A review of research on fidelity of implementation: implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings.

By L. Dusenbury, Rosalind Brannigan, M. Falco, W. B. Hansen. Health Education Research, 2003

1,640 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c0120b5ca90e52057dd67c4944e6dd76e43e35da

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

In Management Science and Operations Research

Citations in the corpus

Toward Developing a Science of Treatment Integrity: Introduction to the Special Series (2009, positive): “Treatment integrity has been as sumed rather than assessed in research and practice across many fields (Dane & Schnei der, 1998; Dusenbury, Brannigan, Falco, & Hansen, 2003; Mclnytre, Gresham, Di-Gennaro, & Reed, 2007; Weisz, Doss, & Haw ley, 2005).”
Treatment Integrity of Interventions With Children in the School Psychology Literature from 1995 to 2008 (2011, background): “Regardless of the reasons why, nearly one third of treatment outcome studies did not include adequate access to a definition of the intervention being studied and it is essential that the prevalence of such information increase (Dusenbury et al., 2003; Sanetti & Kratochwill, 2009).”
The Interaction Effects of Program Training, Dosage, and Implementation Quality on Targeted Student Outcomes for The RULER Approach to Social and Emotional Learning (2012, background): “Moreover, although a few studies examined training and implementation variables simultaneously (for a review see Dusenbury et al., 2003), their interactive effect on outcomes was not analyzed.”
Walking the Talk in Bullying Prevention: Teacher Implementation Variables Related to Initial Impact of the Steps to Respect Program (2007, background): “Definitions and measures of quality vary across studies (Dusenbury et al., 2003), and may in fact include aspects of teacher generalization efforts (Greenberg et al.”
Moving From the Lab to the Field: The Role of Fidelity and Achieved Relative Intervention Strength (2009, background): “The notion of intervention fidelity has been captured under a broad array of labels, such as treatment integrity, adherence, compliance, dose, exposure, quality of delivery, and treatment differentiation (for reviews, see Dane & Schneider, 1998 ; Dusenbury, Brannigan, Falco, & Hansen, 2003 ; Mowb”
Using Indices of Fidelity to Intervention Core Components to Identify Program Active Ingredients (2015, background): “High levels of intervention fidelity increase the likelihood of detecting program effects and are consistently associated with better outcomes in curricular, health, and preventive interventions (Dane & Schneider, 1998; Durlak & Dupre, 2008; Dusenbury et al., 2003).”
Implementation Research (2016, background): “…in two ways: as the amount of innovation received from the perspective of the recipients (i.e., students, learners; e.g., Domitrovich et al., 2008; Dusenbury et al., 2003; Weiss et al., 2013) and as the amount of innovation delivered from the perspective of the end users (Durlak & DuPre, 2008;…”
The Role of Teachers’ Psychological Experiences and Perceptions of Curriculum Supports on the Implementation of a Social and Emotional Learning Curriculum (2009, positive): “In any setting, fidelity, which refers to the degree to which program implementers deliver the program as intended by the devel opers, is critical to achieve positive program outcomes (Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Dusenbury, Brannigan, Falco, & Hansen, 2003).”
Intervention Fidelity in Special and General Education Research Journals (2013, background): “In the past few years, authors in the health research community have written extensively about improving intervention fidelity reporting (e.g., Dusenbury et al., 2003).”
Scaling Up an Early Reading Program: Relationships Among Teacher Support, Fidelity of Implementation, and Student Performance Across Different Sites and Years (2008, background): “…as an important social-context measure, because previous research has also shown that teachers’ self-perceived efficacy is related to their implementation of instructional innovations (Dusenbury et al., 2003; Moncher & Prinz, 1991; Ruiz-Primo, 2005; Smylie, 1988; Vaughn, Klingner, & Hughes, 2000).”
The importance of studying the implementation of interventions in school settings (2012, background): “Efficacy trials are carried out under highly controlled conditions in order to maximise outcomes (Durlak, 1998; Dusenbury et al., 2003) and to demonstrate Implementation of interventions in school settings 637”
Implementation Matters: A Review of Research on the Influence of Implementation on Program Outcomes and the Factors Affecting Implementation (2008, background): “…stressed the need to identify the core components of interventions and monitor their delivery during implementation (e.g., Backer 2002; Durlak 1998; Dusenbury et al. 2003a; Mowbray et al. 2003), researchers have been slow to respond, so the active ingredients of most programs are currently unknown.”
Implementation Fidelity in Community-Based Interventions (2010, background): “Measures specific to an intervention allow for assessment of core components of a particular intervention and feasibility for wide-scale dissemination of that specific intervention (Dusenbury et al., 2003).”
Reconceptualizing intervention integrity: A partnership‐based framework for linking research with practice (2005, background): “Several researchers have advocated for the systematic examination of multiple dimensions of integrity when evaluating intervention programs (Dusenbury et al., 2003; Moncher & Prinz, 1991).”
On the Fidelity of Implementing Embedded Formative Assessments and Its Relation to Student Learning (2008, background): “However, there is no clear consensus on what exactly constitutes fidelity of implementation, and empirical evidence on the relationship between fidelity of implementation and program success is limited (see Dane & Schneider, 1998; Dusenbury, Brannigan, Falco, & Hansen, 2003; Ruiz-Primo, 2005).”