How Common Are Adaptations to School-Based Interventions and Why Do They Occur?

Background and Purpose: Implementation fidelity is linked to intervention effectiveness and improved service outcomes. However, there can be tensions between maintaining fidelity (i.e., delivering an intervention as it was designed by program developers) and adaptation (i.e., modifying the intervention to meet the specific implementation context) (Castro et al., 2004, 2010; Lau, 2006). When programs are implemented in routine settings adaptation is common (Fixen et al., 2005). School-based programs, in particular, are less likely  to be implemented with fidelity than community-based programs (Dartois et al., 2008). The reasons for program modification are not well understood but are often related to philosophical (e.g., cultural or contextual fit) or logistical incompatibility (e.g., time, resources) between program design and the local context (Moore et al., 2013). Scholars have called for research investigating the extent to which prevention programs are adapted, in what ways, and for what reasons (Dariotis et al., 2008; Greenberg et al., 2005). This paper responds to this call by investigating the prevalence and nature of adaptations to a school-based, social-emotional learning (SEL) intervention.

Methods: Data come from the study of a district-wide implementation of a universal SEL curriculum in 11 elementary schools. An online survey was administered to teachers and a response rate of 73% (n=137) was achieved. Teachers were asked to identify their most favorite and their least favorite lesson. Then they were asked whether they implemented lessons using the “exact approach” described in the program materials or used a different approach. Open ended survey questions elaborated on their reasons for lesson adaptations. Finally, interviews were conducted with a subset of teachers to determine what contributed to their classification of lessons as most favorite verse least favorite and what factors led them to modify those lessons. A thematic analysis was conducted.

Results: Interviews indicated that teachers classified lessons as their favorite when they were (1) easy, engaging, and fun for students; (2) easy and enjoyable for teachers; (3) relevant and beneficial for their class; and (4) flexible. Teachers classified lessons as their least favorite when they were (1) difficult for students to learn; (2) difficult to teach; (3) not engaging to students; and (4) not culturally relevant. Only 6% of teachers used the “exact approach” to implement their most favorite lesson, whereas 17% of teachers used the “exact approach” to implement their least favorite lesson. Reasons for adaptations included: (1) tailoring lessons for student age and/or culture; (2) improving student engagement by including real world applications, enhancing educational modality (e.g., writing exercises), and shortening lessons.

Conclusions and Implications: This study contributes to our understanding of SEL program adaptation in routine settings by investigating teacher rationale for making program modifications. Similar to previous research, we found that teachers believed the intervention required modification to fit their local context. Interestingly, we learned that teachers were more likely to modify lessons that they liked. Future research is needed to determine whether the nature of these adaptations improve implementation quality and ultimately lead to better student outcomes.