Acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of Rural School Support Strategies for behavioral interventions: a mixed methods evaluation over two years of a hybrid type 3 implementation-effectiveness trial.

BACKGROUND: Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is a framework for implementing evidence-based interventions for preventing behavioral issues and improving climate in schools. The implementation of school-wide PBIS with fidelity is complex, requiring leadership commitment, teaming, and coordination of systems for tracking behaviors and consequences. Putting these components in place while ensuring alignment with the values and needs of the school community can be difficult for schools with fewer resources, such as rural schools. Implementation supports are needed, including strategies such as technical assistance, but it is unclear whether lower-cost modalities such as virtual support are acceptable, appropriate, and feasible and whether perceptions vary throughout the implementation process. METHODS: A type 3 hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial is taking place in 40 Idaho schools, testing a bundle of implementation supports selected to meet the needs of schools in rural areas. Supports include technical assistance from an implementation support practitioner (ISP), didactic trainings, virtual learning sessions, and an online resource portal. Surveys and interviews in the first 2 years of implementation (fall 2019 to spring 2021) explored outcomes of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility regarding the implementation supports among more than 150 school stakeholders. RESULTS: Evaluations showed high acceptability and appropriateness of the PBIS concepts and training. The 20 schools receiving additional implementation support rated the technical assistance and support from the project's ISPs as the most acceptable and appropriate resource. Reasons for acceptability were the relationship built with the ISP, the ISP's expertise, and being a "neutral party." Although in-person support from the ISP was preferred, remote support was acceptable and increased feasibility of attendance. Virtual learning sessions were acceptable for learning and collaboration, particularly in the second year of implementation, once ISPs had developed closer relationships with school teams. CONCLUSIONS: School staff found training, technical assistance, and virtual learning sessions to be acceptable and appropriate. Virtual formats of training and technical assistance decreased in acceptability but increased feasibility of attendance. In-person support was preferred during initial implementation, and virtual support was more acceptable thereafter. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was prospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03736395 ), on November 9, 2018.

Study protocol for a cluster-randomized trial of a bundle of implementation support strategies to improve the fidelity of implementation of schoolwide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports in rural schools.

Background: Improving the implementation of evidence-based interventions is important for population-level impacts. Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is effective for improving school climate and students' behavioral outcomes, but rural schools often lag behind urban and suburban schools in implementing such initiatives. Methods/Design: This paper describes a Type 3 hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial of Rural School Support Strategies (RS3), a bundle of implementation support strategies selected to improve implementation outcomes in rural schools. In this two-arm parallel group trial, 40 rural public schools are randomized to receive: 1) a series of trainings about PBIS; or 2) an enhanced condition with training plus RS3. The trial was planned for two years, but due to the pandemic has been extended another year. RS3 draws from the Interactive Systems Framework, with a university-based team (support system) that works with a team at each school (school-based delivery system), increasing engagement through strategies such as: providing technical assistance, facilitating school team functioning, and educating implementers. The primary organizational-level outcome is fidelity of implementation, with additional implementation outcomes of feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness, and cost. Staff-level outcomes include perceived climate and self-reported adoption of PBIS core components. Student-level outcomes include disciplinary referrals, academic achievement, and perceived climate. Mediators being evaluated include organizational readiness, school team functioning, and psychological safety. Discussion: The study tests implementation strategies, with strengths including a theory-based design, mixed methods data collection, and consideration of mediational mechanisms. Results will yield knowledge about how to improve implementation of universal prevention initiatives in rural schools.

The Evidence-Based Practice of Applied Behavior Analysis.

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is a model of professional decision-making in which practitioners integrate the best available evidence with client values/context and clinical expertise in order to provide services for their clients. This framework provides behavior analysts with a structure for pervasive use of the best available evidence in the complex settings in which they work. This structure recognizes the need for clear and explicit understanding of the strength of evidence supporting intervention options, the important contextual factors including client values that contribute to decision making, and the key role of clinical expertise in the conceptualization, intervention, and evaluation of cases. Opening the discussion of EBP in this journal, Smith (The Behavior Analyst, 36, 7-33, 2013) raised several key issues related to EBP and applied behavior analysis (ABA). The purpose of this paper is to respond to Smith's arguments and extend the discussion of the relevant issues. Although we support many of Smith's (The Behavior Analyst, 36, 7-33, 2013) points, we contend that Smith's definition of EBP is significantly narrower than definitions that are used in professions with long histories of EBP and that this narrowness conflicts with the principles that drive applied behavior analytic practice. We offer a definition and framework for EBP that aligns with the foundations of ABA and is consistent with well-established definitions of EBP in medicine, psychology, and other professions. In addition to supporting the systematic use of research evidence in behavior analytic decision making, this definition can promote clear communication about treatment decisions across disciplines and with important outside institutions such as insurance companies and granting agencies.