CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 107Innovations in Medical EducationHuman Resource Development and Performance EvaluationHealth Policy Implementation Science

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Using Instructional Design, Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate, to Develop e-Learning Modules to Disseminate Supported Employment for Community Behavioral Health Treatment Programs in New York State

Open access
Patel, Sapana R., Margolies, Paul J., Covell, Nancy H., Lipscomb, Cristine, Dixon, Lisa B.·2018·Frontiers in Public Health
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00113PMC PMC5949337
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Implementation science lacks a systematic approach to the development of learning strategies for online training in evidence-based practices (EBPs) that takes the context of real-world practice into account. The field of instructional design offers ecologically valid and systematic processes to develop learning strategies for workforce development and performance support. OBJECTIVE: This report describes the application of an instructional design framework-Analyze, Design, Develop, Implement, and Evaluate (ADDIE) model-in the development and evaluation of e-learning modules as one strategy among a multifaceted approach to the implementation of individual placement and support (IPS), a model of supported employment for community behavioral health treatment programs, in New York State. METHODS: We applied quantitative and qualitative methods to develop and evaluate three IPS e-learning modules. Throughout the ADDIE process, we conducted formative and summative evaluations and identified determinants of implementation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Formative evaluations consisted of qualitative feedback received from recipients and providers during early pilot work. The summative evaluation consisted of levels 1 and 2 (reaction to the training, self-reported knowledge, and practice change) quantitative and qualitative data and was guided by the Kirkpatrick model for training evaluation. RESULTS: . Each module was developed iteratively and provided an assessment of learning needs that informed successive modules. All modules were disseminated and evaluated through a learning management system. Summative evaluation revealed that learners rated the modules positively, and self-report of knowledge acquisition was high (mean range: 4.4-4.6 out of 5). About half of learners indicated that they would change their practice after watching the modules (range: 48-51%). All learners who completed the level 1 evaluation demonstrated 80% or better mastery of knowledge on the level 2 evaluation embedded in each module. The CFIR was used to identify implementation barriers and facilitators among the evaluation data which facilitated planning for subsequent implementation support activities in the IPS initiative. CONCLUSION: Instructional design approaches such as ADDIE may offer implementation scientists and practitioners a flexible and systematic approach for the development of e-learning modules as a single component or one strategy in a multifaceted approach for training in EBPs.

Overview

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 · 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00113

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 27 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. 2013, Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning Health Care in America
  2. Dam, 2013, Inside the Learning Brain
  3. Jewell, 2014, Employment Resource Book

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Patel, S. R., Margolies, P. J., Covell, N. H., Lipscomb, C., & Dixon, L. B.
Affiliations
Research Foundation For Mental Hygiene (US)
Corresponding author
Patel, Sapana R.
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Public Health
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2018-05-07
Volume
6
Pages
113-113
ISSN
2296-2565 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpubh.2018.00113
PMC
PMC5949337
OpenAlex
W2800355154
Cited by
107
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1
FWCI
7.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R25MH080916)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Human Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
ADDIE model, instructional design, online learning modules, Individual Placement and Support, supported employment, implementation science, evidence-based practice dissemination, workforce development, training evaluation, Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, Kirkpatrick model, New York State

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