Over the past quarter-century, evaluation researchers have recognized the importance of documenting implementation practices of programs as they are transferred from controlled to realworld settings. As programs become widely disseminated in the general population, there is a tendency for practitioners to alter programs in a manner more conducive to their immediate needs, which may adversely affect program outcomes. The current paper uses findings from an ongoing evaluation of a school-based victimization prevention program to highlight some of the difficulties in maintaining a high degree of fidelity when providing prevention programming in a school-based setting. The results, based on observations of program delivery and program provider descriptions of implementation, allow for the examination of fidelity based on different data collection techniques.
Bauman, Laurie J.
,
Ruth E. Stein
, and
Henry T. Ireys
. (1991).
Reinventing fidelity: The transfer of social technology among settings
. American Journal of Community Psychology19 (4):
619-639
.
2.
Blakely, Craig H.
,
Jeffrey P. Mayer
,
Rand G. Gottschalk
,
Neal Schmitt
,
William S. Davidson
,
David B. Roitman
, and
James G. Emshoff
. 1987.
The fidelity-adaptation debate: Implications for the implementation of public sector social programs
. American Journal of Community Psychology15 (3):
253-269
.
3.
Carlson, Andrea
,
Judith A. Zimmer
, and
Eleanor Green
. 2004. Community works: Smart youth make safer communities.
Washington, DC: National Crime Prevention Council and Street Law, Inc.
4.
Dane, Andrew V.
, and
Barry H. Schneider
. 1998.
Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: Are implementation effects out of control?Clinical Psychology Review18 (1):
23-45
.
5.
DuBois, David L.
,
Bruce E. Holloway
,
Jeffrey C. Valentine
, and
Harris Cooper
. 2002.
Effects of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review
. American Journal of Community Psychology30:
157-157
.
6.
Dusenbury, Linda
,
Rosalind Brannigan
,
Mathea Falco
, and
William B. Hansen
. 2003.
A review of research on fidelity of implementation: Implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings
. Health Education Research18 (2):
237-256
.
7.
Esbensen, Finn-Aage
. 2006. Process evaluation report: Evaluation of the Teens, Crime and the Community and Community Works Program. Submitted to the National Institute of Justice.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice
.
8.
Fagan, Abigail A.
, and
Sharon Mihalic
. 2003.
Strategies for enhancing the adoption of schoolbased prevention programs: Lessons learned from the Blueprints for Violence Prevention replications of the Life Sills Training Program
. Journal of Community Psychology31:
23-23
.
9.
Gottfredson, Denise
. (2001). Schools and delinquency.
New York: Cambridge University Press
.
10.
Gottfredson, Gary D.
,
Denise C. Gottfredson
, and
Ellen R. Czeh
. 2000. National Study of Delinquency Prevention in Schools, final report.
Ellicott City, MD:Gottfredson Associates, Inc.
11.
Greene, Eleanor
,
Judith A. Zimmer
, and
Stephanie T. Bray
. 1999. Community works: Smart youth make safer communities.
Washington, DC: National Crime Prevention Council and Street Law, Inc.
12.
Kovaleski, Joseph F.
,
Edward E. Gickling
,
Henry Morrow
, and
Paul R. Swank
. 1999.
High versus low implementation of instructional support teams
. Remedial and Special Education20 (3):
170-183
.
13.
Lillehoj, Catherine J.
,
Kenneth W. Griffin
, and
Richard Spoth
. 2004.
Program provider and observer ratings of school-based preventive intervention implementation: Agreement and relation to youth outcomes
. Health Education and Behavior31 (2):
242-257
.
14.
Mihalic, Sharon
,
Abigail Fagan
,
Katherine Irwin
,
Diane Ballard
, and
Delbert Elliott
. 2002. Blueprints for Violence Prevention replications: Factors for implementation success.
Colorado: University of Colorado, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence
.
15.
Mihalic, Sharon F.
, and
Katherine Irwin
. 2003.
Blueprints for Violence Prevention: From research to real-world settings—Factors influencing the successful replication of model programs
. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice1:
307-329
.
16.
Moncher, Frank J.
, and
Ronald J. Prinz
. 1991.
Treatment fidelity in outcome studies
. Clinical Psychology Review11:
247-266
.
17.
Nunnery, David
,
Robert E. Slavin
,
Nancy A. Madden
,
Steven Ross
,
Lana Smith
,
Phyllis Hunter
, and
Joseph Stubbs
. 1997.
Effects of full and partial implementation of success for all on student reading in English and Spanish
. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, March.
18.
Rossi, Peter H.
,
Howard E. Freeman
, and
Mark W. Lipsey
. 1999. Evaluation: A systematic approach. 6th ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
.
19.
Scott, Anne G.
, and
Lee Sechrest
. 1989.
Strength of theory and theory of strength
. Evaluation and Program Planning12:
329–336
.
20.
Sellers, Christine S.
,
Terrance J. Taylor
, and
Finn-Aage Esbensen
. 1998.
Reality check: Evaluating a school-based gang prevention model
. Evaluation Review22 (5):
590-608
.
21.
Summerfelt, W. Thomas
. 2003.
Program strength and fidelity in evaluation
. Applied Developmental Science7 (2):
55-61
.
