This study examined the causes and consequences of secondary teachers’ adaptations when implementing a research-based reading intervention program. Interview, observation, and artifact data were collected on five middle school intervention teachers, leading to a grounded theory composed of the core component, reconciliation through adaptation, and four component concepts: program features, teacher qualities, contextual characteristics, and individual student needs. Findings indicated the most skilled implementers’ adaptations capitalized on their professional strengths and the strengths of the intervention to provide students with more engaging and responsive instruction. Implications for future research and practice in the implementation of reading intervention programs for secondary students with disabilities are discussed.
BackerT. E. (2001). Finding the balance: Program fidelity and adaptation in substance abuse prevention: A state-of-the-art review. Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention.
2.
BrantlingerE.JimenezR.KlingnerJ.PugachM.RichardsonV. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 195–207.
3.
BrownA. L.CampioneJ. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
BrownellM. T.LauterbachA. A.DingleM. P.BoardmanA. G.UrbachJ. E.LekoM. M. . . . ParkY. (2013). Individual and contextual factors influencing special education teacher learning in literacy learning cohorts. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37, 31–44. doi:10.1177/0731948713487179
5.
BryantD. P.Linan-ThompsonS.UgelN.HamffA.HougenM. (2001). The effects of professional development for middle school general and special education teachers on implementation of reading strategies in inclusive content area classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 251–264. doi:10.2307/1511114
6.
CharmazK. (2000). Grounded theory objectivist and constructivist methods. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 273–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
7.
CookB. G.OdomS. L. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children, 79, 135–144.
8.
DatnowA.CastellanoM. (2000). Teachers’ responses to Success for All: How beliefs, experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 775–799. doi:10.3102/00028312037003775
9.
DurlakJ. A.DuPreE. P. (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.
10.
EcclesM. P.MittmanB. S. (2006). Welcome to implementation science. Implementation Science, 1, Article 1.
11.
Faggella-LubyM. N.WareS. M.CapozzoliA. (2009). Reviewing adolescent literacy reports: Key components and critical questions. Journal of Literacy Research, 41, 453–475. doi:10.1080/10862960903340199
12.
FixsenD. L.NaoomS. F.BlaseK. A.FriedmanR. M.WallaceF. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature (FMHI Publication #231). Tampa: Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network, University of South Florida.
13.
HarnB.ParisiD.StoolmillerM. (2013). Balancing fidelity with flexibility and fit: What do we really know about fidelity of implementation in schools?Exceptional Children, 79, 181–193.
14.
LekoM. M. (2013, November). Implementation science and teacher quality: What is the relationship?Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Teacher Education Division (TED), Fort Lauderdale, FL.
15.
LieberJ.ButeraG.HansonM.PalmerS.HornE.CzajaC. . . . OdomS. (2009). Factors that influence the implementation of a new preschool curriculum: Implications for professional development. Early Education and Development, 20, 456–481. doi:10.1080/10409280802506166
16.
OdomS. L. (2009). The tie that binds evidence-based practice, implementation science, and outcomes for children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 29, 53–61. doi:10.1177/0271121408329171
17.
PugachM. C.BlantonL. P.CorreaV. I.McLeskeyJ.LangleyL. K. (2009). The role of collaboration in supporting the induction and retention of new special education teachers (NCIPP Doc. No. RS-2). Gainesville: National Center to Inform Policy and Practice, University of Florida.
18.
ScammaccaN.RobertsG.VaughnS.EdmondsM.WexlerJ.ReutebuchC. K.TorgesenJ. K. (2007). Interventions for adolescent struggling readers: A meta-analysis with implications for practice. Portsmouth, NH: Center on Instruction.
19.
StraussA. L.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
20.
VaughnS.FletcherJ. M. (2012). Response to intervention with secondary school students with reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 244–256. doi:10.1177/0022219412442157
21.
VaughnS.HughesM.SchummJ.KlingnerJ. (1998). A collaborative effort to enhance reading and writing instruction in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 57–74. doi:10.2307/1511372
22.
Wisconsin Information Network for Successful Schools. (2013). Successful school guide: Data analysis [Data file]. Retrieved from http://data.dpi.state.wi.us/Data
