Jennifer A. Rolls Reutz, S. Kerns, Jennifer A. Sedivy, Cricket Mitchell
{"title":"记录实现差距,第1部分:在加利福尼亚循证信息交换所索引的项目中使用保真度支持","authors":"Jennifer A. Rolls Reutz, S. Kerns, Jennifer A. Sedivy, Cricket Mitchell","doi":"10.1080/10522158.2019.1694342","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT There is an implementation gap in which more is known about what works to support implementation than what is done in practice. This paper uses information from programs rated on the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse (CEBC), a web-based repository of information on the evidence base for programs that serve children and families, to examine the extent of this gap as it relates to the availability of fidelity measurement implementation supports. Fidelity measures and materials supplied during the CEBC data collection process by representatives of programs rated on the CEBC Scientific Rating Scale as having well-supported, supported, or promising research evidence were examined. Over 30% of these programs did not have a fidelity assessment approach. For the rest, using the available data, the program’s fidelity characteristics, including source, type, and frequency of use, were coded. The extent to which fidelity supports are incorporated into these programs remains variable. No relationship was found between the level of scientific rating and the existence of fidelity measures. Overall, a range of fidelity strategies were used, including those considered gold standard (e.g., live or video observation). However, rarely are these strategies required. Results underscore the substantial implementation gap as it applies to fidelity measurement.","PeriodicalId":46016,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Social Work","volume":"23 1","pages":"114 - 132"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10522158.2019.1694342","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Documenting the implementation gap, part 1: Use of fidelity supports in programs indexed in the California evidence-based clearinghouse\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer A. Rolls Reutz, S. Kerns, Jennifer A. Sedivy, Cricket Mitchell\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10522158.2019.1694342\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT There is an implementation gap in which more is known about what works to support implementation than what is done in practice. This paper uses information from programs rated on the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse (CEBC), a web-based repository of information on the evidence base for programs that serve children and families, to examine the extent of this gap as it relates to the availability of fidelity measurement implementation supports. Fidelity measures and materials supplied during the CEBC data collection process by representatives of programs rated on the CEBC Scientific Rating Scale as having well-supported, supported, or promising research evidence were examined. Over 30% of these programs did not have a fidelity assessment approach. For the rest, using the available data, the program’s fidelity characteristics, including source, type, and frequency of use, were coded. The extent to which fidelity supports are incorporated into these programs remains variable. No relationship was found between the level of scientific rating and the existence of fidelity measures. Overall, a range of fidelity strategies were used, including those considered gold standard (e.g., live or video observation). However, rarely are these strategies required. Results underscore the substantial implementation gap as it applies to fidelity measurement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46016,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Family Social Work\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"114 - 132\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10522158.2019.1694342\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Family Social Work\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10522158.2019.1694342\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL WORK\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Family Social Work","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10522158.2019.1694342","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
Documenting the implementation gap, part 1: Use of fidelity supports in programs indexed in the California evidence-based clearinghouse
ABSTRACT There is an implementation gap in which more is known about what works to support implementation than what is done in practice. This paper uses information from programs rated on the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse (CEBC), a web-based repository of information on the evidence base for programs that serve children and families, to examine the extent of this gap as it relates to the availability of fidelity measurement implementation supports. Fidelity measures and materials supplied during the CEBC data collection process by representatives of programs rated on the CEBC Scientific Rating Scale as having well-supported, supported, or promising research evidence were examined. Over 30% of these programs did not have a fidelity assessment approach. For the rest, using the available data, the program’s fidelity characteristics, including source, type, and frequency of use, were coded. The extent to which fidelity supports are incorporated into these programs remains variable. No relationship was found between the level of scientific rating and the existence of fidelity measures. Overall, a range of fidelity strategies were used, including those considered gold standard (e.g., live or video observation). However, rarely are these strategies required. Results underscore the substantial implementation gap as it applies to fidelity measurement.
期刊介绍:
Each issue of the Journal of Family Social Work contains peer reviewed research articles, conceptual and practice articles, creative works, letters to the editor, and book reviews devoted to innovative family theory and practice subjects. In celebrating social workers" tradition of working with couples and families in their life context, the Journal of Family Social Work features articles which advance the capacity of practitioners to integrate research, theory building, and practice wisdom into their services to families. It is a journal of policy, clinical practice, and research directed to the needs of social workers working with couples and families.