Prevention Science

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 90–99 | Cite as

Adherence and Delivery: Implementation Quality and Program Outcomes for the Seventh-Grade keepinit REAL Program

  • Jonathan Pettigrew
  • John W. Graham
  • Michelle Miller-Day
  • Michael L. Hecht
  • Janice L. Krieger
  • Young Ju Shin
Article

Abstract

Poor implementation quality (IQ) is known to reduce program effects making it important to consider IQ for evaluation and dissemination of prevention programs. However, less is known about the ways specific implementation variables relate to outcomes. In this study, two versions of keepinit REAL, a seventh-grade drug prevention intervention, were implemented in 78 classrooms in 25 schools in rural districts in Pennsylvania and Ohio. IQ was measured through observational coding of 276 videos. IQ variables included adherence to the curriculum, teacher engagement (attentiveness, enthusiasm, seriousness, clarity, positivity), student engagement (attention, participation), and a global rating of teacher delivery quality. Factor analysis showed that teacher engagement, student engagement, and delivery quality formed one factor, which was labeled delivery. A second factor was adherence to the curriculum. Self-report student surveys measured substance use, norms (beliefs about prevalence and acceptability of use), and efficacy (beliefs about one’s ability to refuse substance offers) at two waves (pretest, immediate posttest). Mixed model regression analysis which accounted for missing data and controlled for pretest levels examined implementation quality’s effects on individual level outcomes, statistically controlling for cluster level effects. Results show that when implemented well, students show positive outcomes compared to students receiving a poorly implemented program. Delivery significantly influenced substance use and norms, but not efficacy. Adherence marginally significantly predicted use and significantly predicted norms, but not efficacy. Findings underscore the importance of comprehensively measuring and accounting for IQ, particularly delivery, when evaluating prevention interventions.

Keywords

Implementation quality Program evaluation Substance use Adolescents 

Notes

Author’s Note

This publication was supported by Grant Number R01DA021670 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse to The Pennsylvania State University (Michael Hecht, Principal Investigator). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. (NIH Manuscript # NIHMS272843). Portions of this paper were presented at the 2013 annual meeting of the Society of Prevention Research.

