nach oben

Prevention Science

Erschienen in:

01.12.2008

School Climate and Teachers’ Beliefs and Attitudes Associated with Implementation of the Positive Action Program: A Diffusion of Innovations Model

verfasst von: Michael W. Beets, Brian R. Flay, Samuel Vuchinich, Alan C. Acock, Kin-Kit Li, Carol Allred

Erschienen in: Prevention Science | Ausgabe 4/2008

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Teacher- and school-level factors influence the fidelity of implementation of school-based prevention and social character and development (SACD) programs. Using a diffusion of innovations framework, the relationships among teacher beliefs and attitudes towards a prevention/SACD program and the influence of a school’s administrative support and perceptions of school connectedness, characteristics of a school’s climate, were specified in two cross-sectional mediation models of program implementation. Implementation was defined as the amount of the programs’ curriculum delivered (e.g., lessons taught), and use of program-specific materials in the classroom (e.g., ICU boxes and notes) and in relation to school-wide activities (e.g., participation in assemblies). Teachers from 10 elementary schools completed year-end process evaluation reports for year 2 (N = 171) and 3 (N = 191) of a multi-year trial. Classroom and school-wide material usage were each favorably associated with the amount of the curriculum delivered, which were associated with teachers’ attitudes toward the program which, in turn, were related to teachers’ beliefs about SACD. These, in turn, were associated with teachers’ perceptions of school climate. Perceptions of school climate were indirectly related to classroom material usage and both indirectly and directly related to the use of school-wide activities. Program developers need to consider the importance of a supportive environment on program implementation and attempt to incorporate models of successful school leadership and collaboration among teachers that foster a climate promoting cohesiveness, shared visions, and support.

The term “program” is used herein to refer to school-based primary prevention programs.

It is important to note that in the current study, the use of the diffusion model is specific to the internal dissemination processes (Pentz 2004) taking place within a school and not the overall dissemination process which would incorporate a larger system, such as those that occur among schools and governing agencies within and across school districts.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.CrossRef

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2001). Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 269–296). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Basch, C. E. (1984). Research on disseminating and implementing health education programs in schools. Journal of School Health, 54, 57–66.PubMed

Battistich, V., Schaps, E., & Wilson, N. (2004). Effects of an elementary school intervention on students’ “connectedness” to school and social adjustment during Middle school. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 24, 243–262. doi:10.1023/B:JOPP.0000018048.38517.cd.CrossRef

Botvin, G. J. (2004). Advancing prevention science and practice: Challenges, critical issues, and future directions. Prevention Science, 5, 69–72. doi:10.1023/B:PREV.0000013984.83251.8b.PubMedCrossRef

Chen, H.-T. (1998). Theory-driven evaluations. In A. J. Reynolds & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Advances in educational productivity: Evaluation research for educational productivity, (vol. 7). US: Elsevier.

Connell, D. B., Turner, R. R., & Mason, E. F. (1985). Summary of findings of the School Health Education Evaluation: Health promotion effectiveness, implementation, and costs. Journal of School Health, 55, 316–321.PubMed

Dane, A. V., & Schneider, B. H. (1998). Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: Are implementation effects out of control? Clinical Psychology Review, 18, 23–45. doi:10.1016/S0272-7358(97)00043-3.PubMedCrossRef

Dent, C. W., Sussman, S., & Flay, B. R. (1993). The use of archival data to select and assign schools in a drug prevention trial. Evaluation Review, 17, 159–181. doi:10.1177/0193841X9301700203.CrossRef

Domitrovich, C. E., & Greenberg, M. T. (2000). The study of implementation: current findings from effective programs that prevent mental disorders in school-aged children. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 11, 193–221. doi:10.1207/S1532768XJEPC1102_04.CrossRef

Dusenbury, L., Brannigan, R., Falco, M., & Hansen, W. B. (2003). A review of research on fidelity of implementation: Implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Education Research, 18, 237–256. doi:10.1093/her/18.2.237.PubMedCrossRef

