schliessen

Filtern

 

Bibliotheken

Examining Adaptations of Evidence-Based Programs in Natural Contexts

When evidence-based programs (EBPs) are scaled up in natural, or non-research, settings, adaptations are commonly made. Given the fidelity-versus-adaptation debate, theoretical rationales have been provided for the pros and cons of adaptations. Yet the basis of this debate is theoretical; thus, empi... Full description

Journal Title: The Journal of Primary Prevention 2013, Vol.34(3), pp.147-161
Main Author: Moore, Julia
Other Authors: Bumbarger, Brian , Cooper, Brittany
Format: Electronic Article Electronic Article
Language: English
Subjects:
ID: ISSN: 0278-095X ; E-ISSN: 1573-6547 ; DOI: 10.1007/s10935-013-0303-6
Link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10935-013-0303-6
Zum Text:
SendSend as email Add to Book BagAdd to Book Bag
Staff View
recordid: springer_jour10.1007/s10935-013-0303-6
title: Examining Adaptations of Evidence-Based Programs in Natural Contexts
format: Article
creator:
  • Moore, Julia
  • Bumbarger, Brian
  • Cooper, Brittany
subjects:
  • Adaptation
  • Fidelity
  • Implementation quality
ispartof: The Journal of Primary Prevention, 2013, Vol.34(3), pp.147-161
description: When evidence-based programs (EBPs) are scaled up in natural, or non-research, settings, adaptations are commonly made. Given the fidelity-versus-adaptation debate, theoretical rationales have been provided for the pros and cons of adaptations. Yet the basis of this debate is theoretical; thus, empirical evidence is needed to understand the types of adaptations made in natural settings. In the present study, we introduce a taxonomy for understanding adaptations. This taxonomy addresses several aspects of adaptations made to programs including the fit (philosophical or logistical), timing (proactive or reactive), and valence, or the degree to which the adaptations align with the program’s goals and theory, (positive, negative, or neutral). Self-reported qualitative data from communities delivering one of ten state-funded EBPs were coded based on the taxonomy constructs; additionally, quantitative data were used to examine the types and reasons for making adaptations under natural conditions. Forty-four percent of respondents reported making adaptations. Adaptations to the procedures, dosage, and content were cited most often. Lack of time, limited resources, and difficulty retaining participants were listed as the most common reasons for making adaptations. Most adaptations were made reactively, as a result of issues of logistical fit, and were not aligned with, or deviated from, the program’s goals and theory.
language: eng
source:
identifier: ISSN: 0278-095X ; E-ISSN: 1573-6547 ; DOI: 10.1007/s10935-013-0303-6
fulltext: fulltext
issn:
  • 1573-6547
  • 15736547
  • 0278-095X
  • 0278095X
url: Link


