no job name...o’connor, andy roach, lisa sanetti, elisa steele-shernoff, and jennifer white. we...

THEORIES OF CHANGE AND ADOPTION OF INNOVATIONS:THE EVOLVING EVIDENCE-BASED INTERVENTION AND

PRACTICE MOVEMENT IN SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY

THE EVIDENCE-BASED INTERVENTION WORK GROUP1

University of Wisconsin-Madison

As the evidence-based intervention (EBI) movement proliferated in medicine, psychology, andeducation, interest turned to establishing criteria for determining whether an intervention and/orprogram can be described as “evidence-based.” Less attention has been focused on establishingan empirical basis to understand and facilitate adoption of EBIs in practice settings. In thisarticle, the Evidence-Based Intervention Work Group at the University of Wisconsin-Madisonreviews some conceptual and theoretical models that have bearing on future research regardingthis adoption process. First, we provide a brief overview of the EBI movement and then argue forresearch on the conceptual and theoretical models pertaining to adoption of EBIs. Specifically,conceptual and/or theoretical models of change and adoption of innovation are discussed forconsideration in research and practice in the EBI movement. Applications and limitations of theapproaches are discussed within the context of the adoption and sustainability of EBIs in practicesettings. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Introduction

The implementation of interventions in schools has become a major role for school psychol-ogists, and intervention effectiveness is a cornerstone of service delivery. However, the research topractice gap is a glaring reminder of the challenges that surround the implementation of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in practice settings. How do we narrow this gap so that effective EBIsare adopted into the everyday practices of school psychologists? Herein lies one of the goals of theTask Force on Evidence-Based Interventions in School Psychology (hereafter called the TaskForce). The mission of the Task Force has been to identify EBIs and practices with the intention ofnarrowing the research-to-practice gap (Kratochwill & Shernoff, 2003; Kratochwill & Stoiber,2002). Although the Task Force embraced the EBI movement to promote the development and useof high quality, effective intervention and prevention strategies in educational settings, consider-able work needs to focus on how interventions are adopted in applied and educational settings(Kratochwill & Shernoff, 2003). The adoption of interventions can pose challenges simply becauseit involves change, and change is a delicate process that can be effective and sustainable only ifproperly facilitated.

Scholars have made numerous efforts to design and implement models that facilitate changein various environments (Ellsworth, 2000). These models are important because inevitably, indi-viduals and organizations are compelled to change for a variety of reasons; however, no matter thereason, change can be difficult. As a result, change needs to be carefully facilitated as well asunderstood by all those involved (i.e., facilitators and potential implementers). This article pro-vides a review of some major theoretical and conceptual approaches to change and their relevanceto the implementation of EBIs. We have searched through the change literature in various fields

1The Evidenced-Based Intervention Work Group at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who participated in writingthis manuscript consists of the following individuals: Erin Cowell, Kelly Feeney, Elizabeth Feldman, Todd Glover, GinaHerrera, Kristy Kohler, Thomas R. Kratochwill, Patrick Kumke, Julie McGivern, Markeda Newell, Brad Niebling, EdwardO’Connor, Andy Roach, Lisa Sanetti, Elisa Steele-Shernoff, and Jennifer White. We also express appreciation to Ms.Karen O’Connell, Lois Triemstra, and Cathlin Foy for their assistance with the manuscript.

Correspondence to: Thomas R. Kratochwill, School Psychology Program, 1025 W. Johnson St., University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706–1796. E-mail: [email protected]

Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 42(5), 2005 © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/pits.20086

475

(e.g., business, medicine, and psychology) and presented relevant change models that researchersand practitioners might use to facilitate the adoption of EBIs in educational settings. In this article,the reader will find discussions of the following eight major change models and theories:(1) Social Influence Theory, (2) Concerns-Based Adoptions Model, (3) Theory of Reasoned Action,(4) Rogers’ Innovation-Diffusion Theory, (5) Generalization Theory, (6) Transtheoretical Modelof Change, (7) Functional Assessment, and the (8) Organizational Analytic Model. The discus-sion of each model/theory is organized into four sections: (1) introduction of the model/theory,(2) explanation of the components of the model/theory, (3) application of model/theory to EBImovement, and (4) an evaluation of the model/theory, which includes the limitations of the model/theory. In addition, a key discussion on cultural differences between researchers and practitionersis made to provide an analysis of contextual variables that can enhance and/or inhibit the adoptionof EBIs.

Promoting Evidence-Based Practice Throughthe Use of Social Influence Theory

Social power, as defined by French and Raven (1959), is the power of one individual tochange the beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors of another. Models of social influence are relevant to theEBI movement in school psychology because (a) its concepts are fundamental to all interpersonalrelationships (Strong & Hills, 1986), (b) successful delivery of indirect services in school psy-chology depends on application of power and influence (Conoley & Gutkin, 1986; Gutkin &Conoley, 1990), and (c) knowing more about social power and influence may be relevant specif-ically to understanding issues of resistance in consultation (Wickstrom & Witt, 1993).

One theory of social influence, posited by Cialdini (2001), recognizes seven core principles:commitment and consistency, reciprocation, instant influency/primitive automaticity, social proof,liking, authority, and scarcity. With regard to commitment and consistency, good personal consis-tency is highly valued by society and serves as a shortcut in the complexity of decision making. Inconsidering the link between consistency and compliance, securing an initial commitment may bethe key; that is, people are more willing to agree to requests that are congruent with a priorcommitment they have made. The rule of reciprocation requires that one person try to repay whatanother person has provided, which is considered one of the most widespread and basic norms ofhuman culture. As an example related to school psychology, to lessen the degree to which ateacher feels indebted to a school psychologist who has helped out by contacting the parents of astruggling first-grader, the teacher will often comply with a request for a substantially larger favorthan the one that the teacher originally received. Research also indicates that this technique increasesthe likelihood that the person will carry out the request (Miller, Seligman, Clark, & Bush, 1976)and will agree to such requests in the future (Cialdini & Ascani, 1976).

Instant influence/primitive authority refers to a short-cut approach in which the decision tocomply is made on the basis of a single, reliable piece of information. When having to makedecisions quickly, individuals often revert to a primitive but necessary single piece of good evi-dence or trigger feature approach (e.g., Berkowitz & Buck, 1967; Cialdini, 2001; Milgram, 1970).It is likely that teachers and other school professionals often rely on trigger features, as they areforced to make a plethora of decisions throughout the day. The principle of social proof states thatindividuals view a behavior as being correct in a given situation to the degree that they see othersperforming it. This principle can be used to stimulate a teacher’s compliance with a request byinforming the teacher that many teachers in the school have been complying with it. The rule ofliking posits that people prefer to say yes to individuals they know and like. Thus, there are severalfeatures that might influence a school psychologist’s overall attractiveness and likeability. Someof these factors that enhance compliance include physical attractiveness (Eagly, Askmore, Makhijani,

476 Evidence-Based Intervention Work Group

& Longo, 1991), similarity (Byrne, 1971), the giving of compliments, and familiarity throughrepeated contact with a person. Next, authority, refers to a person’s willingness to obey authoritiesand is a kind of decision-making shortcut in which individuals engage because of assumptionsregarding the authorities’ knowledge, wisdom, and power. Finally, the scarcity principle states thatopportunities seem more valuable to individuals when they are less available (Cialdini, 2001). Theuse of this principle can be seen in such compliance techniques as the “limited number” and“deadline” tactics, where school psychologists may try to convince teachers that access to whatthey are offering is restricted by amount or time.