Elliott, D. S., & Mihalic, S. (2004). Issues in disseminating and replicating effective prevention programs. Prevention Science, 5, 47–53. doi:10.1023/B:PREV.0000013981.28071.52.PubMedCrossRef

Flay, B. R., & Allred, C. G. (2003). Long-term effects of the Positive Action program. American Journal of Health Behavior, 27(S1), S6–S21.PubMed

Flay, B. R., Allred, C. G., & Ordway, N. (2001). Effects of the Positive Action program on academic achievement and discipline: Two matched-control comparisons. Prevention Science, 2, 71–89. doi:10.1023/A:1011591613728.PubMedCrossRef

Flay, B. R., Biglan, A., Boruch, R. F., Castro, F. G., Gottfredson, D., Kellam, S., et al. (2005). Standards of evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination. Prevention Science, 6(3), 151–175. doi:10.1007/s11121-005-5553-y.PubMedCrossRef

Flay, B. R., & Collins, L. M. (2005). Historical review of school-based randomized trials for evaluating problem behavior prevention programs. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 599, 115–146. doi:10.1177/0002716205274941.CrossRef

Games, B., Millsap, M. A., & Goodson, B. (2002). When implementation threatens impact: Challenging lessons from evaluating educational programs. Peabody Journal of Education, 77(4), 146–166. doi:10.1207/S15327930PJE7704_7.CrossRef

Gittelsohn, J., Merkle, S., Story, M., Stone, E. J., Steckler, A., Noel, J., et al. (2003). School climate and implementation of the pathways study. Preventive Medicine, 37(6 pt 2), S97–S106. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2003.08.010.PubMedCrossRef

Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999). Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 1322–1327.PubMedCrossRef

Graham, J. W., Taylor, B. J., Olchowski, A. E., & Cumsille, P. E. (2006). Planned missing data designs in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 11, 323–343. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.11.4.323.PubMedCrossRef

Hahn, E. J., Noland, M. P., Rayens, M. K., & Christie, D. M. (2002). Efficacy of training and fidelity of implementation of the life skills training program. Journal of School Health, 72, 282–287.PubMed

Han, S. S., & Weiss, B. (2005). Sustainability of teacher implementation of school-based mental health programs. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 665–679. doi:10.1007/s10802-005-7646-2.PubMedCrossRef

Harachi, T. W., Abbott, R. D., Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., & Fleming, C. B. (1999). Opening the black box: Using process evaluation measures to assess implementation and theory building. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 711–731. doi:10.1023/A:1022194005511.PubMedCrossRef

Hoy, W., Tarter, C., & Kottkamp, R. (1991). Open schools, healthy schools: Measuring organizational climate. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

Kam, C.-M., Greenberg, M. T., & Walls, C. T. (2003). Examining the role of implementation quality in school-based prevention using the PATHS curriculum. Prevention Science, 4, 55–63. doi:10.1023/A:1021786811186.PubMedCrossRef

Kealey, K. A., Peterson, A. V. J., Gaul, M. A., & Dinh, K. T. (2000). Teacher training as a behavior change process: principles and results from a longitudinal study. Health Education and Behavior, 27, 64–81. doi:10.1177/109019810002700107.PubMedCrossRef

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.

Lillehoj, C. J., Griffin, K. W., & Spoth, R. (2004). Program provider and observer ratings of school-based preventive intervention implementation: Agreement and relation to youth outcomes. Health Education and Behavior, 31, 242–257. doi:10.1177/1090198103260514.CrossRef

Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., Balla, J. R., & Grayson, D. (1998). Is more ever too much? The number of indicators per factors in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 181–220. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3302_1.CrossRef

McCormick, L. K., Steckler, A. B., & McLeroy, K. R. (1995). Diffusion of innovations in schools: A study of adoption and implementation of school-based tobacco prevention curricula. American Journal of Health Promotion, 9, 210–219.PubMed

Payne, A. A., Gottfredson, D. C., & Gottfredson, G. D. (2006). School predictors of the intensity of implementation of school-based prevention programs: Results from a national study. Prevention Science, 7, 225–237. doi:10.1007/s11121-006-0029-2.PubMedCrossRef

Pentz, M. A. (2004). Form follows function: Designs for prevention effectiveness and diffusion research. Prevention Science, 5, 23–29. doi:10.1023/B:PREV.0000013978.00943.30.PubMedCrossRef

Raudenbush, S. W., & Liu, X. (2000). Statistical power and optimal design for multisite randomized trials. Psychological Methods, 5, 199–213. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.5.2.199.PubMedCrossRef

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Rogers, E. M. (2002). Diffusion of preventive innovations. Addictive Behaviors, 27, 989–993. doi:10.1016/S0306-4603(02)00300-3.PubMedCrossRef

Rohrbach, L. A., D’Onofrio, C. N., Backer, T. E., & Montgomery, S. B. (1996). Diffusion of school-based substance abuse prevention programs. American Behavioral Scientist, 39, 919–934. doi:10.1177/0002764296039007012.CrossRef

Rohrbach, L. A., Graham, J. W., & Hansen, W. B. (1993). Diffusion of a school-based substance abuse prevention program: Predictors of program implementation. Preventive Medicine, 22, 237–260. doi:10.1006/pmed.1993.1020.PubMedCrossRef

Rohrbach, L. A., Ringwalt, C. L., Ennett, S. T., & Vincus, A. A. (2005). Factors associated with adoption of evidence-based substance use prevention curricula in US school districts. Health Education Research, 20, 514–526. doi:10.1093/her/cyh008.PubMedCrossRef

Sheldon, S. B. (2005). Testing a structural equation model of partnership program implementation and parent involvement. The Elementary School Journal, 106, 171–187. doi:10.1086/499197.CrossRef

Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research. New York: Basic Books.

Slavin, R. E., & Fashola, O. S. (1998). Show me the evidence: Proven and promising programs for America’s schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Smith, D. W., McCormack, W. P., Steckler, A., & McLeroy, K. R. (1993). Teachers’ use of health curricula: Implementation of Growing Healthy, Project SMART, and the Teenage Health Teaching Modules. Journal of School Health, 63, 349–354.PubMedCrossRef

Social and Character Development Research Consortium (2004). Social and character development research program evaluation instrument. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Solomon, D., Battistich, V., Watson, M., Schaps, E., & Lewis, C. (2000). A six-district study of educational change: direct and mediated effects of the Child Development Project. Social Psychology of Education, 4, 3–51. doi:10.1023/A:1009609606692.CrossRef

State of Hawaii Department of Education Systems of Accountability. (2006). School accountability: School status and improvement report. Retrieved 11/28, 2006, from http://arch.k12.hi.us/school/ssir/ssir.html#.

Taggart, V. S., Bush, P. J., Zuckerman, A. E., & Theiss, P. K. (1990). A process evaluation of the District of Columbia “Know Your Body” project. Journal of School Health, 60, 60–66.PubMed

Titel: School Climate and Teachers’ Beliefs and Attitudes Associated with Implementation of the Positive Action Program: A Diffusion of Innovations Model
verfasst von: Michael W. Beets
Brian R. Flay
Samuel Vuchinich
Alan C. Acock
Kin-Kit Li
Carol Allred
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2008
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Prevention Science / Ausgabe 4/2008
Print ISSN: 1389-4986
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-6695
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-008-0100-2

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2008

Estimating Intervention Effects of Prevention Programs: Accounting for Noncompliance

The NIfETy Method for Environmental Assessment of Neighborhood-level Indicators of Violence, Alcohol, and Other Drug Exposure

Drugs, Money, and Graphic Ads: A Critical Review of the Montana Meth Project

Reports of Substance Abuse Prevention Programming Available in Schools

Substance Use and Sexual Risk Prevention in Cape Town, South Africa: An Evaluation of the HealthWise Program

Immigration Generation Status and its Association with Suicide Attempts, Substance Use, and Depressive Symptoms among Latino Adolescents in the USA