Advancing the science of gifted education requires that researchers and educators better understand when and why (and for whom) programs and services are effective. Assessing Fidelity of Implementation (FoI) is key to achieving this level of understanding and can be incorporated into formative or summative evaluations and formal or informal processes. FoI is especially critical when programs are being scaled up to new contexts. This article explores FoI in terms of defining the program and identifying important moderators of implementation.
AllinderR. M. (1996). When some is not better than none: Effects of differential implementation of curriculum-based assessment. Exceptional Children, 62, 525-535.
2.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). The standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
3.
AskiaR.HillA.LakinJ. M. (2018, April). Connecting the dots between program faculty and teachers: Building shared understandings of inquiry-based learning. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, New York, NY.
4.
AssoulineS. G.NicponM. F.HuberD. H. (2006). The impact of vulnerabilities and strengths on the academic experiences of twice-exceptional students: A message to school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 10 (1Suppl.). doi:10.1177/2156759X0601001S03.
5.
AzanoA. P.CallahanC. M.MissettT. C.BrunnerM. (2014). Understanding the experiences of gifted education teachers and fidelity of implementation in rural schools. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(2), 88-100.
BrookhartS. M.NitkoA. J. (2018). Educational assessment of students (8th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
9.
BroughtonS. F.HesterJ. R. (1993). Effects of administrative and community support on teacher acceptance of classroom interventions. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 4, 169-177.
10.
BybeeR. W.BuchwaldC. E.CrissmanS.HeilD. R.KuerbisP.MatsumotoC.McInerneyJ. D. (1989). Science and technology education for the elementary years: Frameworks for curriculum and instruction. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED314237
11.
CallahanC. M.MoonT. R.OhS.AzanoA. P.HaileyE. P. (2015). What works in gifted education: Documenting the effects of an integrated curricular/instructional model for gifted students. American Educational Research Journal, 52, 137-167.
12.
CenturyJ.RudnickM.FreemanC. (2010). A framework for measuring fidelity of implementation: A foundation for shared language and accumulation of knowledge. American Journal of Evaluation, 31, 199-218. doi:10.1177/1098214010366173
13.
ColemanM. R.GallagherJ. J.JobJ. (2012). Developing and sustaining professionalism within gifted education. Gifted Child Today, 35, 27-36.
14.
CooperJ. (2015). Exploring teacher determinants and student outcomes of inquiry use in a nanoscience intervention (Doctoral dissertation). Auburn University, AL.
15.
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.
16.
FinkA. (2016). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
17.
FrechtlingJ. (2002). The evaluation process: Getting started. In FrechtlingJ. (Ed.), The 2002 user-friendly handbook for project evaluation (pp. 15-30). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
18.
FrisbieD. A. (1988). Reliability of scores from teacher-made tests. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 7(1), 25-35.
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.
23.
Hertberg-DavisH. (2009). Myth 7: Differentiation in the regular classroom is equivalent to gifted programs and is sufficient: Classroom teachers have the time, the skill, and the will to differentiate adequately. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 251-253.
24.
KarabenickS. A.MaehrM. L. (2007). Tools for the evaluation of motivation-related outcomes of math and science instruction: Final report to the national science foundation. Available from mspmap.org
25.
LakinJ. M.AskiaR. (2017, March). It won’t sell itself: Promoting K-12 teacher and school buy-in for university-led programs. Presented to the American Society for Engineering Education Zone II, San Juan, PR.
26.
LakinJ. M.ShannonD. M. (2015). The role of treatment acceptability, effectiveness, and understanding in treatment fidelity: Predicting implementation variation in a middle school science program. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 47, 28-37.
27.
LakinJ. M.WallaceC. S. (2015). Assessing dimensions of inquiry practice by middle school science teachers engaged in a professional development program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26, 139-162. doi:10.1007/s10972-014-9412-1
28.
LassigC. J. (2009). Teachers’ attitudes towards the gifted: The importance of professional development and school culture. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 18, 32-42.
29.
LohmanD. F.KorbK. A. (2006). Gifted today but not tomorrow? Longitudinal changes in ability and achievement during elementary school. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 451-484.
30.
McLaughlinJ. A.JordanG. B. (2004). Using logic models. Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, 2, 7-32.
31.
MissettT. C.FosterL. H. (2015). Searching for evidence-based practice: A survey of empirical studies on curricular interventions measuring and reporting fidelity of implementation published during 2004-2013. Journal of Advanced Academics, 26, 96-111.
32.
MowbrayC.HolterM. C.TeagueG. B.BybeeD. (2003). Fidelity criteria: Development, measurement, and validation. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 315-340.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
35.
NeumeisterK. L. S.AdamsC. M.PierceR. L.CassadyJ. C.DixonF. A. (2007). Fourth-grade teachers’ perceptions of giftedness: Implications for identifying and serving diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 479-499.
36.
O’DonnellC. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K-12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78, 33-84.
37.
Rambo-HernandezK. E.WarneR. T. (2015). Measuring the outliers: An introduction to out-of-level testing with high-achieving students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 47(4), 199-207.
38.
ReimersT. M.WackerD. P.KoepplG. (1987). Acceptability of behavior interventions: A review of the literature. School Psychology Review, 16, 212-227.
TanolG. (2010). Treatment fidelity: Relation to treatment acceptability and change over time (Doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
41.
TraubR. E.RowleyG. L. (1991). Understanding Reliability: An NCME Instructional Module on. Educational measurement: Issues and practice, 10(1), 37-45.
42.
YohalemN.Wilson-AhlstromA.FischerS.ShinnM. (2009). Measuring youth program quality: A guide to assessment tools (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: The Forum for Youth Investment.
