Cited by 29Disability Education and EmploymentBehavioral and Psychological StudiesHealth Policy Implementation Science

Adapting COMPASS for youth with ASD to improve transition outcomes using implementation science.

Open access
Ruble, Lisa, McGrew, John H., Snell-Rood, Claire, Adams, Medina, Kleinert, Harold·2019·School Psychology

Abstract

existing evidence based practices (EBPs) by incorporating implementation concerns from the start. Focus-group methodology was used to understand barriers and facilitators of transition planning and implementation for students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) who often experience disparate postsecondary outcomes compared to peers. Results were used to modify an evidence-based consultation intervention originally applied to young students with ASD, called the Collaborative Model for Promoting Competence and Success (COMPASS; Ruble, Dalrymple, & McGrew, 2012). Because consultation is a multilevel EBP, two existing implementation science frameworks were used to guide adaptation: the Framework for Evidence Based Implementation and Intervention Practices (Dunst & Trivette, 2012) and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (Damschroder et al., 2009). The purpose of this article is to describe a process of adaptation of COMPASS that may be useful for other implementation science studies of consultation interventions, teacher acceptability, feasibility, and burden, and parent/student satisfaction with the adapted intervention. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/spq0000281

Cites

26 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The updated CFIR construct names and definitions were revised to make the framework more applicable across a range of innovations and settings.

    “Construct names and definitions were updated in response to recommendations to make the framework more applicable across a range of innovations and settings [30–35].”

    From The updated consolidated framework for implementation research based on user feedback (2022) · cites this paper as [32]

    The Results (Qualitative Substudy; page not provided) describe changes to COMPASS, organized using CFIR and FEBIIP, rather than revisions to CFIR construct names or definitions. Searches for updated construct names and applicability across innovations and settings found no passage in our copy addressing that claim. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Bernard HR (2011). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
  2. Brownson RC, Colditz GA, & Proctor EK (2012). Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating science to practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  3. Carey MA, & Asbury J (2012). Focus group research. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
  4. Clarke V, & Braun V (2013). Teaching thematic analysis: Overcoming challenges and developing strategies for effective learning. The Psychologist, 26(2), 120– 123.
  5. Dunst CJ, & Trivette CM (2012). Meta-analysis of implementation practice research In Kelly B & Perkins D (Eds.), Handbook of implementation science for psychology in education (pp. 68– 91). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Noell GH, Witt JC, Slider NJ, Connell JE, Gatti SL, Williams KL, … Duhon GJ (2005). Treatment implementation following behavioral consultation in schools: A comparison of three follow-up strategies. School Psychology Review, 34(1), 87– 106.
  7. Rogers EM (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.
  8. Ruble L, Dalrymple N, & McGrew. (2012). The Collaborative Model for Promoting Competence and Success for Students with ASD. Springer: NY. PMC3117578 21691449
  9. Ruble L, & McGrew J (2015). COMPASS and Implementation Science: Improving educational Outcomes of Children with ASD. Springer: NY.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ruble, L., McGrew, J. H., Snell-Rood, C., Adams, M., & Kleinert, H.
Venue
School Psychology
Published
2019-03
Volume
34
Issue
2
Pages
187-200
ISSN
  • 2578-4218 (ISSN-L)
  • 2578-4226
OpenAlex
W2894760032
Cited by
29
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
4.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • School Psychology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (5R34MH104208-02)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Education and Employment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
autism spectrum disorder, compass, transition planning, postsecondary outcomes, intervention adaptation, implementation barriers and facilitators, teacher acceptability, feasibility, evidence-based practice
MeSH terms
Autism Spectrum Disorder, Educational Personnel, Implementation Science, Adolescent, Adult, Humans, Parents, Rehabilitation, Focus Groups, Evidence-Based Practice, Transition to Adult Care

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