Dosage was improved by more positive relationships between the teacher and coach as well as by specific coaching activities, whereas quality was not. The measurement of quality and other implementation indicators is important and an area for further research. Understanding how coaching processes may promote different aspects of implementation has implications for improving effectiveness and highlights the need for research to include an examination of implementation supports, as well as multiple implementation dimensions when studying EBPs.