A little about my background…

1. Defining, Conceptualizing, and Measuring Fidelity of Implementation and Its Relationship to Outcomes in K–12 Curriculum Intervention ResearchPrepared byCarol O’DonnellInstitute of Education Sciences The opinions expressed are those of the presenter and do not necessarily represent the views of IES or the US Dept of Education. This webinar is based on a paper published in the Review of Educational Researcher (O'Donnell, 2008) and findings reported in O'Donnell, 2007, which were published before the presenter joined IES.

2. A little about my background… • I was a classroom teacher for 10 years (grades 4-8) and now teach undergraduates part-time. • “I know it’s not always easy to teach with fidelity.” • I was a curriculum developer for 11 years developing curriculum materials for science teachers. • “I believed in the materials I developed. They were field tested. I knew they could be effective if taught with fidelity.” • I was a researcher at GWU for 5 years managing a large scale-up study on the effectiveness of middle school science curriculum units. • “How can we be certain the Treatment is being implemented as planned?” • This lead to my role as a program officer and Review of Educational Research article (O’Donnell, 2008) on fidelity of implementation. • How can I help other researchers define, conceptualize and measure fidelity of implementation in their efficacy and effectiveness studies?

3. Motivation: What problems exist? Teachers have difficulty teaching with fidelity when creativity, variability, and local adaptations are encouraged. Developers often fail to identify the critical components of an intervention. Researchers often fail to measure whether components are delivered as intended.

4. What problems exist? If we want to determine effectiveness of an intervention, we need to define the treatment and its counterfactual. If “it” works, what is “it” and how do we distinguish “it” from what is happening in the comparison classroom? Most fidelity studies are correlational and do not involve impact analysis. Implementation under under ideal conditions (efficacy studies) may yield higher effects than those under routine conditions (effectiveness studies). Lipsey, 1999; Petrosino & Soydan, 2005; Weisz, Weiss & Donenberg, 1992

5. Points I Will Address In This Webinar • How do teachers, developers, and researchers define fidelity of implementation? • How is fidelity of implementation conceptualized within efficacy and effectiveness studies?

6. Points I Will Address In This Webinar • How do we measure fidelity of implementation? • How do we analyze fidelity data to determine how it impacts program effectiveness? • An example from my own research (if time).

7. How do teachers, developers, and researchersdefinefidelity of implementation?

8. Teachers

9. What does fidelity of implementation mean to a teacher? As a teacher, I would ask: • “Can I modify the program to meet the needs of my diverse students (SPED, ESOL, etc.)?” • “How do I meet state indicators (e.g. vocabulary) not covered by the new program?” • “Can I use instructional practices that I typically use in the classroom (e.g. exit cards, warm ups) even if they aren’t promoted by the intervention?” • “Can I add supplemental readings?” Source: O’Donnell, Lynch, & Merchlinsky, 2004

10. To a teacher, fidelity is… • Adhering to program purpose, goals, and objectives. • Applying the program’s pedagogical approaches. • Following the program’s sequence. • Using the recommended equipment or materials. • Making an adaptation to the program that does NOT change its nature or intent. Source: O’Donnell, Lynch, & Merchlinsky, 2004

11. To a teacher, fidelity is NOT… • Reducing or modifying program objectives. • Gradually replacing parts of the new program with previous practices. • Varying grouping strategies outlined in the program. • Changing the program’s organizational patterns. • Substituting other curriculum materials or lessons for those described by the program. Source: O’Donnell, Lynch, & Merchlinsky, 2004

12. Developers

13. What does fidelity of implementation mean to a developer? As a developer, I would ask: • What are the critical components of the program? If the teacher skips part of the program, why does that happen, and what effect will it have on outcomes? • Is the program feasible (practical) for a teacher to use? Is it usable (are the program goals clear)? If not, what changes should I make to the program? What programmatic support must be added? • What ancillary components are part of the program (e.g., professional development) and must be scaled-up with it?

14. Why should developers collect fidelity of implementation data? • To distinguish between the effects of pre-existing good teaching practices and those prompted by the instructional program. If the program doesn’t add value, why spend money on it? • To understand why certain aspects of instructional delivery are consistently absent, despite curricular support (e.g., skipping lesson closure). Source: O’Donnell, Lynch, & Merchlinsky, 2004

15. Researchers

16. What does fidelity of implementation mean to a researcher? • Determination of how well a program is implemented in comparison with the original program design during an efficacy and/or effectiveness study (Mihalic, 2002). • Extent to which the delivery of an intervention adheres to the program model originally developed; confirms that the independent variable in outcome research occurred as planned (Mowbray et al., 2003).

17. Why do researchers study fidelity of implementation? • To explore how effective programs might be scaled up across many sites (i.e., if implementation is a moving target, generalizability of research may be imperiled). • To gain confidence that the observed student outcomes can be attributed to the program. • To gauge the wide range of fidelity with which an intervention might be implemented. Source: Lynch, O’Donnell, Ruiz-Primo, Lee, & Songer, 2004.

