↓ Skip to main content

Exploring multi-level system factors facilitating educator training and implementation of evidence-based practices (EBP): a study protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
215 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exploring multi-level system factors facilitating educator training and implementation of evidence-based practices (EBP): a study protocol
Published in
Implementation Science, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13012-017-0698-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aubyn C. Stahmer, Jessica Suhrheinrich, Patricia L. Schetter, Elizabeth McGee Hassrick

Abstract

This study examines how system-wide (i.e., region, district, and school) mechanisms such as leadership support, training requirements, structure, collaboration, and education affect the use of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in schools and how this affects the outcomes for students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Despite growing evidence for the positive effects of EBPs for ASD, these practices are not consistently or effectively used in schools. Although special education programs are mandated to use EBPs, there are very few evidence-based methods for selecting, implementing, and sustaining EBPs. Research focuses primarily on teacher training, without attention to contextual factors (e.g., implementation climate, attitudes toward EBPs, resource allocation, and social networks) that may impact outcomes. Using an implementation science framework, this project will prospectively examine relations between system-wide factors and teachers' use of EBPs and student education outcomes. Survey data will be collected from approximately 85 regional special education directors, 170 regional program specialists, 265 district special education directors, 265 behavior specialists, 925 school principals, 3538 special education teachers, and 2700 paraprofessionals. Administrative data for the students with ASD served by participating teachers will be examined. A total of 79 regional-, district-, and school-level personnel will also participate in social network interviews. Mixed methods, including surveys, administrative data, and observational checklists, will be used to gather in-depth information about system-wide malleable factors that relate to positive teacher implementation of EBPs and student outcomes. Multi-level modeling will be used to assess system-wide malleable factors related to EBP implementation which will be linked to the trainer, teacher, and student outcomes and examined based on moderators (e.g., district size, Special Education Local Plan Area structure, teachers' ASD experience). Finally, a dynamic social network approach will be used to map EBP-related connectivity across all levels of the system for selected regions. Dynamic network analysis will be used to gauge the degree to which and ways that EBP trainings, resources, and interventions are shared (or not shared) among school staff. Results are expected to inform the development of system-wide interventions to improve the school-based implementation of EBPs for students with ASD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 215 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 215 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 16%
Student > Master 28 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 10%
Researcher 21 10%
Other 8 4%
Other 35 16%
Unknown 67 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 36 17%
Social Sciences 27 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 6%
Arts and Humanities 6 3%
Other 25 12%
Unknown 84 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 January 2018.
All research outputs
#4,673,580
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#874
of 1,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,918
of 445,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#33
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 445,061 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.