Another well-known framework for studying social or interpersonal power is French andRaven’s (1959) typology of social power bases. This typology includes six bases of power that anindividual, for example, a school psychologist, can use to effect the beliefs, attitudes, or behaviorsof another individual, such as a teacher. These types of power include: coercive, reward, legiti-mate, expert, referent, and informational. Subsequent researchers have since built on French andRaven’s (1959) typology, expanding on and further defining its core components (Bass, 1960,1981; Yukl & Falbe, 1991). The components of this model have most recently been conceptualizedas being grouped into “soft” versus “hard” bases. Using Raven’s framework (1992, 1993), softbases refer to the components of positive expert, positive referent, direct informational, legitimatedependence, and personal reward power. Hard bases are thus comprised of the components oflegitimate reciprocity, impersonal coercive, legitimate equity, impersonal reward, personal coer-cive, and legitimate position power.

Furthermore, research conducted by Erchul and colleagues (2001) has examined the appli-cation of the social power model to school-based practices. Most notably, Erchul, Raven, and Ray(2000) have found that influence is more likely to occur when power bases are not overt orpunitive. In research regarding consultation between school psychologists and teachers, soft baseshave repeatedly been found to be rated as more influential than hard bases. Both teachers andschool psychologists view direct informational and positive expert power as most effective. Directinformational power refers to an individual’s ability to influence another based on the relevance ofthe information conveyed. For example, a teacher accepts a school psychologist’s recommenda-tion to implement a specific reading intervention targeting phonemic awareness. This decision isbecause this teacher believes that all first graders with reading difficulties benefit from this type ofinstruction and not because the school psychologist is seen as an expert. Positive expert powerrefers to an individual’s ability to influence another (e.g., a teacher) based on his or her expertisein a specific area of interest to the teacher. For example, a teacher who has a number of strugglingreaders as students would likely welcome the assistance of a school psychologist whose specificarea of expertise is in early literacy.

Applications to the EBI Movement

The aforementioned principles of social influence can be useful for researchers, school psy-chologists, and other professionals seeking to implement EBIs in schools. Many of these tech-niques that attempt to increase and ensure one’s compliance with a request are largely determinedby past behaviors of individuals as well as by the current relationships that exist between individ-uals. Therefore, it is important to consider these factors when selecting the individual who isresponsible for encouraging others to comply with using EBIs in schools (e.g., school psycholo-gist) as well as the person (mediator) who is being asked to comply (i.e., teacher).

The principles of social influence theory should be considered when looking to implement anEBI in a school setting. For example, researchers who are seeking school professionals interestedin adopting EBIs might find the principles of reciprocation, instant influence, and authority par-ticularly useful. Thus, given that individuals are more likely to comply with a request of an

Theories of Change and Adoption of Innovations 477

authority figure, it would be important for a researcher to first contact school principals andadministrators about using an EBI in their school. To secure administrators’ interests in the EBI,the researcher may present the opportunity to participate as being limited to high-achieving schoolsor as having a deadline. In addition, the researcher may choose to present the EBI to schoolprofessionals using only the most salient information and avoiding overwhelming the audiencewith more trivial details. Finally, the researcher may offer to provide schools with free training,materials, or protocols to increase the likelihood that they will agree to implement an EBI.

Once school administrators have signed on to implementation of an EBI, they may findprinciples of Social Influence Theory helpful in gaining support from teachers and staff. Forexample, with regard to the principles of commitment and consistency, administrators or schoolpsychologists who are seeking out teachers to adopt an EBI might first contact teachers who areespecially interested in current best practices in education or scientifically appropriate practice.Once these teachers are on board, they can be “social proof” that the program is effective, likelyinfluencing teachers who may be more reluctant to implement the EBI in their own classrooms.

Evaluation of Social Influence Theory

By nature, the principles of Social Influence Theory suggest that individuals are influencedand make decisions based on the types of relationships they form with others. Researchers shouldbe aware of the significance of getting to know a particular setting before providing consultationor introducing an idea. It is important to be cautious and consider the relationships that alreadyexist among school staff. For example, if the school psychologist is not well respected or does nothave a good working relationship with administrators and teachers, it would be pointless or pos-sibly even disadvantageous to seek out their support in the adoption process. It appears, however,that these principles might only apply or be effective during initial interactions with school pro-fessionals. That is, if one doesn’t make a good first impression, it will be hard to influence indi-viduals using any of the discussed techniques. It should also be noted that these principles arecommon among everyday interactions between many people and in many settings. It is possiblethat individuals whom one tries to influence using one of the discussed principles might be awareof one’s intentions and motivation for one’s actions which might feel aversive to a school profes-sional and discourage further interaction or cooperation.

Aside from the limitations just discussed, Social Influence Theory provides promising prin-ciples that might be beneficial in influencing school professionals in the adoption of EBIs. More-over, the theory does not propose using methods or ideas that are foreign to most (e.g., a model orprocess-oriented program). In short, it is logical that researchers and school professionals alikecould use various principles of Social Influence Theory in the implementation of EBIs.

Promoting Evidence-Based Practice by Understanding How People Change:The Concerns-Based Adoptions Model (CBAM)

One of the core difficulties in facilitating the implementation or adoption of new educationaland mental health interventions and programs has to do with practitioners’ reactions to change. Aminority of individuals embrace change, whereas the majority of individuals seem to react withsome kind of uncertainty or resistance. Therefore, to facilitate the implementation or adoption ofnew interventions and programs, it is essential to understand how practitioners can be helpedthrough change processes. The CBAM presents a series of heuristics for assessing and supportingteachers’ experiences with change in educational contexts. Although CBAM is specific to teacherchange, the model can be adopted and applied to describe change within other settings and indi-viduals. For example, familiarity with the CBAM model can facilitate researchers’ and practitioners’


understandings of how to help individuals through the change process toward evidence-basedpractice.

The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM)

The CBAM consists of three evaluative frameworks for determining where teachers (or othermediators) fall in the change process relative to the adoption and implementation of new inter-ventions or programs. The three evaluative frameworks include: (a) Stages of Concern, (b) Levelsof Use, and (c) Innovation Configurations. Although all three CBAM frameworks have merit, theStages of Concern framework was the original focus of the CBAM and has remained the centralcomponent, resulting in numerous investigations of its application in supporting the implementa-tion of new educational practices (e.g., the use of educational technology, problem-centered math-ematics instruction, and family-centered early intervention practices). The CBAM Stages of Concernframework provides an organized method for assessing practitioners’ feelings about change through-out the change process, from lack of awareness about the proposed change, to refining and refocusingnewly established practices (see Hall, George, & Rutherford, 1979; Horsley & Loucks-Horsley,1998). The seven Stages of Concern are illustrated in Figure 1. The Stages are arranged hierar-chically and on a continuum from 0 to 6 (Awareness, Informational, Personal, Management, Con-sequence, Collaboration, and Refocusing), whereby 0 represents “little knowledge about or interestin change,” and 6 represents thoughts about adjusting the intervention or changing it altogether forsomething even more effective (Anderson, 1997, p. 334).

In order for researchers and practitioners to assess practitioners’ stages of concern, CBAMincludes three proposed procedures: (1) one-legged conferences, (2) open-ended concerns state-ments, and (3) the Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ; Hall & Hord, 1987). One-leggedconferences involve brief consultations that usually occur in school hallways or other informalconsultation settings that allow for gathering of information about participant perception about theintervention and comparing of comments to the Stages of Concern. Open-ended concerns state-ments are an additional method of evaluating practitioners’ Stages of Concern but can be moretime consuming and difficult to evaluate than one-legged conferences (Hall & Hord, 1987). Finally,the SoCQ (Hall et al. 1979) is another method for evaluating practitioners’ Stages of Concern, andmay be the most time-efficient. Analysis of the questionnaire results involves consideration of thepeak concerns in the respondent’s profile.

