Suggestions are made with respect to measuring fidelity, preparing facilitators, and supporting productive adaptations.
In this study, we measured fidelity using two instruments that, together, incorporate structural and process dimensions.
The latter stage of the preparation process involved a rehearsal, during which the research team used two instruments to measure fidelity.
When used to measure fidelity during the LTG pilot study, data from the Session Logging Tool was triangulated with facilitator interviews and direct observations of PD workshops.
The second instrument used to measure fidelity of implementation (FOI) of Hannah's rehearsal was a modified version of the Teacher Learning Goals instrument.
Education researchers interested in measuring fidelity generally report on two broad dimensions: structural and process (Harn et al. 2013; Mowbra et al. 2003; O'Donnell 2008).
For the questions designed to measure fidelity to the original reform we had, Beichner, the developer of SCALE-UP, describe his model and share what he has observed that is happening at other sites.
In our case, we measure fidelity through the PACIC questionnaire, which evaluates the chronic care experiences of patients.
Without measuring fidelity, researchers do not know whether non-significant outcomes reflect a lack of intervention effectiveness or a lack of intervention fidelity [ 1– 3, 6].
We will measure fidelity with questions in the questionnaire and semi-structured interview about relevance, understandability, and satisfaction with each component of both lifestyle interventions.
