An interventional study of Pre-implementation enhancement strategies (SC-PIES) and Sham comparator in Child Behavior Disorders, Implementation Science and Adolescent Problem Behavior at School, sponsored by University of Iowa. Completed. Open to participants aged 22 Years to 70 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2022-02-15.
Sponsored by University of Iowa · Not applicable, Interventional, and Health services research
Background: As the most common setting where youth access behavioral health services, the education sector frequently employs training and follow-up consultation as cornerstone implementation strategies to promote the uptake and use of evidence-based practices (EBPs), which are often insufficient to produce desired implementation outcomes (e.g., intervention fidelity) and changes in youth behavioral health outcomes (e.g., reduced externalizing behaviors). There is a need for theoretically-informed pre-implementation enhancement strategies (PIES) that increase the yield of training and follow-up consultation. Specifically, social-cognitive theory explicates principles to inform the design of strategy content and specific mechanisms of behavior change, such as intentions to implement (ITI), to target via a PIES that increase provider to more active implementation strategies. Methods: This triple-blind randomized controlled trial preliminarily examined the efficacy of a pragmatic PIES (SC-PIES) to improve the implementation of universal EBPs in the education sector. Participants were randomly assigned to the treatment (PIES) or active control condition (meeting with administrators). The investigators assessed participants' ITI, intervention fidelity, and youth behavioral health outcome before, immediately after, and six-week following treatment.
Background and study aims:
As the most common setting where youth access behavioral health services, the education sector frequently employs training and follow-up consultation as cornerstone implementation strategies to promote the uptake and use of evidence-based practices (EBPs). However, these strategies alone are not sufficient to promote the desired implementation (e.g., intervention fidelity) and youth behavioral health outcomes (e.g., externalizing behaviors). Theory-informed pragmatic pre-implementation enhancement strategies (PIES) are needed to increase the yield of training and consultation. Specifically, social-cognitive theory explicates principles to inform the design of strategy content and specific mechanisms of behavior change (e.g., "intentions to implement"; ITI) to target to increase providers' responsiveness to training and consultation. This triple-blind parallel randomized controlled trial preliminarily examined the efficacy of a pragmatic PIES based on social-cognitive theories (SC-PIES) to improve the implementation and youth outcomes of universal EBPs in schools. Four aims will be examined:
35 studies on the registry are indexed under Child Behavior Disorders; 10 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 43 is below the median of 134 across 25 interventional studies indexed under Child Behavior Disorders.
Browse Child Behavior Disorders studies →University of Iowa is the lead sponsor of 279 studies on the registry; 33 are open to participants now.
Of its 45 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 40 (89%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
The SC-PIES was delivered to teachers as a one-hour professional development session immediately before receiving specific training about evidence-based student behavioral management practices and subsequent follow-up consultation. The content of SC-PIES was grounded in three social-cognitive principles: (a) growth mindset, (b) saying-is-believing, and (c) commitment and consistency.
Behavioral: Pre-implementation enhancement strategies (SC-PIES)
Participants in the active control condition will meet with school administrators to talk about their work irrelevant to SC-PIES or student behaviors. The meeting lasted for the same duration as the SC-PIES at the same time as those in the treatment condition.
Other: Sham comparator
The SC-PIES was delivered to teachers as a one-hour professional development session immediately before receiving specific training about evidence-based student behavioral management practices and follow-up consultation. SC-PIES content was grounded in three social-cognitive principles: (a) growth mindset, (b) saying-is-believing, and (c) commitment and consistency.
Participants in the active control condition will meet with school administrators to talk about their work irrelevant to SC-PIES or student behaviors. The meeting lasted for the same duration as the SC-PIES at the same time as those in the treatment condition.
Change from Baseline Teachers' Intentions to Implement (ITI) at 3 Days
The Modified Intentions to Use Scale was adopted to assess the change in teachers' intentions to implement from baseline to immediate post-test. The scale is originally developed from research on practitioners' intention to adhere to measurement-based care and is consistent with the recommendations for assessing behavioral intentions based on the theory of planned behavior (Godin \& Kok, 1996). The scale consists of five items on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from "greatly disagree" to "greatly agree". The items were modified to specifically assess teachers' intentions to implement EBPs. The scale showed acceptable reliability and validity in prior research.
Time frame: Three days following the baseline test of teachers' intentions to implement
Change from Baseline Teachers' Intervention Fidelity at 6 weeks.
A team of trained professionals, who were blinded to the random assignment results, conducted structured observations to assess the intervention fidelity, which is operationalized in this study as "adherence to core components of the classroom management practices". The data collection took place at pre-test and 6-week follow-up to allow enough time to detect and compare changes in intervention fidelity. First, during core instructional times, trained observers observed two occasions at pre-test and 6-week follow-up to code the presence or absence of the core components of the evidence-based practices. Immediately following the observations, these observers completed a fidelity rating rubric, which was created by operationalizing three core components of each PCBMs such that observers could reliably observe and rate them. The average of the observation coding and the rubric scores represents each teacher's fidelity.
Time frame: Six weeks following the baseline test of teachers' intervention fidelity
Change from Baseline Students' Academic Engaged Time (AET) at 6 weeks
AET is defined as "any instance where youths are attending to instruction, watching the teacher or speaker, or concentrating on their classwork". This study will use Direct Behavior Ratings (DBRs) for academic engaged time (AET) with which a teacher observes a youth's AET throughout a predetermined interval. Based on the literature of DBRs, teacher-completed DBRs have strong correlations to Structured Direct Observation in assessing AET (Sanetti, 2009). The DBRs will be completed at pre-test and 6-week follow-up. For comparability across classrooms, each teacher completes DBRs during the reading/language arts block at the same time each day of the week for five randomly selected youths, whose results will be then averaged for that class. This approach has demonstrated adequate reliability and validity to capture class-wide AET in education literature (Sanetti, 2009).
Time frame: Six weeks following the baseline test of students' AET
No study locations are listed for this record.
Plan to share: Yes — The de-identified datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available in the Open Science Framework repository, [osf.io/d5t4m/].
Supporting information: Study protocol, Statistical analysis plan, Analytic code
Time frame: From December 1st, 2021 with no ending date
Access criteria: Public upon request to the principle investigator
Data sharing details ↗ · osf.io
This study is completed, as verified in Feb 2022. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.