Classroom Climate, Program Fidelity, & Outcomes for Students with Autism

Background:  Interventions for children with autism that have proven efficacious in laboratories generally have not been effectively implemented in schools. In general, findings regarding why interventions developed in the laboratory are not implemented successfully by community providers include insufficient training, skills, incentive, or motivation. A parallel body of research from children’s community mental health settings indicates that even when individuals have the requisite skills and motivation to implement the intervention, the organizational climate may not sufficiently support successful implementation. While this also is likely to be the case in the implementation of school-based interventions, there has been little study of the impact of school and classroom climate on intervention implementation. Challenges to implementation are apparent in AIMS, a randomized trial of the effectiveness of a proven-efficacious intervention for children in autism support classrooms in a large, urban school district. Early observations suggest that a key reason for teachers’ variable program implementation is differences in their perceptions that use of the intervention is expected, supported, and rewarded by their colleagues. This perception is referred to as the organization’s implementation climate. While a rich literature examines the role of implementation climate in business settings, there is little study of it in health and human services in general, and special education settings specifically.

Objectives:  The aim of this study is to examine associations between the climate of autism support classrooms, program implementation, and student outcomes over time. We predict that a strong classroom climate for intervention implementation will lead to higher program fidelity and better student outcomes.

Methods:  Measures of implementation climate were developed from the field of organizational psychology and covered four key domains: a) perceptions of program quality and ease of use; b) perceptions of training quality and accessibility; c) school support; and d) global perceptions of implementation climate. These measures were administered to teachers at the beginning and end of the academic year. Program fidelity was measured monthly throughout the year by coding videos of teachers implementing the program components. Student outcomes were measured by assessing IQ at the beginning and end of the academic year. Bivariate associations among climate, fidelity, and outcomes will be measured, as well as the direct effects of climate and fidelity on outcomes, controlling for other important covariates. We also will examine changes in climate and fidelity over the school year, and the association of those changes with each other and with outcomes.

Results:  Analyses are ongoing. Early observations suggest great variability in implementation climate, program fidelity, and student outcomes.   Preliminary results suggest independent contributions of implementation climate to both program fidelity and student outcomes.

Conclusions:  Studying the relationships between classroom climate, intervention fidelity, and student outcomes is critical in advancing our understanding of the best ways to support the implementation of evidence-based interventions for children with autism in special education settings. By helping to identify malleable targets for intervention, the results of this study can be used to improve program effectiveness and sustainability in school settings, ultimately leading to better outcomes for children with autism.