Implementation fidelity—or the extent to which an intervention is implemented as intended (Gillespie Rouse, 2024)—is a key consideration when attempting to improve outcomes for students using evidence-based interventions. Another critical factor is whether the intervention itself is compatible with the instructional context—the real-world circumstances in which educators are instructed to apply interventions. Difficulty in attaining acceptable levels of fidelity may be indicative of a poor contextual fit of the intervention. This post will describe contextual fit and provide examples of how it can be accommodated to improve fidelity and, ultimately, student outcomes. 

Defining Contextual Fit

Contextual fit is the alignment between an intervention and the values, skills, resources, and daily demands of individuals responsible for implementation (Brownell et al., 2014; McLaughlin et al., 2012). Reaping the rewards of an evidence-based intervention requires instructors to implement the approach with fidelity. However, adaptations may be necessary to ensure that personnel in different educational settings can actually use the intervention (Curran et al., 2021). When consultants, teams in Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS), or other interventionists develop or evaluate instruction, it is important they consider whether typical circumstances allow for successful implementation. 

Staff training, available time, student needs, and other unrelated institutional policies can all influence whether an intervention is feasible. Scientific research is the most effective method for identifying literacy instruction with the potential to improve student literacy outcomes (Petscher et al., 2020). However, many studies are conducted in controlled settings by highly trained researchers under circumstances that may not precisely capture factors relevant to instruction in specific classrooms (Cook et al., 2019). Consequently, recurrent issues with implementation fidelity may not necessarily reflect a lack of effort or commitment. It may be that adjustments are required to improve the contextual fit of the intervention. 

Balancing Fidelity and Contextual Fit

Ensuring the appropriate balance between fidelity and contextual fit is both necessary and challenging. Rigid adherence to a procedure can lead to the abandonment of new practices and reversion to less effective methods of instruction. Too much flexibility, however, can compromise the components of the intervention that improve student outcomes. Selecting and continually evaluating the success of an intervention in practice involves considering necessary adaptations while preserving its fundamental effectiveness.

For example, a multi-component literacy intervention might require word-study activities, fluency practice, and explicit comprehension strategy instruction in every lesson; however, the school may only allot 30-minutes for supplemental reading instruction. A solution might be to cycle through the various components on a rotating basis across sessions, rather than to try to address all the components at the same time. 

Some interventions may exclusively target literacy skills. For students who consistently exhibit challenging behavior, it may be necessary to add rewards, breaks, visual schedules, and other elements more closely related to behavior intervention. 

Other interventions may involve small-group sessions in schools with high student-to teacher ratios. Under such circumstances, adaptations might include the incorporation of peer-assisted activities or embedding specific components of the intervention into other classroom routines. For example, a student who requires additional vocabulary instruction may integrate targeted vocabulary into whole-class reading assignments.  

Tips for Addressing Contextual Fit

The science of how best to promote the adoption of effective instruction in schools continues to evolve (Odom et al., 2020). Educators can take some steps to improve intervention feasibility without sacrificing intervention fidelity (Curran et al., 2022):

• Consider contextual fit prior to implementation: Before training staff and others to implement an intervention, instructional teams should consider factors such as the most important intervention outcomes, likely interventionists, available instructional time, and other potential barriers to implementation. Resources and components that are unrelated to targeted skills, for example, may be minimized—at least initially. For example, the complexity of supplemental intervention may be reduced by eliminating components that are already provided in typical Tier 1 instruction. Prioritizing specific outcomes and identifying potential challenges can increase the likelihood that an intervention is both meaningful and feasible as soon as possible. 
• Assess early, assess often: Initial fidelity assessments should occur almost immediately following training as well as on a regular basis throughout the school year. Initially, issues with implementation tend to reflect predictable struggles with learning a new practice. Continued issues with implementation fidelity, particularly if they recur across interventionists, may indicate that (a) additional training is required and (b) contextual adaptations may be necessary. 
• Go beyond the numbers: Fidelity assessments tend to emphasize quantitative dimensions of instruction—the number of minutes of instruction, the number of times a strategy was employed, or ratings of overall quality, for example. These are important indicators of whether a technique is employed as intended. Assessing contextual fit, on the other hand, involves qualitative data about instructors’ experiences—What is working for you? Why did you make this change? How does the intervention fit into your instruction? Taking time to ask instructors about their experiences with an intervention during routine fidelity assessments can assist in determining contextual fit, provide insight into potential evaluations, and increase instructor buy-in. 
• Continue monitoring and assessing: Changing instructional practice at a school level is a long-term project that may require introducing multiple iterations of an intervention. 

Fidelity and contextual fit are complementary considerations in any effort to implement evidence-based literacy instruction. Balancing the two ensures that interventions are effective, sustainable, and conducive to improved student outcomes and instructor satisfaction. 

References

Brownell, M. T., Lauterbach, A. A., Dingle, M. P., Boardman, A. G., Urbach, J. E., Leko, M. M., Benedict, A. E.,& Park, Y. (2014). Individual and contextual factors influencing special education teacher learning in literacy learning cohorts. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948713487179

Cook, C. R., Lyon, A. R., Locke, J., Waltz, T., & Powell, B. J. (2019). Adapting a compilation of implementation strategies to advance school-based implementation research and practice. Prevention Science, 20, 914–935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-019-01017-1

Curran, M., Komesidou, R., & Hogan, T. P. (2022). Less is more: Implementing the minimal intervention needed for change approach to increase contextual fit of speech-language interventions. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 53(2), 317–328. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_lshss-21-00050

McLaughlin, T. W., Denney, M. K., Snyder, P. A., & Welsh, J. L. (2012). Behavior support interventions implemented by families of young children: Examination of contextual fit. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14(2), 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300711411305

Odom, S. L., Hall, L. J., & Steinbrenner, J. R. (2020). Implementation science research and special education. Exceptional Children, 86(2), 117–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402919889888

Petscher, Y., Cabell, S. Q., Catts, H. W., Compton, D. L., Foorman, B. R., Hart, S. A., Lonigan, C. J., Phillips, B. M., Schatschneider, C., Steacy, L. M., Terry, N. P., & Wagner, R. K. (2020). How the science of reading informs 21st‐century education. Reading Research Quarterly, 55, S267–S282. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.352