对预防干预措施的变化进行分类:应用适应分类法。

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Joseph N Roscoe, Valerie B Shapiro, Kelly Whitaker, B K Elizabeth Kim
{"title":"对预防干预措施的变化进行分类:应用适应分类法。","authors":"Joseph N Roscoe,&nbsp;Valerie B Shapiro,&nbsp;Kelly Whitaker,&nbsp;B K Elizabeth Kim","doi":"10.1007/s10935-018-00531-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>High-quality implementation is important for preventive intervention effectiveness. Although this implies fidelity to a practice model, some adaptation may be inevitable or even advantageous in routine practice settings. In order to organize the study of adaptation and its effect on intervention outcomes, scholars have proposed various adaptation taxonomies. This paper examines how four published taxonomies retrospectively classify adaptations: the Ecological Validity Framework (EVF; Bernal et al. in J Abnorm Child Psychol 23(1):67-82, 1995), the Hybrid Prevention Program Model (HPPM; Castro et al. in Prev Sci 5(1):41-45, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PREV.0000013980.12412.cd ), the Moore et al. (J Prim Prev 34(3):147-161, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-013-0303-6 ) taxonomy, and the Stirman et al. (Implement Sci 8:65, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-65 ) taxonomy. We used these taxonomies to classify teacher-reported adaptations made during the implementation of TOOLBOX™, a social emotional learning program implemented in 11 elementary schools during the 2014-2015 academic year. Post-implementation, 271 teachers and staff responded to an online survey that included questions about adaptation, yielding 98 adaptation descriptions provided by 42 respondents. Four raters used each taxonomy to try to classify these descriptions. We assessed the extent to which raters agreed they could classify the descriptions using each taxonomy (coverage), as well as the extent to which raters agreed on the subcategory they assigned (clarity). Results indicated variance among taxonomies, and tensions between the ideals of coverage and clarity emerged. Further studies of adaptation taxonomies as coding instruments may improve their performance, helping scholars more consistently assess adaptations and their effects on preventive intervention outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":47644,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Primary Prevention","volume":"40 1","pages":"89-109"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10935-018-00531-2","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Classifying Changes to Preventive Interventions: Applying Adaptation Taxonomies.\",\"authors\":\"Joseph N Roscoe,&nbsp;Valerie B Shapiro,&nbsp;Kelly Whitaker,&nbsp;B K Elizabeth Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10935-018-00531-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>High-quality implementation is important for preventive intervention effectiveness. Although this implies fidelity to a practice model, some adaptation may be inevitable or even advantageous in routine practice settings. In order to organize the study of adaptation and its effect on intervention outcomes, scholars have proposed various adaptation taxonomies. This paper examines how four published taxonomies retrospectively classify adaptations: the Ecological Validity Framework (EVF; Bernal et al. in J Abnorm Child Psychol 23(1):67-82, 1995), the Hybrid Prevention Program Model (HPPM; Castro et al. in Prev Sci 5(1):41-45, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PREV.0000013980.12412.cd ), the Moore et al. (J Prim Prev 34(3):147-161, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-013-0303-6 ) taxonomy, and the Stirman et al. (Implement Sci 8:65, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-65 ) taxonomy. We used these taxonomies to classify teacher-reported adaptations made during the implementation of TOOLBOX™, a social emotional learning program implemented in 11 elementary schools during the 2014-2015 academic year. Post-implementation, 271 teachers and staff responded to an online survey that included questions about adaptation, yielding 98 adaptation descriptions provided by 42 respondents. Four raters used each taxonomy to try to classify these descriptions. We assessed the extent to which raters agreed they could classify the descriptions using each taxonomy (coverage), as well as the extent to which raters agreed on the subcategory they assigned (clarity). Results indicated variance among taxonomies, and tensions between the ideals of coverage and clarity emerged. Further studies of adaptation taxonomies as coding instruments may improve their performance, helping scholars more consistently assess adaptations and their effects on preventive intervention outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47644,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Primary Prevention\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"89-109\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10935-018-00531-2\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Primary Prevention\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-018-00531-2\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Primary Prevention","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-018-00531-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