Application to the EBI Movement

The Stages of Concern represent a continuum of equilibrium that practitioners might progressthrough in moving from one point of comfort and certainty, through change, to a new comfort withinnovative practice. Careful consideration of the concerns of practitioners during the process ofadopting EBIs, as indicated by their status on the Stages of Concern framework, may serve toreduce the likelihood of passive or active resistance to new practices in an effort to maintainequilibrium. Regular use of the Stages of Concern assessment strategies would allow practitionersand researchers to gather useful information for evaluating and supporting intervention and pro-gram implementation. CBAM can be applied to the EBI movement to better understand why anEBI was adopted or not adopted. This understanding can be useful for the promotion and dissem-ination of interventions, providing researchers and practitioners with a clearer idea of how tosupport intervention implementation (Rogers, 1995).

Evaluation of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM)

CBAM’s Stages of Concern framework represents an appealing strategy for understandingand supporting the implementation of new practices (e.g., EBIs). Research studies have demonstrated


the relationship between teachers’ concerns, the fidelity of their implementation, and the effects onstudent behavior and performance (George, Hall, & Uchiyama, 2000; van den Verg & Ros, 1999).Some investigations, however, have suggested the need for possible revisions to the model (Bailey& Palsha, 1992; Shotsberger & Crawford, 1999; Cheung, Nattie, & Davis, 2001). Confirmatoryand exploratory factor analyses of Hall and Hord’s seven-stage model have led researchers to

Figure 1. Stages of concern about an innovation.


question the factor structure underlying the SoCQ (Cheung, et al., 2001; Shotsberger & Crawford,1999). In response, researchers have applied exploratory factor analysis to alternative models withfewer items and fewer Stages of Concern (Bailey & Palsha, 1992; Shotsberger & Crawford,1999). Of these efforts, Cheung et al., (2001) and van den Verg and Ros (1999) have produced themost promising results. Additional investigations using these alternative models are needed toprovide evidence for their utility in supporting the adoption and implementation of EBIs.

Promoting Evidence-Based Practice: The Theory of Reasoned Action

The theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Albarracin, Johnson, Fishbein, &Muellerleile, 2001) is one general theory that has been used to explain and predict various health-related behaviors in individuals; however, it was designed to explain virtually any human behav-ior. It has been used to successfully predict behaviors in numerous domains (e.g., consumer behavior,voting behavior, and health-related behavior). Thus, the basic tenets of the theory of reasonedaction may be beneficial to individuals interested in understanding behavior change within aschool setting. The theory is based on the premise “that human beings are usually quite rationaland make systematic use of the information available to them” (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980, p. 5).Furthermore, Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) posit that before individuals decide to perform a behav-ior, they consider the implications of their actions. Together, the determinants of (1) indirectfactors, (2) attitudes and subjective norms, and (3) intention, compose the basis of the theory ofreasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Albarracin et al., 2001). See Figure 2 for a visualrepresentation of this theory.

The theory assumes that most actions are under an individual’s volitional control, and aperson’s intention, or willingness, to perform (or not perform) a behavior is the direct determinantof the action. The two determinants of an individual’s intention to perform a behavior are thenattributed toward the behavior and the subjective norm regarding the behavior. Attitude toward thebehavior refers to a person’s judgment of whether performing the behavior is positive or negativewhereas subjective norm refers to a person’s perception of the social pressures applied by impor-tant others to perform the behavior. Because it is possible for a person’s attitude toward a behaviorand the subjective norm to be at odds with one another (e.g., two psychologists who hold positiveattitude toward using EBIs but who also perceive social pressures not to use them), the theory ofreasoned action includes the assignment of relative weights to both the person’s attitude towardthe behavior and social norm to increase the explanatory power of the theory.

And, for an even more robust understanding of intentions, it is necessary to examine whypeople hold certain attitudes and subjective norms. Attitudes are a function of a person’s (1)beliefs that performing the behavior will lead to certain outcomes and (2) evaluation of the pre-sumed outcomes, and together, these factors form an individual’s indirect attitude. For example, aperson who believes that performing a certain behavior will result in a positive outcome is morelikely to have a positive attitude toward performing the behavior. In contrast, subjective norms area person’s perception of the normative beliefs held by important others about him or her perform-ing the behavior. Therefore, both the accuracy of a person’s perception of normative beliefs andtheir motivation to comply with important others influence the weight given to subjective normsand thus behavior. Together, an individual’s normative beliefs and motivations are termed indirectsubjective norm.

Applications to the EBI Movement

The application of the theory of reasoned action in the implementation of EBIs is relevant asit reflects a thought process that school professionals are likely to use when determining what


interventions are implemented in a school. Knowledge of this thought process provides educa-tional stakeholders with information about how they can influence a school professional’s decision-making process and therefore, influence practice. The following description links each of thedeterminants of behavior outlined in the theory of reasoned action to a school professional’sdecision-making process, and highlights impact points.

As noted earlier, there are four determinants of indirect factors that may influence a schoolprofessional’s attitudes and subjective norms. First, a school professional’s beliefs about the effec-tiveness of an EBI as described by the research literature and their evaluation of how effective anEBI is likely to be within their school will lead to the professional’s indirect attitude about an EBI.To have such beliefs and make such evaluations about an EBI, school professionals must haveaccess to the professional literature; yet, school professionals may not have the time or funding tostay on top of the ever-growing intervention outcomes research base. Current efforts (e.g., theSchool Psychology Task Force, What Works Clearinghouse) to synthesize and disseminate researchon effective school-based interventions are an excellent step toward influencing a school profes-sional’s indirect attitude about EBIs.

Second, the accuracy of the school professional’s perception of how normative the imple-mentation of an EBI is and the amount of influence important others (e.g., school board, principal)have on the motivation of the professional will lead to the school professional’s indirect subjectivenorm about an EBI. As there is a large gap between research and practice, a school professional’sperceptions that implementing EBIs is not normative is likely to be accurate. However, as

Figure 2. Relationships of the component of the theory of reasoned action.


stakeholders increase their expectations that EBIs be implemented, the likelihood that a schoolprofessional’s motivation to meet the stakeholders’ expectation to implement EBIs will increase.It is important to note that school professionals may react differently to different educationalstakeholders (e.g., parents, students, teachers, administrators, state legislatures, federal legisla-tures); therefore, a consistent expectation across stakeholders is the most likely to influence moti-vation to implement EBIs.

According to the theory of reasoned action, the school professional’s indirect attitude andindirect subjective norm about an EBI lead directly to the determinants of a professional’s inten-tion to implement an EBI. These determinants are the professional’s attitude toward and subjectivenorm about implementing the EBI paired with the relative weight the professional assigns to theattitude and subjective norm. The relative weight assigned to school professionals’ attitudes towardan EBI may be influenced by their personal experience with a similar intervention, the time requiredto implement the EBI, the cost of the EBI, the number of students the EBI will impact, or theamount of training necessary to implement the EBI, to name a few. Likewise, the relative weightassigned to school professionals’ subjective norm about an EBI may be influenced by their per-ceptions that implementing an EBI is a requirement of their position, will be valued by their bossesand colleagues, is required of other school professionals in their position, or is in their area ofexpertise, to name a few. According to the theory of reasoned action, if the school professional’sattitude toward and subjective norm about an EBI are opposed, the relative weights assigned toeach will determine which factor directly influences the professional’s intention to implement anEBI, which then directly leads to the implementation of the EBI. Thus, attempting to influence therelative weights professionals assign to these determinants may be an important impact point forincreasing the implementation of EBIs.