References

  1. Alberts, J. K., Miller-Rassulo, M., & Hecht, M. L. (1991). A typology of drug resistance strategies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 19, 129–151. doi:10.1080/00909889109365299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arthur, M. W., Hawkins, J. D., Pollard, J. A., Catalano, R. F., & Baglioni, A. J. (2002). Measuring risk and protective factors for use, delinquency, and other adolescent problem behaviors the communities that care youth survey. Evaluation Review, 26, 575–601. doi:10.1177/0193841X0202600601.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura, A., & Wood, R. E. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on self-regulation of complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 805–814.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkel, C., Mauricio, A., Schoenfelder, E., & Sandler, I. (2011). Putting the pieces together: an integrated model of program implementation. Prevention Science, 12, 23–33. doi:10.1007/s11121-010-0186-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Botvin, G. J., Baker, E., Dusenbury, L., Botvin, E. M., & Diaz, T. (1995). Long-term follow-up results of a randomized drug abuse prevention trial in a white middle-class population. Journal of the American Medical Association, 273, 1106–1112.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Choi, H. J., Krieger, J. L., & Hecht, M. L. (2013). Reconceptualizing efficacy in substance use prevention research: refusal response efficacy and drug resistance self-efficacy in adolescent substance use. Health Communication, 28, 40–52. doi:10.1080/10410236.2012.720245.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Colby, M., Hecht, M. L., Miller-Day, M., Krieger, J. R., Syvertsen, A. K., Graham, J. W., et al. (2013). Adapting school-based substance use prevention curriculum through cultural grounding: a review and exemplar of adaptation processes for rural schools. American Journal of Community Psychology, 1–2, 190–205. doi:10.1007/s10464-012-9524-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 and Psychological Consultation, 11, 193–221. doi:10.1207/S1532768XJEPC1102_04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Durlak, J. A. (1998). Why program implementation is important. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 17, 5–18. doi:10.1300/J005v17n02_02.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Durlak, J., & DuPre, E. (2008). Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327–350. doi:10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dusenbury, L., Brannigan, R., Hansen, W. B., Walsh, J., & Falco, M. (2005). Quality of implementation: developing measures crucial to understanding the diffusion of preventive interventions. Health Education Research, 20, 308–313. doi:10.1093/her/cyg134.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Ellickson, P. L., & Bell, R. M. (1990). Drug prevention in junior high: a multi-site longitudinal test. Science, 247, 1299–1305. doi:10.1126/science.2180065.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Graczyk, P. A., Domitrovich, C. E., & Zins, J. E. (2002). Facilitating the implementation of evidence-based prevention and mental health promotion efforts in schools. Handbook of School Mental Health Advancing Practice and Research, 301–318. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-73313-5_21
  16. Graham, J. W. (2012). Missing data: analysis and design. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Graham, J., Olchowski, A., & Gilreath, T. (2007). How many imputations are really needed? Some practical clarifications of multiple imputation theory. Prevention Science, 8, 206–213. doi:10.1007/s11121-007-0070-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Graham, J. W., Pettigrew, J., Miller-Day, M., Krieger, J. L., Zhou, J., & Hecht, M. L. (2013). Random assignment of schools to groups in the drug resistance strategies rural project: some new methodological twists. Prevention Science. doi:10.1007/s11121-013-0403-9.Google Scholar
  20. Hallfors, D., & Godette, D. (2002). Will the “principles of effectiveness” improve prevention practice? Early findings from a diffusion study. Health Education Research, 17, 461–470. doi:10.1093/her/17.4.461.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hansen, W. B., & Graham, J. W. (1991). Preventing alcohol, marijuana, and cigarette use among adolescents: peer pressure resistance training versus establishing conservative norms. Preventive Medicine, 20, 414–430. doi:10.1016/0091-7435(91)90039-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hansen, W. B., Graham, J. W., Wolkenstein, B. H., & Rohrbach, L. A. (1991). Program integrity as a moderator of prevention program effectiveness: results for fifth-grade students in the adolescent alcohol prevention trial. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 52, 568–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77–89. doi:10.1080/19312450709336664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hecht, M. L., Graham, J. W., & Elek, E. (2006). The drug resistance strategies intervention: program effects on substance use. Health Communication, 20, 267–276. doi:10.1207/s15327027hc2003_6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Ho, A. D. & Kane, T. J. (2013). The reliability of classroom observations by school personnel Retrieved from http://metproject.org/downloads/MET_Reliability_of_Classroom_Observations_Research_Paper.pdf
  26. Knoche, L. L., Sheridan, S. M., Edwards, C. P., & Osborn, A. Q. (2010). Implementation of a relationships-based school readiness intervention: a multidimensional approach to fidelity measurement for early childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 299–313. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.05.003.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 & Behavior, 31, 242–257. doi:10.1177/1090198103260514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Low, S., Ryzin, M. J. V., Brown, E. C., Smith, B. H., & Haggerty, K. P. (2013). Engagement matters: lessons from assessing classroom implementation of steps to respect: a bullying prevention program over a one-year period. Prevention Science. doi:10.1007/s11121-012-0359-1.Google Scholar
  29. Marsiglia, F. F., Kulis, S., Yabiku, S. T., Nieri, T. A., & Coleman, E. (2011). When to intervene: elementary school, middle school or both? Effects of keepinit REAL on substance use trajectories of Mexican heritage youth. Prevention Science, 12, 48–62. doi:10.1007/s11121-010-0189-y.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Miller-Day, M., Pettigrew, J., Hecht, M. L. M., Shin, Y., Graham, J., & Krieger, J. (2013). How prevention curricula are taught under real-world conditions: types of and reasons for teacher curriculum adaptations in 7th grade drug prevention curriculum. Health Education, 113, 324–344. doi:10.1108/09654281311329259.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Needle, R. H., Jou, S. C., & Su, S. S. (1989). The impact of changing methods of data collection on the reliability of self-reported drug use of adolescents. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 15, 275–289. doi:10.3109/00952998908993408.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Odom, S. L., Fleming, K., Diamond, K., Lieber, J., Hanson, M., Butera, G., et al. (2010). Examining different forms of implementation and in early childhood curriculum research. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 314–328. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.03.001.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Pentz, M. A., Trebow, E. A., Hansen, W. B., Mackinnon, D. P., Dwyer, J. H., Johnson, C. A., et al. (1990). Effects of program implementation on adolescent drug use behavior: the Midwestern Prevention Project (MPP). Evaluation Review, 14, 264–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pettigrew, J., Miller-Day, M., Krieger, J., & Hecht, M. L. (2011). Alcohol and other drug resistance strategies employed by rural adolescents. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 39, 103–122. doi:10.1080/00909882.2011.556139.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Pettigrew, J., Miller-Day, M., Shin, Y., Hecht, M. L., Krieger, J. R., & Graham, J. W. (2013). Describing teacher-student interactions: a qualitative assessment of teacher implementation of the 7th grade keepinit REAL substance use intervention. American Journal of Community Psychology. doi:10.1007/s10464-012-9539-1.Google Scholar
  36. Ringwalt, C., Vincus, A., Hanley, S., Ennett, S., Bowling, J., & Haws, S. (2011). The prevalence of evidence-based drug use prevention curricula in U.S. middle schools in 2008. Prevention Science, 12, 63–69. doi:10.1007/s11121-010-0184-3.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Rohrbach, L., Gunning, M., Sun, P., & Sussman, S. (2010). The project Towards No Drug Abuse (TND) dissemination trial: implementation fidelity and immediate outcomes. Prevention Science, 11, 77–88. doi:10.1007/s11121-009-0151-z.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Sanchez, V., Steckler, A., Nitirat, P., Hallfors, D., Cho, H., & Brodish, P. (2007). Fidelity of implementation in a treatment effectiveness trial of reconnecting youth. Health Education Research, 22, 95–107.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Shin, Y., Miller-Day, M., Pettigrew, J., & Hecht, M. L. (2011). Qualitative approach to implementer typologies: how teachers and students interact in implementation of school based prevention intervention. Washington DC: Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Prevention Research.Google Scholar
  41. Tobler, N. S., Roona, M. R., Ochshorn, P., Marshall, D. G., Streke, A. V., & Stackpole, K. M. (2000). School-based adolescent drug prevention programs: 1998 meta-analysis. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 20, 275–336. doi:10.1023/A:1021314704811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Prevention Research 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan Pettigrew
    • 1
    • 2
  • John W. Graham
    • 3
    • 4
  • Michelle Miller-Day
    • 1
    • 5
  • Michael L. Hecht
    • 1
    • 4
  • Janice L. Krieger
    • 6
  • Young Ju Shin
    • 1
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of Communication Arts and SciencesPenn StateState CollegeUSA
  2. 2.School of Communication StudiesUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biobehavioral HealthPenn StateState CollegeUSA
  4. 4.Prevention Research CenterPenn StateState CollegeUSA
  5. 5.Department of Communication StudiesChapman UniversityOrangeUSA
  6. 6.School of CommunicationThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  7. 7.Department of Communication StudiesIndiana University–Purdue University IndianapolisIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations