Advertisement

Is the Concept of Self-Regulation Useful for Supporting Effective Implementation in Community Settings?

  • Rebecca H. RoppoloEmail author
  • Jenna McWilliam
  • William A. AldridgeII
  • Robin H. Jenkins
  • Renee I. Boothroyd
  • LaTanya R. Moore
Article

Abstract

The literature and utility of self-regulation extends beyond individuals; a critical factor for successful and sustainable implementation of evidence-based programs in a community setting may be the capacity of teams to self-regulate implementation processes. The conceptual foundation of this proposal is explored and definitions of the five dimensions of self-regulation for implementation processes are provided. Practice examples illustrate how the provision of external implementation support to build self-regulatory capacity among implementation teams adopting and scaling-up EBPs in the local community setting has shaped and refined the proposed definitions to better reflect the work on-the-ground. The role of external implementation support providers in developing implementation team self-regulation is explored and practice strategies to promote self-regulation are provided. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Keywords

Implementation Self-regulation Implementation teams Scale-up Evidence-based practice 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Jenna McWilliam is an employee of Triple P International Pty Ltd. All other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Aarons, G. A., Hurlburt, M., & Horwitz, S. M. (2011). Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 38(1), 4.Google Scholar
  2. Aldridge, W. A., Boothroyd, I. I., Fleming, R. I., Jarboe, W. O. L., Morrow, K., Ritchie, J., G. F., et al (2016a). Transforming community prevention systems for sustained impact: Embedding active implementation and scaling functions. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 6(1), 135–144.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-015-0351-y.PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Aldridge, W. A., Murray, I. I., Prinz, D. W., R. J., & Veazey, C. A. (2016b). Final report and recommendations: The Triple P implementation evaluation, Cabarrus and Mecklenburg counties, NC. Chapel Hill: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287.Google Scholar
  6. Bandura, A., & Jourden, F. J. (1991). Self-regulatory mechanisms governing the impact of social comparison on complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6), 941.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, L. D., Feinberg, M. E., & Greenberg, M. T. (2010). Determinants of community coalition ability to support evidence-based programs. Prevention Science, 11(3), 287–297.PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Butterfoss, F., & Kegler, M. C. (2002). Toward a comprehensive understanding of community coalitions: Moving from practice to theory. In R. DiClemente, R. Crosby & M. C. Kegler (Eds.), Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research: Strategies for improving public health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  9. Chamberlain, P., Brown, C. H., & Saldana, L. (2011). Observational measure of implementation progress in community based settings: The stages of Implementation Completion (SIC). Implementation Science, 6, 116.Google Scholar
  10. Chinman, M., Acosta, J., Ebener, P., et al. (2012). Establishing and evaluating the key functions of an interactive systems framework using an assets-getting to outcomes intervention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50(3), 295–310.PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 619–654.Google Scholar
  12. DiDonato, N. C. (2013). Effective self-and co-regulation in collaborative learning groups: An analysis of how students regulate problem solving of authentic interdisciplinary tasks. Instructional Science, 41(1), 25–47.Google Scholar
  13. Dunst, C. J., & Trivette, C. M. (2012). Moderators of the effectiveness of adult learning method practices. Journal of Social Sciences, 8(2), 143–148.Google Scholar
  14. Eccles, M. P., & Mittman, B. S. (2006). Welcome to implementation science. Implementation Science.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-1-1.Google Scholar
  15. Fixsen, D., Blase, K., Metz, A., & Van Dyke, M. (2013). Statewide implementation of evidence-based programs. Exceptional Children, 79(2), 213–230.Google Scholar
  16. Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., Timbers, G. D., & Wolf, M. M. (2001). In search of program implementation: 792 replications of the Teaching-Family Model. In G. A. Bernfeld, D. P. Farrington & A. W. Leschied (Eds.), Offender rehabilitation in practice: Implementing and evaluating effective programs (pp. 149–166). London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Boston: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  18. Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (1997). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 75(1), 124–134.Google Scholar
  19. Higgins, M., Weiner, J., & Young, L. (2012). Implementation teams: A new lever for organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(3), 366–388.Google Scholar
  20. Järvelä, S., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). Exploring socially shared regulation in the context of collaboration. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 12(3), 267.Google Scholar
  21. Kanfer, F. H. (1986). Implications of a self-regulation model of therapy for treatment of addictive behaviors. In W. R. Miller & N. Heather (Eds.), Treating addictive behaviors (pp. 29–47). Boston, MA: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Karoly, P. (1993). Mechanisms of self-regulation: A systems view. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 23–52.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.44.1.23.Google Scholar
  23. Lasker, R. D., & Weiss, E. S. (2003). Creating partnership synergy: The critical role of community stakeholders. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 26(1), 119–139.Google Scholar
  24. Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Self-regulation through goal setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 212–247.Google Scholar
  25. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
  26. McWilliam, J., & Brown, J. (2012). Adapting implementation science to create an experience-informed implementation framework—The TPI implementation framework. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Implementation Conference.Google Scholar
  27. McWilliam, J., Brown, J., Sanders, M. R., & Jones, L. (2016). The Triple P implementation framework: The role of purveyors in the implementation and sustainability of evidence-based programs. Prevention Science, 17(5), 636–645.Google Scholar
  28. Metz, A., & Bartley, L. (2012). Active implementation frameworks for program success. Zero to Three, 32(4), 11–18.Google Scholar
  29. Meyers, D. C., Durlak, J. A., & Wandersman, A. (2012). The Quality Implementation Framework: A synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50(3–4), 462–480.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-012-9522-x.Google Scholar
  30. Panadero, E., & Järvelä, S. (2015). Socially shared regulation of learning: A review. European Psychologist, 20(3), 190–203.Google Scholar
  31. Proctor, E., Silmere, H., Raghavan, R., Hovmand, P., Aarons, G., Bunger, A., et al. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(2), 65–76.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7.Google Scholar
  32. Saldana, L., & Chamberlain, P. (2012). Supporting implementation: The role of community development teams to build infrastructure. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50(3–4), 334–346.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-012-9503-0.PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Sanders, M. R. (2008). Triple P—Positive Parenting Program as a public health approach to strengthening parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(4), 506–517.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.506.Google Scholar
  34. Sanders, M. R., & Mazzucchelli, T. G. (2013). The promotion of self-regulation through parenting interventions. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 16(1), 1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-013-0129-z.Google Scholar
  35. Spoth, R., & Greenberg, M. (2011). Impact challenges in community science-with-practice: Lessons from PROSPER on transformative practitioner-scientist partnerships and prevention infrastructure development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 48(1), 106–119.PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Waltz, T. J., Powell, B. J., Matthieu, M. M., Damschroder, L. J., Chinman, M. J., Smith, J. L., et al. (2015). Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: Results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) study. Implementation Science, 10(1), 109.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0295-0.Google Scholar
  37. Wandersman, A., Duffy, J., Flaspohler, P., Nonnan., R., Lubell, K., Stillman, L., et al. (2008). Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: The interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 171–181.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, The Impact Center at FPGThe University of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.The University of QueenslandSt LuciaAustralia

Personalised recommendations