Implementation Fidelity in the Replication of Tuning in to Teens (TINT) Adapted for Adoptive Parents and Guardians in the US
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Clear explication of the conditions necessary to reproduce results is imperative in the development of evidence-based interventions.Methods: This study used a fidelity framework to guide the exploration of implementation fidelity in a study of the Tuning in to Teens (TINT) intervention in New Jersey. TINT is an evidence-based prevention program – previously tested with parents of pre-adolescents to reduce emotionally dismissive parenting – that was adapted for use with adoptive and guardianship families.Results: The review of intervention design adaptation and protocols; intervention training; and monitoring of intervention delivery revealed extensive efforts by an adoption clinician, the purveyor of the program, and an implementation team to support the implementation efforts. Results of the monitoring of intervention receipt indicate that the intervention was implemented with high fidelity.Discussion: Future intervention research should consider assessing the effects of implementation efforts on outcomes to improve replication under real-world conditions. Regardless, this exploration of fidelity has implications for public and private organizations seeking to implement an evidence-based intervention. The framework developed by Gearing and Colleagues and the TIDieR checklist could provide useful guidance when planning for and reporting on implementation fidelity in the furtherance of developing and disseminating evidence-based interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".