@attributes
ID704349609
RANK0.07
NO1
SEARCH_ENGINEprimo_central_multiple_fe
SEARCH_ENGINE_TYPEPrimo Central Search Engine
LOCALfalse
PrimoNMBib
record
control
sourcerecordid10.1007/s10935-013-0303-6
sourceidspringer_jour
recordidTN_springer_jour10.1007/s10935-013-0303-6
sourcesystemPC
pqid1398435445
display
typearticle
titleExamining Adaptations of Evidence-Based Programs in Natural Contexts
creatorMoore, Julia ; Bumbarger, Brian ; Cooper, Brittany
ispartofThe Journal of Primary Prevention, 2013, Vol.34(3), pp.147-161
identifier
subjectAdaptation ; Fidelity ; Implementation quality
descriptionWhen evidence-based programs (EBPs) are scaled up in natural, or non-research, settings, adaptations are commonly made. Given the fidelity-versus-adaptation debate, theoretical rationales have been provided for the pros and cons of adaptations. Yet the basis of this debate is theoretical; thus, empirical evidence is needed to understand the types of adaptations made in natural settings. In the present study, we introduce a taxonomy for understanding adaptations. This taxonomy addresses several aspects of adaptations made to programs including the fit (philosophical or logistical), timing (proactive or reactive), and valence, or the degree to which the adaptations align with the program’s goals and theory, (positive, negative, or neutral). Self-reported qualitative data from communities delivering one of ten state-funded EBPs were coded based on the taxonomy constructs; additionally, quantitative data were used to examine the types and reasons for making adaptations under natural conditions. Forty-four percent of respondents reported making adaptations. Adaptations to the procedures, dosage, and content were cited most often. Lack of time, limited resources, and difficulty retaining participants were listed as the most common reasons for making adaptations. Most adaptations were made reactively, as a result of issues of logistical fit, and were not aligned with, or deviated from, the program’s goals and theory.
languageeng
source
version5
lds50peer_reviewed
links
openurl$$Topenurl_article
openurlfulltext$$Topenurlfull_article
backlink$$Uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10935-013-0303-6$$EView_full_text_in_Springer_(Subscribers_only)
search
creatorcontrib
0Moore, Julia, E.
1Bumbarger, Brian, K.
2Cooper, Brittany, Rhoades
titleExamining Adaptations of Evidence-Based Programs in Natural Contexts
descriptionWhen evidence-based programs (EBPs) are scaled up in natural, or non-research, settings, adaptations are commonly made. Given the fidelity-versus-adaptation debate, theoretical rationales have been provided for the pros and cons of adaptations. Yet the basis of this debate is theoretical; thus, empirical evidence is needed to understand the types of adaptations made in natural settings. In the present study, we introduce a taxonomy for understanding adaptations. This taxonomy addresses several aspects of adaptations made to programs including the fit (philosophical or logistical), timing (proactive or reactive), and valence, or the degree to which the adaptations align with the program’s goals and theory, (positive, negative, or neutral). Self-reported qualitative data from communities delivering one of ten state-funded EBPs were coded based on the taxonomy constructs; additionally, quantitative data were used to examine the types and reasons for making adaptations under natural conditions. Forty-four percent of respondents reported making adaptations. Adaptations to the procedures, dosage, and content were cited most often. Lack of time, limited resources, and difficulty retaining participants were listed as the most common reasons for making adaptations. Most adaptations were made reactively, as a result of issues of logistical fit, and were not aligned with, or deviated from, the program’s goals and theory.
subject
0Adaptation
1Fidelity
2Implementation quality
general
010.1007/s10935-013-0303-6
1English
2Springer Science & Business Media B.V.
3SpringerLink
sourceidspringer_jour
recordidspringer_jour10.1007/s10935-013-0303-6
issn
01573-6547
115736547
20278-095X
30278095X
rsrctypearticle
creationdate2013
addtitle
0The Journal of Primary Prevention
1J Primary Prevent
searchscopespringer_journals_complete
scopespringer_journals_complete
lsr30VSR-Enriched:[pages, pqid]
sort
titleExamining Adaptations of Evidence-Based Programs in Natural Contexts
authorMoore, Julia ; Bumbarger, Brian ; Cooper, Brittany
creationdate20130600
facets
frbrgroupid7892614356421206394
frbrtype5
languageeng
creationdate2013
topic
0Adaptation
1Fidelity
2Implementation Quality
collectionSpringerLink
prefilterarticles
rsrctypearticles
creatorcontrib
0Moore, Julia
1Bumbarger, Brian
2Cooper, Brittany
jtitleJournal Of Primary Prevention
toplevelpeer_reviewed
delivery
delcategoryRemote Search Resource
fulltextfulltext
addata
aulast
0Moore
1Bumbarger
2Cooper
aufirst
0Julia
1E.
2Brian
3K.
4Brittany
5Rhoades
au
0Moore, Julia
1Bumbarger, Brian
2Cooper, Brittany
atitleExamining Adaptations of Evidence-Based Programs in Natural Contexts
jtitleThe Journal of Primary Prevention
stitleJ Primary Prevent
risdate201306
volume34
issue3
spage147
epage161
issn0278-095X
eissn1573-6547
genrearticle
ristypeJOUR
abstractWhen evidence-based programs (EBPs) are scaled up in natural, or non-research, settings, adaptations are commonly made. Given the fidelity-versus-adaptation debate, theoretical rationales have been provided for the pros and cons of adaptations. Yet the basis of this debate is theoretical; thus, empirical evidence is needed to understand the types of adaptations made in natural settings. In the present study, we introduce a taxonomy for understanding adaptations. This taxonomy addresses several aspects of adaptations made to programs including the fit (philosophical or logistical), timing (proactive or reactive), and valence, or the degree to which the adaptations align with the program’s goals and theory, (positive, negative, or neutral). Self-reported qualitative data from communities delivering one of ten state-funded EBPs were coded based on the taxonomy constructs; additionally, quantitative data were used to examine the types and reasons for making adaptations under natural conditions. Forty-four percent of respondents reported making adaptations. Adaptations to the procedures, dosage, and content were cited most often. Lack of time, limited resources, and difficulty retaining participants were listed as the most common reasons for making adaptations. Most adaptations were made reactively, as a result of issues of logistical fit, and were not aligned with, or deviated from, the program’s goals and theory.
copBoston
pubSpringer US
doi10.1007/s10935-013-0303-6
pages147-161
date2013-06