| Title |
Setting-Level Influences on Implementation of the Responsive Classroom Approach
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Prevention Science, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11121-012-0294-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shannon B. Wanless, Christine L. Patton, Sara E. Rimm-Kaufman, Nancy L. Deutsch |
| Abstract |
We used mixed methods to examine the association between setting-level factors and observed implementation of a social and emotional learning intervention (Responsive Classroom® approach; RC). In study 1 (N = 33 3rd grade teachers after the first year of RC implementation), we identified relevant setting-level factors and uncovered the mechanisms through which they related to implementation. In study 2 (N = 50 4th grade teachers after the second year of RC implementation), we validated our most salient Study 1 finding across multiple informants. Findings suggested that teachers perceived setting-level factors, particularly principal buy-in to the intervention and individualized coaching, as influential to their degree of implementation. Further, we found that intervention coaches' perspectives of principal buy-in were more related to implementation than principals' or teachers' perspectives. Findings extend the application of setting theory to the field of implementation science and suggest that interventionists may want to consider particular accounts of school setting factors before determining the likelihood of schools achieving high levels of implementation. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 69 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 23% |
| Researcher | 12 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 12 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 23 | 32% |
| Psychology | 18 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 18 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 November 2012.
All research outputs
#3,770,267
of 22,721,584 outputs
Outputs from Prevention Science
#246
of 1,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,577
of 173,787 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Prevention Science
#6
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,721,584 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,024 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 173,787 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.