Evaluation of the Theory of Reasoned Action

As discussed earlier, the theory provides multiple impact points that could increase the imple-mentation of EBIs in schools; yet, there are several important aspects of behavior change that arenot addressed by this theory. The most glaring omission is that of variables that might mediate therelationship between an individual’s intention to perform a behavior and the actual performance ofthe behavior. In a school setting, there are multiple organizational variables (e.g., funding, numberof students requiring services, other local initiatives), and individual variables (e.g., time, compe-tence, case load) that may compete with an individual’s intention to become competent in imple-menting EBIs. In addition, the theory of reasoned action is complicated in that it is nearly impossibleto accurately and efficiently assess the determinants outlined in the model, making it difficult toknow which impact points would be most effective in influencing behavior change. Finally, thetheory does not provide guidance for if or how the model could be applied to predict groupbehavior. As a majority of decisions on interventions that are implemented in schools are decidedby teams, this circumstance may be an important aspect of understanding the implementation ofEBIs in schools and is not addressed by this theory.

Although the theory of reasoned action has limitations, it still provides a relatively straight-forward and well-researched framework for predicting human behavior. Furthermore, there areseveral impact points within this framework that can be used by educational stakeholders in anattempt to alter the way in which school professionals perceive EBIs in relation to their practice inthe schools.

Promoting Evidence-Based Practice: Rogers’ Innovation-Diffusion Theory

Rogers’ Innovation-Diffusion Theory is another framework used to understand the adoptionof innovations (see, e.g., Schoenwald & Hoagwood, 2001; Hilz, 2000; Freedman, 2002). In his


seminal work, Diffusion of Innovations (2003), Rogers examines many different accounts of suc-cessful and unsuccessful adoptions of innovative practices across various fields. Based on hisresearch, Rogers posits five stages in the innovation-decision-making process. The first stage, theknowledge stage, occurs when an individual becomes aware of an innovation and begins to gainsome information. The persuasion stage occurs when an individual forms an attitude towards theinnovation, either favorable or unfavorable. The decision stage occurs when an individual eitheraccepts or rejects the innovation. The implementation stage takes place when an individual putsthe innovations to use. Up until this point, the process has been internal but now becomes overt. Itis also important to note that as an innovation diffuses, it may go through reinvention, that is, itmay be changed or modified during the course of its adoption and implementation. The final stage,the confirmation stage, occurs when individuals validate their innovation-decision. In sum, theinnovation-decision process is basically an information-seeking and information-processing activ-ity in which an individual assesses the characteristic of an innovation and decides whether to adoptthe innovation.

Rogers (2003) notes five qualities or characteristics of innovations that account for their rateof adoption: (1) relative advantage, (2) compatibility, (3) complexity, (4) trialability, and (5) observ-ability. Relative advantage refers to the degree to which an innovation is perceived to providegreater advantage; in other words, the degree to which it is seen as being better than the currentstate of affairs. Compatibility refers to the degree to which an innovation is matched or in syncwith an individual’s current state. The more compatible and consistent an innovation is with anindividual’s values, ideas, norms, and experiences, the more likely it will be rapidly adopted.Complexity refers to the degree to which an innovation is perceived to be difficult to understand oruse. Trialability refers to the degree to which an innovation may be implemented on an experi-mental or limited trial basis. Observability refers to the degree to which an individual can see theresults of an innovation. According to Rogers (2003), the first two attributes of an innovation,relative advantage and compatibility, are particularly important, but all five help to explain the rateof adoption of an innovation.

Application to EBI Movement

The adoption of an innovation can be seen at the individual or organizational level. At theindividual level, we can ascertain where a particular practitioner may lie on the adoption contin-uum as described earlier. For example, it may be that an individual practitioner is at the knowledgestage when it comes to the EBI movement. This person will have to gain information about whatthe EBI movement is, how evidence is defined, what the implementation of an EBI will involve,what the potential outcomes might be, and so on. This information can then be applied to assist inmoving this individual onto the next stage of adoption. Knowing, therefore, where someone lieson Rogers’ continuum of adoption will allow for specific targeting of that stage.

At the systemic or organizational level, Rogers (2003) posits five stages of the innovationprocess: (1) agenda-setting, where a problem is identified, defined, and needs are assessed, (2)matching, where an innovation is found that will address the identified problem, (3) redefining/restructuring, where the innovation and/or the organization are altered to accommodate one another,(4) clarifying, where the meaning of the new innovation is gradually understood by all members ofthe organization, and (5) routinizing, where an innovation has become a part of the organization.Again, using this model, we can ascertain where the organization is in terms of the EBI movementand attempt to facilitate the adoption process. For example, at the school level, a school psychol-ogist may perceive that the school is looking for solutions to a particular problem. This practi-tioner may then facilitate the matching stage by suggesting the use of an EBI to address theproblem.


Evaluation of the Theory

Understanding more about the diffusion process allows us to better understand the mecha-nisms behind changes that may need to be made. Rogers’ diffusion theory allows one to under-stand not only the processes of change, but also how to potentially effect change. Schoolpsychologists, as potential change agents in their practice settings, can serve seven roles, accord-ing to Rogers (2003), in the process of introducing an innovation to an organization: (1) developa need for change, (2) establish an information exchange relationship, (3) diagnose problems, (4)create an intent to change, (5) translate an intent into action, (6) stabilize adoption and preventdiscontinuance, and (7) achieve a terminal relationship (i.e., teach the organization how to be itsown change agent). How successful they are in implementing change will depend on numerousfactors, such as the school psychologist’s professional credibility in the school, the extent to whichthe school psychologist works through opinion or administrative leaders in the school, and theextent to which the proposed innovation is compatible with the school’s needs.

In sum, the diffusion research has the potential to provide insight into how to get individualsand/or organizations to adopt the research-based innovations of the EBI movement through agreater understanding of the underlying mechanism of innovation adoption. Although simplifiedfor inclusion in this article, the theoretical framework developed by Rogers is a useful means ofconsidering not only how innovations, such as new interventions, disseminate, but also in explain-ing why new advances may or may not have been slow to be adopted. By clearly delineating thestages of innovation adoption, the necessary qualities of innovations that lead to adoption, andspecifying roles for change agents, this model provides school psychology practitioners with themeans to identify and target barriers to innovation adoption within their organizations.

Generalization Theory

Traditionally, generalization of an intervention refers to the process by which an interventionbecomes more commonly used and is implemented with students other than the original targetstudent or in settings other than the original intervention setting. The first major effort that spe-cifically summarized the problem and tactics of generalization was Stokes and Baer’s seminalwork in 1977. These authors claimed that, contrary to the popular assumption, generalization wasnot a naturally occurring phenomenon but instead needed to be specifically programmed. Afterreviewing the available literature, they produced a list of nine tactics found to be effective atpromoting generalization (Stokes & Baer, 1977; an expanded list has been developed over theyears). Although originally these tactics were offered as suggestions for eliciting generalizationprimarily for individuals with developmental or behavioral disorders, many of them have beenrecommended for use in consultation with the hope that they will promote teacher generalizationof EBIs (Kratochwill, Elliott, & Stoiber, 2002; Zins & Erchul, 2002).

Although some tactics are not entirely applicable to teacher generalization in the classroom,some tactics hold promise for successfully eliciting teacher generalization. For example, Intro-duce to natural maintaining contingencies is a tactic in which the skills taught through consulta-tion are the skills that are likely to be applicable for other students and likely to elicit naturalreinforcement. The ultimate goal is for the teacher to become proficient in implementing theintervention effectively, which would allow generalization to the other students. General caseprogramming involves the consultant helping the teacher identify several students that might beappropriate generalization targets for the intervention. Mediate generalization involves the con-sultant helping the teacher identify strategies that will elicit the teacher’s own generalizationbehavior in the classroom setting.


