Cited by 177Innovative Teaching MethodsEvaluation of Teaching PracticesScience Education and Pedagogy

Fidelity of Implementation: An Overlooked Yet Critical Construct to Establish Effectiveness of Evidence-Based Instructional Practices

Open access
Stains, Marilyne, Vickrey, Trisha·2017·CBE—Life Sciences Education

Abstract

The discipline-based education research (DBER) community has been invested in the research and development of evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs) for decades. Unfortunately, investigations of the impact of EBIPs on student outcomes typically do not characterize instructors’ adherence to an EBIP, often assuming that implementation was as intended by developers. The validity of such findings is compromised, since positive or negative outcomes can be incorrectly attributed to an EBIP when other factors impacting implementation are often present. This methodological flaw can be overcome by developing measures to determine the fidelity of implementation (FOI) of an intervention, a construct extensively studied in other fields, such as healthcare. Unfortunately, few frameworks to measure FOI in educational settings exist, which likely contributes to a lack of FOI constructs in most impact studies of EBIPs in DBER. In this Essay, we leverage the FOI literature presented in other fields to propose an appropriate framework for FOI within the context of DBER. We describe how this framework enhances the validity of EBIP impact studies and provide methodological guidelines for how it should be integrated in such studies. Finally, we demonstrate the application of our framework to peer instruction, a commonly researched EBIP within the DBER community.

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 · 10.1187/cbe.16-03-0113

Cites

56 of 56 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?

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: 2

  1. Mazur E Peer Instruction 1997 Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice Hall
  2. Walter E Beach A Henderson C Williams C Describing instructional practice and climate: two new instruments 2014 Paper presented at the Transforming Institutions: 21st Century Undergraduate STEM Education Conference, held 24 October 2014, in Indianapolis, IN

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stains, M., & Vickrey, T.
Affiliations
University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US)
Corresponding author
Stains, Marilyne
Venue
CBE—Life Sciences Education
Published
2017-03
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
rm1
ISSN
1931-7913 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2588831868
Cited by
177
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 4
FWCI
61.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • CBE—Life Sciences Education (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lincoln (University of Nebraska) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1256003, 1347814)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
Keywords
implementation fidelity, evidence-based instructional practices, discipline-based education research, peer instruction, intervention adherence, measurement framework, methodological recommendations
MeSH terms
Faculty, Humans, Students, Teaching

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