31292
Comparing Implementation of ASD Interventions between Urban and Rural Schools
Although evidence-based practices (EBPs) for students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) exist, implementation in schools is limited and research indicates that EBP implementation varies based on school and district factors. Research suggests that differences in services exist between Urban and Rural school districts such as staff retention, parent satisfaction with services, and access to services (Knapczyk, Ghapman, G, Rodes, & Ghung, 2001; Murphy & Ruble, 2012). Understanding systematic variability in factors that support EBP use will inform implementation efforts that are tailored to school district characteristics.
Objectives:
The objective of the current study is to identify how district factors are related to implementation and sustainment of EBPs for ASD in school programs.
Methods:
Participants.Participants included 30 members of the California Autism Professional Training and Information Network (CAPTAIN). A total of six focus groups were conducted with participants who worked within Urban (n=20) and Rurally located school districts (n=10).
Procedure. Focus group questions targeted: 1) key personnel involved in decision making and change, 2) perceived barriers to implementation, 3) resources needed and how they would be accessed, and 4) perceived likelihood of success across exploration, preparation, implementation and sustainment phases.
Audio recording of the focus group sessions were transcribed and independently coded by research associates, and inter-rater reliability was assessed by comparing coding and discussing discrepancies to arrive at agreement. N*Vivo qualitative software was used to evaluate frequency of codes and identify themes within and across district types.
Results:
Results identify some common factors serving as barriers and facilitators across district types. Participants from both Urban and Rural school districts identified attitudes and buy-in and district structure as main barriers to implementation. Specifically, participants reported a disconnect between general education staff and leadership and special education staff. In contrast, leadership support was identified as a main facilitator for the implementation of EBPs. Training was discussed as both a barrier and facilitator in both Urban and Rural focus groups (See Tables 1 and 2).
Differences between Urban and Rural groups also emerged. In Urban, but not Rural, groups, funding and resources emerged as barriers and facilitators. Staff knowledge and skills were discussed as both a barrier and facilitator in Urban focus groups, while in Rural focus groups they emerged solely as a barrier. Rural focus groups also identified frequent administrative changes as a barrier to implementation, while time (for trainings) emerged as a barrier in Urban focus groups.
Although district structure emerged as a barrier across groups, Urban district participants emphasized district policy and communication with leaders and district growth as concerns, whereas Rural district participants discussed regional challenges (having to travel long distances for trainings), difficulty tailoring interventions for a diverse range of students and high staff turnover.
Conclusions:
Across groups, attitudes toward EBP and district support were identified as barriers to implementation. These may be useful intervention targets to include in implementation planning. There were also clear differences across Urban and Rural district participants, indicating support for tailored implementation plans to maximize EBP use and sustainment.