18. Definitions: Summary • Fidelity of implementation is: • the extent to which a program (including its content and process) is implemented as designed; • how it is implemented (by the teacher); • how it is received (by the students); • how long it takes to implement (duration); and, • what it looks like when it is implemented (quality).

19. Questions?

20. How is fidelity of implementation conceptualized within efficacy and effectiveness studies?

21. Definition: Efficacy Study • Efficacyis the first stage of program research following development . Efficacy is defined as “the ability of an intervention to produce the desired beneficial effect in expert hands and under ideal circumstances” (RCTs) (Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 1994, p. 531). • Failure to achieve desired outcomes in an efficacy study "give[s] evidence of theory failure, not implementation failure" (Raudenbush, 2003, p. 4).

22. Fidelity in Efficacy Studies • Internal validity - determines that the program will result in successful achievement of the instructional objectives, provided the program is “delivered effectively as designed” (Gagne et al., 2005, p. 354). • Efficacy entails continuously monitoring and improving implementation to ensure the program is implemented with fidelity (Resnick et al., 2005). • Explains why innovations succeed or fail (Dusenbury et al., 2003); • Helps determine which features of program are essential and require high fidelity, and which may be adapted or deleted (Mowbray et al., 2003).

23. Definition: Effectiveness Study • Interventions with demonstrated benefit in efficacystudies are then transferred into effectiveness studies. • Effectiveness study is not simply a replication of an efficacy study with more subjects and more diverse outcome measures conducted in a naturalistic setting (Hohmann & Shear, 2002). • Effectivenessis defined as “the ability of an intervention to produce the desired beneficial effect in actual use” under routine conditions (Dorland, 1994, p. 531) wheremediating and moderating factors can be identified (Aron et al., 1997; Mihalic, 2002; Raudenbush, 2003; Summerfelt & Meltzer, 1998).

24. Fidelity in Effectiveness Studies • External validity – fidelity in effectiveness studies helps to generalize results and provides “adequate documentation and guidelines for replication projects adopting a given model” (Mowbray et al, 2003; Bybee, 2003; Raudenbush, 2003). • Role of developer and researcher is minimized. • Focus is not on monitoring and controlling levels of fidelity; instead, variations in fidelity are measured in a natural setting and accounted for in outcomes.

25. Questions?

26. How do we measure fidelity of implementation?

27. Multiple Dimensions • Adherence – Strict adherence to structural components and methods that conform to theoretical guidelines. • Dose(Duration) – Completeness and amount of program delivered. • Quality of Delivery – The way by which a program is implemented. • Participant Responsiveness – The degree to which participants are engaged. • Program Differentiation – The degree to which elements which would distinguish one type of program from another are present or absent. Adapted from: Dane & Schneider (1998); Dusenbury, Brannigan, Falco, & Hansen (2003)

28. O’Donnell (2008): Steps in Measuring Fidelity • Start with curriculum profile or analysis; review program materials and consult with developer. Determine the intervention’s program theory. What does it mean to teach it with fidelity? • Using developer’s and past implementers’ input, outline critical components of intervention divided by structure (adherence, duration) and process (quality of delivery, program differentiation, participant responsiveness) and outline range of variations for acceptable use. O’Donnell, C. L. (2008).Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K–12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78, 33–84.

29. O’Donnell (2008): Steps in Measuring Fidelity • Develop checklists and other instruments to measure implementation of components (in most cases unit of analysis is the classroom). • Collect multi-dimensional data in bothtreatmentand comparison conditions: questionnaires, classroom observations, self-report, student artifacts, interviews. Self-report data typically yields higher levels of fidelity than observed in the field. • Adjust outcomes if fidelity falls outside acceptable range. O’Donnell, C. L. (2008).Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K–12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78, 33–84.

30. Measuring Fidelity of Implementation Psychometricians should be involved in the development of fidelity measures—validity and reliability. Fidelity to structure (adherence) easy to measure. Fidelity to process (quality) less reliable, but has higher predictive utility. “Global classroom quality” should be considered separately from implementation fidelity, unless the global items are promoted by the program. Measure adaptation separately from fidelity. Adapting a program is different from supplementing the program, which has been shown to enhance outcomes as long as fidelity is high (Blakely et al, 1987). Fidelity measures are not universal. They are program-specific. As a field, we need to standardize the methods—not the measures. See Hulleman et al SREE 2010 papers

31. Questions?

32. How do we analyze fidelity data to determine how it impacts program effectiveness?

33. Analyzing the Impact of Fidelity on Outcomes • Descriptive - frequency or percentage of fidelity. • Associative – simple correlation; relationship between percentage of fidelity and outcomes. • Predictive - fidelity explains percentage of variance in outcomes in the treatment group. • Causal - requires randomization of teachers to high and low fidelity groups; fidelity causes outcomes; rarely done in research (Penuel). • Impact – fidelity as 3rd variable: e.g., fidelity moderatesrelationship between intervention and outcomes; effects of intervention on outcomes mediated by level of fidelity. • Adjusting Outcomes – achieved relative strength; fidelity vs infidelity (Hulleman & Cordray, 2009) Source: O’Donnell, 2008

34. Correlational studies provide a nice foundation for impact analysis, but it is impact analysis that asks if implementation fidelity changes the program’s effects. Multiple correlations between fidelity items and outcomes are often disparate—what does it all mean? We need a more complete fidelity assessment to better understand construct validity and generalizability. Analyzing the Impact of Fidelity on Outcomes

35. Questions?

36. Okay. So, how do you go from identifying the program theory (using a logic model to define and conceptualize fidelity in your own study), to measuring fidelity, to analyzing its effects on outcomes?