Another method for promoting teacher generalization is for the consultant to maintain anecological perspective on children’s behavior and to convey that perspective to the teacher (Rosen-field, 2002; Ysseldyke & Christenson, 1993). Framed ecologically, problem behavior in the class-room can be a result of any aspect of the environment, including the teacher’s instructional style,the task the students are asked to do, or the physical set-up of the room. Thus, when a consultantworks with a teacher to help resolve the problem behavior of one student and uses an ecologicalproblem-solving approach, such as functional assessment, the consultant helps pinpoint specificchanges that the teacher can make independently to promote the best student outcomes. Theoret-ically, some of these changes will also affect other students in the classroom, thus fosteringgeneralization.

A third method for promoting teacher generalization of consultation-related skills, general-ization prompting and training, has been evaluated by a number of researchers (Hazzard, Bergan,& Kratochwill, 1979; Riley-Tillman & Eckert, 2001). In this model consultants directly discussthe importance of generalization, suggest to teachers that it may be helpful to use the skills learnedthrough consultation with other students, and instruct the teachers how to use the interventionskills with more than one student at a time. Only one study has been published to test the efficacyof this tactic (Riley-Tillman & Eckert, 2001), and revealed mixed results. Further research isneeded, but it is possible that direct training and programming may be a means by which consul-tants can promote teacher generalization of EBI use in the classroom.


The ability to promote teacher generalization of consultation-related skills has direct appli-cation to the EBI movement. School psychologists, who provide teachers with the skills necessaryto implement EBIs, rely on those teachers to continue the dissemination process by putting theinterventions to use in their classrooms. If generalization does not occur, then progress toward thegoal of increasing the use of EBIs in schools will be made in painfully small steps. Teachers mustgeneralize, as generalization is the most efficient means of allowing effective interventions toreach a greater number of students.

Evaluation of the Theory

Generalization theory, as a means to promote the use of EBIs in the classroom setting, iscompelling. In the past, generalization techniques have been used effectively across multiplesettings and clients as a way to enhance the impact of a variety of services. When evaluatinggeneralization theory in the context of the EBI movement, it is important to consider both thepotential impact of the theory and the existing impact of the theory. Although the current impact ofgeneralization theory on the EBI movement may be small, this potential may be realized throughthoughtful implementation of techniques shown to be effective at promoting teacher generaliza-tion in classroom settings.

Promoting Evidence-Based Practice: The Transtheoretical Model of Change

The Transtheoretical Model of change (TTM; Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983; Prochaska,DiClemente, & Norcross, 1992) is an integrative, stage-based model of intentional behavior change.This model is relevant to the EBI movement in school psychology because of its history of appli-cation to health behavior change (e.g., smoking cessation; Prochaska et al., 1992) and its morerecent application to professional service delivery (e.g., time-limited therapy; Prochaska, 2000).

In contrast to other models, such as social influence models, the TTM focuses on intentionalchange and the decision making of the individual (Velicer, Prochaska, Fava, Norman, & Redding,1998). The central organizing principle of the model is stage of change, which “represents the


temporal and motivational dimensions of the change process” (Levesque, Prochaska, Prochaska,Deward, Hamby, & Weeks, 2001, p. 141). Research on the TTM has identified five stages ofchange through which an individual may progress: Precontemplation—the individual does notintend to take action toward change within the next 6 months; Contemplation—the individualintends to take action within the next 6 months; Preparation—the individual intends to take actionin the next 30 days; Action—the individual has made changes within the last 6 months; andMaintenance—the individual made changes more than 6 months ago (Levesque et al., 2001).Movement through the stages of change represents the temporal dimension of the model. Intentionto change is measured before change in the target behavior is reported, and duration of behaviorchange is measured after change in the target behavior is reported (Velicer et al., 1998). Researchaddressing the TTM and addictive behaviors indicates that individuals move through changestages in a spiral manner, with relapse and recycling occurring frequently (Prochaska et al., 1992).

In the TTM Prochaska and his colleagues have integrated constructs and processes frommultiple psychological models which address change. These constructs and processes includedecisional balance (Janis & Mann, 1977), self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977), and processes of changeused by change agents from varying theoretical perspectives. The decisional balance construct ofthe TTM examines the pros and cons of behavior change. The construct of self-efficacy as oper-ationalized in the TTM represents “the degree to which individuals believe they have the capacityto attain a desired goal” (Levesque et al., 1999, p. 229). The TTM posits that self-efficacy caninfluence motivation to change and persistence in movement through the stages of change. Lon-gitudinal studies of smoking cessation have demonstrated that self-efficacy predicts attempts toquit smoking and maintenance of abstinence (e.g., DiClemente, 1981; Prochaska, DiClemente,Velicer, Ginpil, & Norcross, 1985). Finally, the processes of change identified by the TTM arederived from multiple systems of psychotherapy in an attempt to integrate interventions and matchthem to client characteristics, including stage of change (Prochaska et al., 1992). Ten processes ofchange have been identified in research regarding addictive behaviors and the TTM, includingexperiential processes, used primarily in early stages of change (consciousness raising, dramaticrelief, environmental reevaluation, social liberation, and self-reevaluation) and behavioral pro-cesses, used primarily in later stages (stimulus control, helping relationships, counter condition-ing, reinforcement management, and social-liberation).

The TTM of change has been applied to health-related behaviors such as smoking cessation,exercise adoption, and diet. This research represents a growing body of support for the key con-structs of the stage-model and demonstrates that stage-matched interventions increase the likeli-hood that individuals will take action. Recently, application of the mode1 has been extended toprofessional service delivery, such as integrated service delivery (Levesque et al., 1999) time-limited-therapy (Prochaska, 2000), and continuous quality improvement in health care (Levesqueet al., 2001). Of particular relevance to the EBI movement is the population-based focus of theserecent applications of the TTM because it examines cognitive processes and behaviors of allindividuals involved in a system, not only those actively committed to change, and it allowstailoring of interventions to meet the needs of individuals at varied stages in the change process(Levesque et al., 2001).


The application of TTM in the implementation of EBIs is especially relevant given thatimplementation of EBIs to any degree, be it individually or systemically, would be a change fromcurrent practice (Kratochwill & Stoiber, 2000). One benefit of using the TTM in facilitating thischange to using EBIs in schools is that everyone in the school can be involved in the changeprocess (i.e., a shift in using EBIs), regardless of which stage they are in. The application of TTM


to organizational change continues to acknowledge that organizations are the sum of their parts,which largely consist of people (Prochaska, Prochaska, & Levesque, 2001). Individuals within anorganization (e.g., a school building) may be at different stages in the change process with regardto implementing EBIs. Appropriate intervention strategies can be used with each individual, depend-ing on the stage within which a person falls.

Recent applications of TTM to organizational change address several issues related to adop-tion of EBIs in schools. First, schools are incredibly dynamic and complex organizations thatplace a high demand on all resources, including those of the school psychologist. Advocates of theTTM suggest that it conserves resources by targeting the stage of change of individuals withinthe system (Levesque et al., 2001). Another issue raised by Kratochwill and Stoiber (2000) is thelower degree of intervention integrity in school-based practice than in clinic-based practice. Notonly do interventions tend to be adapted and changed in schools from the form in which they wereoriginally researched, but also the degree of implementation of EBIs in schools may be highlyvaried (Schoenwald & Hoagwood, 2001). Proponents of the TTM might argue that if the stages ofchange of intervention agents in schools are addressed, greater adoption of EBIs will ultimatelyoccur with greater integrity. Because of individualization of interventions, intervention agentsmay move through stages of change toward greater implementation of EBIs.

