ENHANCING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PREVENTION PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION THROUGH INFLUENTIAL CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A current gap in the literature exists with regard to formulating a holistic view of contextual factors involved in school-based prevention programming implementation. The purpose of this grounded theory study is to further explore how multilevel ecological and cross-system factors influence prevention program implementation. This study builds on development of a theory to guide the practices for preventive program implementation with fidelity. The Integrated Program (IP) conceptual framework, initiated in an earlier paper (Schmidt Hanbidge, 2009) identified key program contextual and motivational factors that critically influence prevention program implementation. Taken from an ecological perspective, the IP framework incorporates multi-levels of systems from the individual, to organization, to the community contexts.\nTwenty-four interviews were conducted in two stages with school program facilitators, school principals, and program administrators delivering a prevention program, STEAM (Skills & Tools for Emotion Awareness and Management) in elementary schools in southern Ontario, Canada. Theoretical sampling was utilized and data was analyzed and coded, aided by the program, QSR Nvivo. Grounded theory was the research methodology used in this study to refine the IP conceptual framework for implementation of school-based emotion regulation programs.\nThe study determined several contextual and motivational factors that facilitated program implementation, such as: open communication/support from key stakeholders, adequate program resources (including time and space), knowledgeable, experienced training and skilled supervision for program facilitators. The study identified how several contextual factors were considered to be barriers to the implementation process and could threaten the fidelity of the program.\nThe study adds to the prevention literature by identifying how the program facilitators progress through an evolutionary process as they become more experienced. They typically start out as program facilitators, thereafter becoming role models, then mentors, then finally experts.\nThis study identifies ways to integrate the specific contextual and motivational factors in the implementation process of the school-based prevention programs. The IP framework was refined, based on the study data, to recognize the effect of "differentiated" program delivery. During implementation, study participants identified and adapted the prevention program to "fit" the specific school environment which aided in the sustainability of their program.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".