37. An Example O’Donnell, C. L. (2007). Fidelity of implementation to instructional strategies as a moderator of curriculum unit effectiveness in a large-scale middle school science experiment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(08). (UMI No. AAT 3276564)

38. Step 1: Identify the critical components First, we worked with the curriculum developers to identify the program’s critical components, which weren’t always explicit to users. We then separated the components into structure(adherence, duration) and process (quality of implementation, program differentiation). We hired a third party evaluator to conduct a curriculum analysis to determine if the components were present; and, if they were, to what degree? Sharon Lynch will talk more about this work, which was part of the larger SCALE-uP study.

39. Curriculum Profile ● =Excellent, ◕=Very Good, ◒ = Satisfactory, X=Poor *Source: www.project2061.org/tools/textbook/mgsci/crit-used.htm **Available from www.gwu.edu/~scale-up under Reports

40. Step 2: Define the intervention a priori using a logic model I then created a logic model of implementation to illustrate the theory of change. I used the model to theorize a priori what should happen in the classroom relative to outcomes. I kept the counterfactual in mind as I conceptualized the logic model because I hypothesized that teachers’ fidelity to the instructional practices identified by the curriculum analysis were moderating outcomes, and I knew I would have to collect fidelity data in both the comparison and treatment classrooms (structure vs process)? O’Donnell, C. L. (2007).

41. I hypothesized that the presence of the curriculum materials in the teachers’ hands relative to the comparison condition (business as usual) would have a direct effect on students’ understanding of motion and forces, but that this relationship would be moderated by a teacher’s use of the instructional practices identified by the curriculum analysis. In other words, I hypothesized that the causal relationship between the IV and DV would vary as a function of fidelity as a moderator (Cohen et al, 2003). My Logic Model O’Donnell, C. L. (2007).

42. We developed the Instructional Strategies Classroom Observation Protocol (O’Donnell, Lynch, & Merchlinsky, 2007) using the critical components identified by the curriculum analysis as our foundation. 24 items were developed, some dichotomous (Yes/No), some polytomous (Likert-like scale 0 – 3) to measure the degree of fidelity to that item. The problem was, the items were not on an interval scale and were not additive. Subjects receiving the same fidelity score had different implementation profiles. Step 3: Measure fidelity O’Donnell, C. L. (2007).

43. O’Donnell, Lynch & Merchlinsky, 2007)

44. Step 4: Analyze fidelity data I knew that 24 items analyzed separately would complicate the model conceptually and structurally, because multiple measures often inflate standard errors of parameter estimators. I needed parsimony. So I computed a unidimensional fidelity score for each classroom using Rasch analysis. I mean-centered the fidelity score and entered it into my model. I avoided the dangers of removing low fidelity implementers from the sample, or creating bivariate median split between high and low fidelity users (which loses continuous data). O’Donnell, C. L. (2007).

45. R2 = .616 No statistically significant differences between T and C classroom means for observed instructional strategies; except for Assisting teachers in identifying own students’ ideas. However, 5 of 8 criteria rated highly in in the program were positively significantly correlated with classroom mean achievement in the Treatment classrooms; no positive correlations in Comparison classrooms.

46. Regression analysis testing for interaction effects showed that treatment classrooms were predicted to score 17.406 points higher on final assessment than comparison classrooms when their fidelity measure was High (2.40), t = -3.999, p < .05. There was no statistically significant difference in classroom mean achievement when the fidelity measures of classrooms were Low (-.85) or medium (.78). (O’Donnell, 2007)

47. Item maps in Rasch analysis showed that it was harder for teachers to teach the more reform-oriented practices with fidelity (items at the top of the map = accurate representations, justifying ideas); it was easier to teach the more traditional practices with fidelity (items at the bottom of the map = using terms appropriately). O’Donnell, C. L. (2007).

48. Questions?

49. Conclusions

50. Know when & how to use fidelity data Development - Use fidelity results to inform revisions. Decide now what components are required to deliver the intervention as intended when implemented at scale. Efficacy - Monitor fidelity and relate it to outcomes to gain confidence that outcomes are due to the program (internal validity). Replication - Determine if levels of fidelity and program results under a specific structure replicate under other organizational structures. Scale-up - Understand implementation conditions, tools, and processes needed to reproduce positive effects under routine practice on a large scale (external validity). Are methods for establishing high fidelity financially feasible?