Evaluation of TTM

Despite the promise of TTM as a method of facilitating EBI implementation in schools, it isa method not without flaws. Specifically, meta-analytic work done by Rosen (2000) found a num-ber of shortcomings in the TTM. For example, it appears that the integrity and trajectory of peoplethrough the stages is not uniform as the stage model might suggest, but rather varies by the targetbehavior. Put another way, the change processes used in one stage for one problem (e.g., smokingcessation) may not be the same as the change processes used in that same stage for anotherproblem (e.g., diet change). The utility of the TTM is further complicated by measurement issues(Littell & Girvin, 2002). Specifically, a factor analysis drawing from 87 studies contradicts thenotion of the stages being discrete units. Further examination of these studies indicates littleempirical evidence of sequential movement through the stages. These findings, many claims in theliterature to the contrary, are likely caused by the lack of uniform instrumentation, operational-ization of key terms, and data analysis across studies.

Although the TTM has limitations, it still shows promise as a method of understanding thechange process (Littell & Girvin, 2002). TTM relies on individualization and flexibility, while stillcalling for decision making to be systematic and evidence-based (Prochaska et al., 2001). It isclear that systematic implementation of EBIs in schools would be a change from current practices(Kratochwill & Stoiber, 2002). The individualized and flexible nature of the TTM appears to makethis model a viable option for facilitating the shift to using EBIs in school settings. Becausechange in organizations is often facilitated by a select few leaders who feel a need for change(Prochaska et al., 2001), and school psychologists are in a position to be leaders in school-basedEBI implementation (Kratochwill & Stoiber, 2002), it is logical that school psychologists could beleaders in facilitating this process using the TTM as a mechanism for change.

Promoting Evidence-Based Practice: Functional Assessment Using theOrganizational Analytic Model

Functional assessment is the process by which we identify factors that influence the incidenceand maintenance of problem behaviors (Sugai et al., 2000). In particular, through functional assess-ment, we identify (1) the problem behavior, (2) antecedents that elicit the problem behavior,(3) maintaining consequences, and (4) setting events (Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, & Hagen-Burke,


1999/2000). Ultimately, functional assessment results in an understanding of the problem behav-ior, factors that influence when the behavior will happen and when it will not happen, and thefunction of the problem behavior. Based on this understanding, we can develop interventionsdesigned to ameliorate the problem behavior and increase the desired behavior.

Although functional assessment technology is usually applied at an individual level, it can beadapted and applied at an organizational level (Austin, Carr, & Agnew, 1999). For example, if weconceptualize the problem behavior as schools failing to consistently adopt EBIs, we can identifythe factors that trigger the incidence and maintenance of this problem behavior. Currently, how-ever, functional assessment at the organizational level is not yet widespread (Austin et al., 1999).Therefore, in response to the limited use of functional assessment technology at an organizationallevel, Austin et al. (1999) proposed a model for functional assessment in organizational behaviormanagement. The model incorporates general elements of functional assessment and details howthey can be adapted for use at an organizational level to increase the desired behavior. As such, itis plausible that educators can use this model in schools to promote the adoption of EBIs.

The organizational analytic model proposed by Austin et al. (1999) extends traditionalAntecedent-Behavior-Consequence (ABC) analysis to include variables specific to an organiza-tional setting. In particular, the model addresses four areas that characterize the primary compo-nents represented by the model: (1) antecedents, (2) equipment and processes, (3) knowledge andskills, and (4) consequences. The model describes each area in terms of factors, parameters, andsample tactics. Factors delineate the four areas into units specific to the areas. For example, factorsfor the antecedent area could be priorities/instructions, mission, prompts, goals, and rules. Simi-larly, parameters delineate the factors into relevant components. For example, parameters for thepriorities/instructions factor could be that priorities and instructions are clear, concise, and accu-rate. Finally, sample tactics signify potential interventions that may be used to address shortcom-ings in areas, factors, and parameters. The following discussion will address one way this modelcan be applied to increase the adoption of EBIs in schools.


By identifying and manipulating the antecedents, equipment and processes, knowledge andskills, and consequences that influence the adoption of EBIs in schools, one can work towardincreasing this behavior. First, in terms of antecedents, we want to address five factors: priorities/instructions, mission, prompts, goals, and roles. In doing so, one wants to first ensure that prior-ities and instructions to use EBIs are clear, concise, and accurate. One also wants to make certainthat the school’s mission with regard to the use of EBIs is appropriate and understood by all schoolstaff. In addition, we want to guarantee that school professionals are specifically and immediatelyprompted to use EBIs. Similarly, in terms of goals, we want to make sure that the schools havegoals pertaining to the use of EBIs that are frequently revised, challenging, and attainable. Finally,we want to ensure that there are not rules that interfere with the use of EBIs.

With regard to equipment and processes, we want to address four factors: equipment func-tioning, equipment/system arrangement, process disconnects, and other obstacles. First, we wantto determine that the tools or equipment needed to implement EBIs are working properly. Simi-larly, we want to ensure that the physical arrangement of the tools or equipment promotes the useof EBIs. We also want to ensure that the process of implementing an EBI is efficient and effective.Finally, we want to address other obstacles that might interfere with the use of EBIs such aspaucity in resources or political issues.

In terms of knowledge and skills, we want to address three factors: verbal knowledge, physicalskill, and capacity. Because the adoption and use of EBIs is dependent on sufficient knowledge


and skill, we want to ensure that school staff members have the verbal knowledge, physical skill,and capacity to implement EBIs.

Finally, in terms of consequences, we want to address four factors: reinforcement, feedback,response effort/aversive stimuli, and competing contingencies. First, we want to ascertain whetherschool professionals are frequently, immediately, and consistently reinforced for using EBIs. As atype of reinforcement, we also want to make certain that staff receive feedback (verbal/writtenand direct/indirect) regarding their use of EBIs. And, with regard to response effort/aversivestimuli and competing contingencies, we want to ensure that schools reinforce the desired behav-ior of using EBIs, remove aversive stimuli that might interfere with the use of EBIs, and removereinforcers from the undesired behavior of not using EBIs.

Evaluation of the Organizational Analytic Model

It is hypothesized that using the organizational analytic model might result in an increase inthe adoption and use of EBIs in schools. Despite its promise as a framework to increase theadoption and use of EBIs in schools, there are limitations to using the organizational analyticmodel for these purposes. First, using this model necessitates that school psychologists are famil-iar with the model and skilled in using it. Because the model was developed primarily for use inorganizational behavior management, it is possible that school psychologists are not yet aware ofthe model or of its potential use in schools. Related to this limitation, it is important for schoolpsychologists to recognize differences in using this model in school organizational behavior man-agement. It is likely that the components of the organizational analytic model will need to beadjusted and tailored for use in schools. Finally, as with all applications of functional assessmenttechnology, it will be important to determine the school’s openness or ability to manipulate vari-ables within the organizational analytic model.

Future Perspectives: Cultural Differences Between Researchersand Practitioners and the Adoption of EBIs

Several conceptual/theoretical frameworks for considering the adoption of EBIs have beendescribed within this article. Each framework outlines the importance of communication andcollaboration between the research scientists who operationally define and evaluate EBIs and thepractitioners who integrate the EBIs into practice. Unfortunately, as Myers-Walls (2000) contends,research scientists and practitioners have traditionally maintained different ways of looking at theworld. These two players value different types of knowledge, they draw conclusions based ondifferent forms of evidence, they subscribe to different reward systems, and they maintain differ-ent preferred pathways to change. Understanding several differences in the cultural characteristicsof research scientists and practitioners may be useful for determining the ease with which EBIscan be adopted into practice. In particular, careful consideration of these differences may also behelpful for evaluating the utility of theories of change.

