Cited by 173Health Policy Implementation ScienceCrime Patterns and InterventionsCommunity Health and Development

Bridging Science to Practice: Achieving Prevention Program Implementation Fidelity in the Community Youth Development Study

Fagan, Abigail A., Hanson, Koren, Hawkins, J. David, Arthur, Michael W.·2008·American Journal of Community Psychology

Abstract

This paper describes the development, application, and results of an implementation monitoring component of the Communities That Care (CTC) prevention framework used in the Community Youth Development Study (CYDS) to ensure high‐fidelity prevention program implementation. This system was created based on research that community‐based implementation of evidence‐based prevention programs often includes adaptations in program design, content, or manner of delivery (Gottfredson and Gottfredson, Journal of research in crime and delinquency, 39, 3–35, 2002; Hallfors and Godette, Health Education Research, 17, 461–470, 2002; Wandersman and Florin, American Psychologist, 58, 441–448, 2003). A lack of fidelity to the implementation standards delineated by program designers is one indicator of a gap between prevention science and practice which can lessen the likelihood that communities will realize the positive participant effects demonstrated in research trials. By using the CTC model to select and monitor the quality of prevention activities, the 12 CYDS communities replicated 13 prevention programs with high rates of adherence to the programs' core components and in accordance with dosage requirements regarding the number, length, and frequency of sessions. This success indicates the potential of the CTC program implementation monitoring system to enhance community Prevention Delivery Systems (Wandersman et al. American Journal of Community Psychology, this issue) and improve the likelihood of desired participant changes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10464-008-9176-x

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fagan, A. A., Hanson, K., Hawkins, J. D., & Arthur, M. W.
Affiliations
  • University of South Carolina (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Fagan, Abigail A.
Venue
American Journal of Community Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-02-27
Volume
41
Issue
3-4
Pages
235-249
ISSN
  • 0091-0562 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2770
OpenAlex
W2053091076
Cited by
171
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 17
FWCI
28.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Community Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA015183)
  • National Cancer Institute
  • Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Community Health and Development
Keywords
implementation fidelity, prevention program implementation, Communities That Care, implementation monitoring, evidence-based prevention programs, program adaptation, community-based prevention, research-practice gap
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adolescent Behavior, Data Collection, Health Promotion, Humans, Risk-Taking, United States, Program Evaluation, Community Networks, Evidence-Based Medicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review