Understanding the dynamic interinfluences of implementation processes: An illustration by multiple case studies

Mélissa Goulet; Isabelle Archambault; Michel Janosz; Jean Bélanger; Sandra L Christenson

doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101798

Understanding the dynamic interinfluences of implementation processes: An illustration by multiple case studies

Eval Program Plann. 2020 Feb 14:80:101798. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101798. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Mélissa Goulet¹, Isabelle Archambault², Michel Janosz³, Jean Bélanger⁴, Sandra L Christenson⁵

Affiliations

¹ University of Quebec in Montreal, Department of Specialized Education and Formation, Canada; School Environments Research Group, Canada. Electronic address: goulet.melissa@uqam.ca.
² School Environments Research Group, Canada; University of Montreal, School of Psychoeducation, Canada. Electronic address: Isabelle.archambault@umontreal.ca.
³ School Environments Research Group, Canada; University of Montreal, School of Psychoeducation, Canada. Electronic address: Michel.janosz@umontreal.ca.
⁴ University of Quebec in Montreal, Department of Specialized Education and Formation, Canada. Electronic address: Belanger.j@uqam.ca.
⁵ University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Department of School Psychology, United States. Electronic address: chris002@umn.edu.

PMID: 32088509
DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101798

Abstract

Many dropout prevention programs have been developed and validated in the past decades. Yet, little is known about the contextual factors influencing the implementation of these programs. Implementation processes, such as school principal leadership and governmental funding, have been identified for their influence on program implementation, but the mutual or dynamic influence of these processes is yet to be understood. This study examines the processes involved in the implementation of Check & Connect (C&C), a well-established targeted dropout prevention program validated in several countries that aims at promoting the development of a significant relationship between at-risk students and a mentor as a way to prevent school dropout. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 mentors and coordinators directly involved in C&C implementation. Analyses were conducted in two subsequent steps: thematic analyses first helped identify implementation processes described by respondents, and then synthetic case studies allowed us to build the implementation stories of distinct sites. This last step was conducted using the Planned Change Framework. This framework helped us to understand the complex dynamics of implementation processes in each site, which were associated with previously identified program outcomes, beyond implementation fidelity. Implications for future implementations of evidence-based programs in the school setting are discussed.

Keywords: Case studies; Dropout prevention; Implementation; Processes.