Valued Knowledge

Research scientists and practitioners typically value different types of knowledge (Myers-Walls, 2000). Although research scientists seek out evidence derived through systematic, con-trolled empirical examination, practitioners often rely on practical experience or intuition. Althoughthe notion of an EBI is inherently appealing to the research scientist who values empiricallysupported, scientifically derived evidence, the practitioner may favor allegiance to intuitions andpersonal experiences about effective practices. In considering the relevance of theories of changeto the adoption of EBIs, it is important not to overlook the impact of research scientists andpractitioners valuing different types of knowledge. Take an example using Cialdini’s Social


Influence Model (e.g., Cialdini, 2001). With the practitioner, anecdotal endorsements from col-leagues may greatly impact social proof and instant influence, whereas the prevalence of peer-reviewed empirical support, which is so important for the research scientist, may have little bearing.Similarly, within the context of the CBAM (e.g., Hall, George, & Rutherford, 1979; Hall & Hord,2001), practitioners may likely be motivated by different sources of evidence than research sci-entists as they progress through stages of concern.

Desired Scope of Evidence

In addition to valuing different types of knowledge, researchers and practitioners may makedecisions based on different scopes of evidence. Seeking conceptual clarity, researchers accumu-late evidence from multiple sources. Replication and refinement are valued for assuring specificityin interpretation of findings. Accordingly, evidence accumulation is a long-term and tedious pro-cess (Myers-Walls, 2000). In contrast, practitioners, who must attend to immediate needs, mayseek out answers to problems that are readily available. Because they appreciate the need forcontextually appropriate practices, they rely frequently on personal experience and communica-tion with colleagues.

Although the use of EBIs satisfies the research scientist’s need for careful replication anddocumentation of very specific procedures and outcomes over time, the alignment of EBIs withthe immediate needs of practitioners is potentially challenging. Given many variations in context,research scientists and practitioners may be required to negotiate between scientific replication ofspecific procedures and customization in the implementation of practices (i.e., depth verses breadth).Several frameworks for explaining change (e.g., the TTM, Innovation-Diffusion Theory, CBAM,functional assessment) outline a progression of acceptance by those implementing innovations(e.g., Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983; Rogers, 2003; Hall & Hord, 2001, Sugai et al., 2000).Although research scientists may rely on the accumulation of empirical evidence to advance fromone stage of acceptance to the next, practical utility may be a more important indicator of thepractitioner’s adoption of EBIs.

Reward Expectations

Research scientists and practitioners also differ with respect to their reward expectations.Research scientists typically expect tenure for producing large outcomes and for disseminatingsignificant findings through scholarly journals and academic conferences. They anticipate rewardfor securing grants and for conducting conceptually interesting research that is scientifically rig-orous (but may not always be socially relevant; Small & Bogenschneider, 1998). Practitionersinstead expect reward for making an impact in the lives of specific individuals. They are motivatedby the perceived successes of those with whom they intervene rather than by formal documenta-tion of outcomes (Myers-Walls, 2000).

At its core, the EBI movement involves the documentation of outcomes associated withinterventions. Although this documentation allows research scientists to attain the end goalfor which they should expect reward, practitioners do not expect to be rewarded until theactual students/clients that they serve are meaningfully impacted by the interventions they pro-vide. Thus, within the context of the CBAM and the transtheoretical frameworks, for exam-ple, full benefits of the EBI movement may not be actualized until practitioners reach the laterstages of acceptance (i.e., for CBAM, the impact stage; for the Transtheoretical Model, imple-mentation or confirmation), during which they are able to test out the use of EBIs within theirown practice.


Perceived Pathway to Change

Research scientists and practitioners maintain different perspectives about the pathways toeffective reform. For research scientists, the path to change is often unidirectional. Once proce-dures are validated and outcomes are documented, practices can then be applied in real-worldsettings (Small & Bogenschneider, 1998). In contrast, practitioners, who appreciate the uniquenature of individuals in their local environment, support professional judgment and interpersonalawareness as the primary ingredients to making an impact (Myers-Walls, 2000). For the practi-tioner, direct interaction with an individual is typically what is most important for appraising theappropriateness of a proposed action.

In adopting EBIs into practice, it is important to acknowledge that advertising and dissemi-nating EBIs may not be not enough. The pathway to change can be bidirectional. Not only canresearch inform practice; practice can also guide the agenda for future research. Although frame-works for explaining change like the Innovation-Diffusion Theory (e.g., Rogers, 2003), CBAM(e.g., Hall et al. 1979; Hall & Hord, 2001), or functional assessment (e.g., Sugai et al., 2000) canexplain practitioners’ progression towards the acceptance of interventions disseminated by researchscientists, perhaps new hybrid models are needed to characterize the collaborative process bywhich practitioners and researchers can work together to produce meaningful research-based practice.

Important Next Steps

Small (2001) contends that research scientists have traditionally subscribed to a technicalrationality model, valuing basic scientific knowledge more highly than the knowledge of thepractitioner. Likewise, reflecting on four years as a school board member, Cooper (1996) describesthe belief by educational researchers that “the information that they have to contribute to decisionmaking is in some way superior to the inputs provided by other sources” (Cooper, 1996, p. 30). Aswe consider the process of change and the evolution of EBIs, it is critical to regard the researchscientist not only as one who promotes change within others, but also as an equal participant in thechange process. If EBIs are to be adopted into practice, if what is scientifically supported is to betransported into real world contexts, then research scientists must also open their minds to thecontributions from those engaged in practice. By accepting and embracing cultural differences, byacknowledging that such differences can be complementary, researchers can work with practition-ers to assure that the adoption of EBIs into practice is a valuable experience.

References

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Albarracin, D., Johnson, B.T., Fishbein, M., & Muellerleile, P.A. (2001). Theories of reasoned action and planned behavior

as models of condom use: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 142–161.Anderson, S.E. (1997). Understanding teacher change: Revisiting the concerns based adoption model. Curriculum Inquiry,

27, 331–367.Austin, J., Carr, J.E., & Agnew, J.L. (1999). The need for assessment of maintaining variables in OBM. Journal of Orga-

nizational Behavior Management, 19, 59–87.Bailey, D.B., & Palsha, S.A. (1992). Qualities of the stages of concern questionnaire and implications for educational

innovations. Journal of Educational Research, 85, 226–232.Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.Bass, B.M. (1960). Leadership, psychology, and organizational behavior. New York: Harper.Bass, B.M. (1981). Stodgill’s handbook of leadership (rev. ed.). New York: Free Press.Berkowitz, L., & Buck, R.W. (1967). Impulsive aggression: Reactivity to aggressive cues under emotional arousal. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 415– 424.Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.Cheung, D., Nattie, J., & Davis, N. (2001). Reexamining the stages of concern questionnaire: A test of alternative models.

The Journal of Educational Research, 94, 226–236.


Cialdini, R.B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Cialdini, R.B., & Ascani, K. (1976). Test of a concession procedure for inducing verbal, behavioral, and further compli-

ance with a request to give blood. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 295–300.Conoley, J.C., & Gutkin, T.B. (1986). School psychology: A reconceptualization of service delivery realities. In S.N. Elliott

& J.C. Witt (Eds.), The delivery of psychological services in schools: Concepts, processes, and issues (pp. 393– 424).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cooper, H. (1996). Speaking power to truth: Reflections of an educational researcher after 4 years of school board service.Educational Researcher, 25, 29–34.

DiClemente, C.C. (1981). Self-efficacy and smoking cessation maintenance: A preliminary report. Cognitive Therapy andResearch, 5, 175–187

Eagly, A.H., Ashmore, R.D., Makhijani, M.G., & Longo, L.C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but . . . : A meta-analyticreview of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109–128.

