Importance and feasibility of an adapted set of implementation strategies in schools

Implementation strategies are methods or techniques used to enhance the adoption, implementation, and sustainment of a new program or practice. Recent studies have facilitated implementation strategy prioritization by mapping strategies based on their feasibility and importance, but these efforts have not been replicated across distinct service delivery contexts. The aim of the current project was to evaluate the feasibility and importance of an education-adapted taxonomy of implementation strategies and to directly compare feasibility and importance ratings to the original Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy, the leading compilation of implementation strategies in healthcare. A sample of 200 school-based consultants who support social, emotional, and mental health services provided ratings of feasibility and importance for each of the 75 strategies included in the adapted School Implementation Strategies, Translating ERIC Resources (SISTER) compilation. Results identified strategies rated as: (a) both feasible and important, (b) important but not feasible, (c) feasible but not important, and (d) neither feasible nor important. When mapped onto scatterplots using feasibility and importance ratings, comparison of ERIC and SISTER ratings indicated that approximately one third of the strategies shifted from one quadrant of the feasibility and importance axis to another. Findings demonstrate the value of efforts to adapt and generalize existing implementation products to novel service settings, such as schools. Additionally, findings assist implementation researchers and practitioners in prioritizing the selection of actionable and practically relevant implementation strategies to advance the quality of school mental health services

Teacher attitudes toward evidence-based practices: Exploratory and confirmatory analyses of the school-adapted evidence-based practice attitude scale

Background The Evidence-Based Practice Attitudes Scale (EBPAS) is widely used in implementation research, but it has not been adapted and validated for use among general education teachers, who are most likely to deliver evidence-based prevention programs in schools, the most common setting where youth access social, emotional, and behavioral health services. Method School-based stakeholders and a research team comprised of experts in the implementation of evidence-based practices in schools adapted the EBPAS for teachers (the S-EBPAS). The adapted instrument was administered to a representative sample ( n  = 441) of general education teachers (grades K—5) to assess the reliability and internal consistency via factor analyses. The S-EBPAS included two forms (i.e., EBP-agnostic and EBP-specific item referents), therefore, a multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was also performed to establish measurement invariance between the two forms. Results After adaptation and refinement, a 9-item, 3-factor structure was confirmed, with the final model supporting three first-order factors that load onto a second-order factor capturing attitudes toward adopting evidence-based practices. Multiple-group CFA analyses of measurement invariance indicated there were no significant differences between the two forms. Conclusions Overall, this study provides a brief, flexible instrument capturing attitudes toward adopting EBPs that has high reliability and internal consistency, which support its use among general education teachers in school settings implementing evidence-based practices. Plain Language Summary The Evidence-Based Practice Attitudes Scale (EBPAS) is a popular instrument for measuring attitudes toward evidence-based practices (EBPs). This instrument provides valuable information during implementation initiatives, such as whether providers or front-line implementers have favorable attitudes toward a given practice. The EBPAS has been used in many different settings, such as in community-based mental health clinics, medical hospitals, and in child welfare. However, it's use in schools has been limited, and it has not yet been tested with general education teachers, who are key implementers of evidence-based practices in schools. In order to trust that the scores from an instrument are accurate, it needs to be evaluated when scaling it out to new populations and settings. One popular method to determine this is to use factor analysis, which was employed in this study. This study fills the identified gap by assessing the reliability (i.e., accuracy) and internal consistency of the EBPAS among a representative sample of general education teachers. Findings from this study indicate that the school-adapted EBPAS (S-EBPAS) is a brief, nine-item instrument that provides a reliable estimate of teachers’ attitudes toward evidence-based practices. Our results also provide evidence that the S-EBPAS can be used to capture attitudes toward specific EBPs as well as attitudes toward EBP -agnostic. This study provides a flexible instrument that can be used by school-based implementation researchers, practitioners, and intermediaries at multiple phases of implementation projects, such as when exploring a new EBP to adopt

Construct validity of the school-implementation climate scale

BackgroundImplementation climate is an organizational construct theorized to facilitate the adoption and delivery of evidence-based practices. Within schools, teachers often are tasked with implementing universal prevention programs. Therefore, they are ideal informants when assessing school implementation climate for initial and continuous implementation improvement efforts. The purpose of this study was to examine the construct validity (i.e., factor structure and convergent/divergent validity) of a school-adapted measure of strategic implementation climate called the School Implementation Climate Scale (SICS).MethodsConfirmatory factor analyses of SICS data, collected from 441 teachers in 52 schools, were used to compare uncorrelated and correlated first-order factor models and a second-order hierarchical model. Correlations with other school measures were examined to assess SICS convergent and divergent validities.ResultsResults demonstrated acceptable internal consistency for each SICS subscale (αs > 0.80 for all subscales) and construct validity of the hypothesized factor structure of the SICS with three new scales. The hierarchical second-order factor structure with eight first-order factors was found to best model the SICS data. Correlations with other school measures were in the expected direction and magnitude.ConclusionsResults from this study provide psychometric evidence that supports the use of the SICS to inform the implementation research and practice in schools.Plain language summarySchools are busy trying to implement various universal programs and systems to help support kids in their growth. Beginning and sustaining these efforts is quite challenging, and there is need for tools and ideas to help those implementation efforts. One concept is implementation climate, which is broadly the school staff's perception of the implementation support for a given practice. However, no measure currently exists to help schools assess their implementation climate. The goal of our study was to adapt a measure of implementation climate used in other settings to the school environment. We used feedback from educational experts to make changes and used various analyses to determine if the newly adapted measure was psychometrically sound. Findings suggest the new measure is usable to guide implementation efforts in schools

Orochlesis in the Solomon Islands (Coleoptera, Curculionidae)

Body mass index (BMI), a simple anthropometric measure, is the most frequently used measure of adiposity and has been instrumental in documenting the worldwide increase in the prevalence of obesity witnessed during the last decades. Although this increase in overweight and obesity is thought to be mainly due to environmental changes, i.e., sedentary lifestyles and high caloric diets, consistent evidence from twin studies demonstrates high heritability and the importance of genetic differences for normal variation in BMI. We analysed self-reported data on BMI from approximately 37,000 complete twin pairs (including opposite sex pairs) aged 20-29 and 30-39 from eight different twin registries participating in the GenomEUtwin project. Quantitative genetic analyses were conducted and sex differences were explored. Variation in BMI was greater for women than for men, and in both sexes was primarily explained by additive genetic variance in all countries. Sex differences in the variance components were consistently significant. Results from analyses of opposite sex pairs also showed evidence of sex-specific genetic effects suggesting there may be some differences between men and women in the genetic factors that influence variation in BMI. These results encourage the continued search for genes of importance to the body composition and the development of obesity. Furthermore, they suggest that strategies to identify predisposing genes may benefit from taking into account potential sex specific effects