高质量的实施对预防干预的有效性至关重要。虽然这意味着对实践模型的忠诚,但在日常实践环境中,一些适应可能是不可避免的,甚至是有利的。为了组织对适应及其对干预结果影响的研究,学者们提出了各种适应分类法。本文研究了四种已发表的分类法是如何回顾性地对适应进行分类的:生态有效性框架(EVF);Bernal et al. in J abnormal Child Psychol 23(1):67- 82,1995), Hybrid Prevention Program Model (HPPM;[j] .科学通报,2004(1):1-4。https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PREV.0000013980.12412.cd), Moore等。[J] . Prim vol . 34(3):147-161, 2013。https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-013-0303-6)分类,以及Stirman等人(实现科学8:65,2013)。https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-65)分类学。我们使用这些分类法对教师在实施TOOLBOX™期间报告的适应性进行分类,TOOLBOX™是2014-2015学年在11所小学实施的社会情感学习计划。实施后,271名教师和工作人员参与了一项在线调查,其中包括有关适应的问题,42名受访者提供了98项适应描述。四个评分员使用每种分类法对这些描述进行分类。我们评估了评分者同意他们可以使用每种分类法对描述进行分类的程度(覆盖率),以及评分者同意他们分配的子类别的程度(清晰度)。结果表明了分类之间的差异,以及覆盖率和清晰度理想之间的紧张关系。将适应分类法作为编码工具的进一步研究可能会提高其性能,帮助学者更一致地评估适应及其对预防干预结果的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Classifying Changes to Preventive Interventions: Applying Adaptation Taxonomies.

High-quality implementation is important for preventive intervention effectiveness. Although this implies fidelity to a practice model, some adaptation may be inevitable or even advantageous in routine practice settings. In order to organize the study of adaptation and its effect on intervention outcomes, scholars have proposed various adaptation taxonomies. This paper examines how four published taxonomies retrospectively classify adaptations: the Ecological Validity Framework (EVF; Bernal et al. in J Abnorm Child Psychol 23(1):67-82, 1995), the Hybrid Prevention Program Model (HPPM; Castro et al. in Prev Sci 5(1):41-45, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PREV.0000013980.12412.cd ), the Moore et al. (J Prim Prev 34(3):147-161, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-013-0303-6 ) taxonomy, and the Stirman et al. (Implement Sci 8:65, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-65 ) taxonomy. We used these taxonomies to classify teacher-reported adaptations made during the implementation of TOOLBOX™, a social emotional learning program implemented in 11 elementary schools during the 2014-2015 academic year. Post-implementation, 271 teachers and staff responded to an online survey that included questions about adaptation, yielding 98 adaptation descriptions provided by 42 respondents. Four raters used each taxonomy to try to classify these descriptions. We assessed the extent to which raters agreed they could classify the descriptions using each taxonomy (coverage), as well as the extent to which raters agreed on the subcategory they assigned (clarity). Results indicated variance among taxonomies, and tensions between the ideals of coverage and clarity emerged. Further studies of adaptation taxonomies as coding instruments may improve their performance, helping scholars more consistently assess adaptations and their effects on preventive intervention outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Primary Prevention
Journal of Primary Prevention PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: The Journal of Prevention is a multidisciplinary journal that publishes manuscripts aimed at reducing negative social and health outcomes and promoting human health and well-being. It publishes high-quality research that discusses evidence-based interventions, policies, and practices. The editions cover a wide range of prevention science themes and value diverse populations, age groups, and methodologies. Our target audiences are prevention scientists, practitioners, and policymakers from diverse geographic locations. Specific types of papers published in the journal include Original Research, Research Methods, Practitioner Narrative, Debate, Brief Reports, Letter to the Editor, Policy, and Reviews. The selection of articles for publication is based on their innovation, contribution to the field of prevention, and quality. The Journal of Prevention differs from other similar journals in the field by offering a more culturally and geographically diverse team of editors, a broader range of subjects and methodologies, and the intention to attract the readership of prevention practitioners and other stakeholders (alongside scientists).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信