Skip to main content
Log in

Development and initial investigation of a self-report measure of teachers’ readiness to implement

  • Published:
Journal of Educational Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper describes development and piloting of a self-report measure of teachers’ readiness to implement evidence-based programs. Using mixed methods, this project proceeded in two phases. In the first phase, a program-independent self-report measure of readiness to implement was developed and piloted with N = 53 teachers. Results of quantitative analyses offer initial support for the structure and utility of this scale. In the second phase, qualitative interviews were conducted with a subset of the overall sample in order to more thoroughly understand teachers’ experiences of readiness and implementation. Together, results contribute to further scale development and offer preliminary support for the validity of this measure in assessing readiness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (1997). Toward a scale-up model for replicating new approaches to schooling. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 8(2), 197–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, A. (1967). Depression: Clinical, experimental, and theoretical aspects. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinman, M., Imm, P., & Wandersman, A. (2004). Getting to outcomes 2004: Promoting accountability through methods and tools for planning, implementation, and evaluation. (No. TRTR101). Santa Monica, CA: RAND. http://www.rand.org/publications/TR/TR101.

  • Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) (2006). CASEL practice rubric for schoolwide SEL implementation. Retrieved from: http://www.casel.org.

  • Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of the research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Graczyk, P. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2003). Implementation, sustainability, and scaling up of social-emotional and academic innovations in public schools. School Psychology Review, 32(3), 303–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elmore, R. F., Fiarman, S. E., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman, S. G., Olin, S. S., Hoagwood, K. E., Crowe, M., & Saka, N. (2009). Evidence-based interventions in schools: Developers’ views of implementation barriers and facilitators. School Mental Health, 1, 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-008-9002-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman, S. G., Shapiro, E. S., Codding, R. S., Gonzales, J. E., Reddy, L. A., Rosenfield, S. A., et al. (2013). Implementation science and school psychology. School Psychology Quartery, 28(2), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479–507. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312037002479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. E., Graczyk, P. A., & Zins, J. E. (2005). The study of implementation in school-based preventive interventions: Theory, research, and practice (Volume 3). Retrieved from http://www.samhsa.gov.

  • Han, S. S., & Weiss, B. (2005). Sustainability of teacher implementation of school-based mental health programs. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33(6), 665–679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-005-7646-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoelzle, J. G, & Meyer, G. J. (2013). Exploratory factor analysis: Basics and beyond. In Weiner, I. B. (Ed.), Handbook of Psychology: Vol. 2. Research methods in psychology (pp. 164–188). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt, D. T., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Harris, S. G. (2007). Readiness for organizational change: The systematic development of a scale. The Journal of Applied Behavior Science, 43(2), 232–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886306295295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kallestad, J. H., & Olweus, D. (2003). Predicting teachers’ and schools’ implementation quality of the Olweus bullying prevention program: A multilevel study. Prevention & Treatment, 6(1), 21a. https://doi.org/10.1037/1522-3736.6.1.621a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langley, A. K., Nadeem, E., Kataoka, S. H., Stein, B. D., & Jaycox, L. H. (2010). Evidence-based mental health programs in schools: Barriers and facilitators of successful implementation. School Mental Health, 2, 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-010-9038-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehman, W. E. K., Greener, J. M., & Simpson, D. D. (2002). Assessing organizational readiness for change. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 22(4), 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-5472(02)00233-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York, NY: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsunaga, M. (2010). How to factor-analyze your data right: Do’s, don’ts, and how-to’s. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 97–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntosh, K., Horner, R. H., & Sugai, G. (2009). Sustainability of systems-level evidence-based practices in schools: Current knowledge and future directions. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. Horner (Eds.), Handbook of Positive Behavior Support (pp. 327–352). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mundfrom, D. J., Shaw, D. G., & Ke, T. L. (2005). Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses. International Journal of Testing, 5(2), 159–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, D. C., Durlak, J. A., & Wandersman, A. (2012). The quality implementation framework: A synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50(3–4), 462–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-012-9522-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ransford, C. R., Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. E., Small, M., & Jacobson, L. (2009). The role of teachers’ psychological experiences and perceptions of curriculum supports on the implementation of a social and emotional learning curriculum. School Psychology Review, 38(4), 510–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611–625. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugai, G., Horner, R., & Lewis-Palmer, T. (2001). Team implementation checklist v.3.0, August 2009. Eugene, OR: Educational and Community Supports.

  • Thompson, B., & Daniel, L. G. (1996). Factor analytic evidence for the construct validity of scores: A historical overview and some guidelines. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(2), 197–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wanless, S. B., Groark, C. J., & Hatfield, B. E. (2015). Assessing organizational readiness. In J. Durlak, R. Weissburg, & T. Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook of social and emotional learning. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wanless, S. B., Patton, C. P., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Deutsch, N. L. (2013). Setting-level influences on implementation of the Responsive Classroom approach. Prevention Science, 14, 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-012-0294-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cara Marcinek Bliss.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bliss, C.M., Wanless, S.B. Development and initial investigation of a self-report measure of teachers’ readiness to implement. J Educ Change 19, 269–291 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-018-9324-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-018-9324-5

Keywords

Navigation