Ellsworth, J.B. (2000). Surviving change: A survey of educational change models. ERIC Clearinghouse, ED444597.Erchul, W.P., Raven, B.H., & Ray, A.G. (2000). School psychologists’ perceptions of social power bases in teacher con-

sultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12, 1–23.Erchul, W.P., Raven, B.H., & Whichard, S.M. (2001). School psychologist and teacher perceptions of social power in

consultation. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 438– 497.Freedman, J. (2002). The diffusion of innovation into psychiatric practice. Psychiatric Services, 53, 1539–1540.French, J.R.P., & Raven, B.H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–

167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.George, A.A., Hall, G.E., & Uchiyama, K. (2000). Extent of implementation of a standards-based approach to teaching

mathematics and student outcomes. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 35, 8–25.Gutkin, T.B., & Conoley, J.C. (1990). Reconceptualizing school psychology from a service delivery perspective: Implica-

tions for practice, training, and research. Journal of School Psychology, 28, 203–223.Hall, G.E., George, A.A., & Rutherford, W.L. (1979). Measuring stages of concern about the innovation: A manual for the

use of the SoC questionnaire (Report 3032). Austin, TX: The University of Texas–Austin, Research and DevelopmentCenter for Teacher Education.

Hall, G.E., & Hord, S.M. (1987). Change in schools; Facilitating the process. Albany, NY: State University of New YorkPress.

Hall, G.E., & Hord, S.M. (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn& Bacon.

Hazzard, J.C., Bergan, J.R., & Kratochwill, T.R. (1979). The effects of behavioral consultation on teacher application andtransfer of behavior management principles. Unpublished manuscript.

Hilz, L.M. (2000). The informatics nurse specialist as change agent: Application of innovation-diffusion theory. Comput-ers in Nursing, 18, 272–281.

Horsley, D.L., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1998). Tornado of change. Journal of Staff Development, 19, 17–20.

Janis, I.J., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice and commitment. New York:Free Press.

Kratochwill, T.R., Elliott, S.N., & Stoiber, K.C. (2002). Best practices in school-based problem-solving consultation. In A.Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology–IV (pp. 583– 608). Bethesda, MD: National Asso-ciation of School Psychology.

Kratochwill, T.R., & Shernoff, E. (2003). Evidence-based practice: Promoting evidence-based interventions in schoolpsychology. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 389– 408.

Kratochwill, T.R., & Stoiber, K.C. (2000). Empirically supported interventions and school psychology: Rationale andmethodological issues—part II. School Psychology Quarterly, 15, 233–253.

Kratochwill, T.R., & Stoiber, K.C. (2002). Evidence-based interventions in school psychology: Conceptual foundations ofthe Procedural Coding Manual of division 16 and society for the study of school psychology task force. SchoolPsychology Quarterly, 17, 341–389.

Levesque, D.A., Prochaska, J.M., & Prochaska, J.O. (1999). Stages of change and integrated service delivery. ConsultingPsychology Journal: Practice and Research, 51, 226–241.

Levesque, D.A., Prochaska, J.M., Prochaska, J.O., Deward, S.R., Hamby, L.S., & Weeks, W.B. (2001). Organizationalstages and processes of change for continuous quality improvement in health care. Consulting Psychology Journal:Practice and Research, 53 (3), 139–153.

Littell, J.H., & Girvin, H. (2002). Stages of change. Behavior Modification, 26, 223–273.

Milgram, S. (1970). The experience of living in cities. Science, 13, 1461–1468.

Miller, R.L., Seligman, C., Clark, N.T., & Bush, M. (1976). Perceptual contrast versus reciprocal concession as mediatorsof induced compliance. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 8, 401– 409.


Myers-Walls, J.A. (2000). An odd couple with promise: Researchers and practitioners in evaluation settings. Family Rela-tions, 49, 341–347.

Prochaska, J.M., Prochaska, J.O., & Levesque, D.A. (2001). A transtheoretical approach to changing organizations. Admin-istration and Policy in Mental Health, 28, 247–261.

Prochaska, J.O. (2000). A transtheoretical model for assessing organizational change: A study of family service agencies’movement to time-limited therapy. Families in Society, 81, 76–84.

Prochaska, J.O., & DiClemente, C.C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative modelof change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 390–395.

Prochaska, J.O., DiClemente, C.C., & Norcross, J.C. (1992). In search of how people change: Applications to addictivebehaviors. American Psychologist, 47, 1102–1114.

Prochaska, J.O., DiClemente, C.C., Velicer, W.F., Ginpil, S., & Norcross, J.C. (1985). Predicting change in status forself-changers. Addictive Behaviors, 10, 395– 406.

Raven, B.H. (1992). A power/interaction model of interpersonal influence: French and Raven thirty years later. Journal ofSocial Behavior and Personality, 7, 217–244.

Raven, B.H. (1993). The bases of power: Origins and recent developments. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 227–251.Riley-Tillman, T.C., & Eckert, T.L. (2001). Generalization programming and school-based consultation: An examination

of consultees’ generalization of consultation related skills. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12,217–241.

Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press.Rosen, C.S. (2000). Is the sequencing of change processes by stage consistent across health problems? A meta-analysis.

Health Psychology, 19, 593– 604.Rosenfield, S. (2002). Best practices in instructional consultation. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in

school psychology–IV. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.Schoenwald, S.K., & Hoagwood, K. (2001). Effectiveness, transportability, and dissemination of interventions: What

matters when? Psychiatric Services, 52, 1190–1197.Shotsberger, P.G., & Crawford, A.R. (1999). On the elusive nature of measuring teacher change: An examination of the

stages of concern questionnaire. Evaluation and Research in Education, 13, 13–31.Small, S.A. (2001) Bridging the gap between research and practice in the human sciences. Madison, WI: UW-Madison,

unpublished manuscript.Small, S.A., & Bogenschneider, K. (1998). Toward a scholarship of relevance: Lessons from a land-grant university. In

R.M. Lerner & L.A.K. Simon (Eds.), University-community collaborations for the twenty-first century: Outreachscholarship for youth and families (pp. 255–273). New York: Garland.

Stokes, T.F., & Baer, D.M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10,349–367.

Strong, S.R., & Hills, H.I. (1986). Interpersonal communication rating scale. Richmond, VA: Virginia CommonwealthUniversity.

Sugai, G., Horner, R.H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T.J., Nelson, C.M., Scott, T., Liaupsin, C., Sailor, W., Turnbull,A.P., Turnbull, H.R., III, Wickham, D., Reuf, M., & Wilcox, B. (2000). Applying positive behavioral support andfunctional behavioral assessment in schools. Journal of Positive Behavioral Intervention and Support, 2, 131–143.

Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Hagen-Burke, S. (1999/2000). Overview of the functional behavioral assessment process.Exceptionality, 8, 149–160.

van den Verg, R., & Ros, A. (1999). The permanent importance of the subjective reality of teachers during educationalinnovation: A concerns-based approach. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 879–906.

Velicer, W.F., Prochaska, J.O., Fava, J.L., Norman, G.J., & Redding, C.A. (1998). Smoking cessation and stress manage-ment: Applications of the transtheoretical model of behavior change. Homeostasis, 38, 216–233.

Wickstrom, K.F., & Witt, J.C. (1993). Resistance within school-based consultation. In J.E. Zins, T.R. Kratochwill, & S.N.Elliott (Eds.), Handbook of consultation services for children (pp. 159–178). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ysseldyke, J.E., & Christenson, S.L. (1993). The instructional environment system (TIES-II). Lonmont, CO: Sopris West.Yukl, G., & Falbe, C.M. (1991). Importance of different power sources in downward and lateral relations. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 77, 525-535.Zins, J.E., & Erchul, W.P. (2002). Best practices in school psychology. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in

school psychology–IV. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.


no job name...o’connor, andy roach, lisa sanetti, elisa steele-shernoff, and jennifer white. we...

Documents