Determinants of Program Delivery after Standardized Training
for an Evidence-Based Program
Background
Background
 Numerous individuals complete trainings to become
facilitators of research-based prevention programs,
yet many do not implement programs after training
 Agencies that sponsor trainings support attendance
with the expectation that trainees will implement
programs
 Funding is limited, so maximizing the likelihood that
trainees will implement knowledge gained from
training is important.
 In order for agencies to improve efficiency, program
trainings should
 Target people who are most likely to implement
the program upon completion of the training
 Incorporate training techniques to make
implementation easier
Research on Training and Implementation
 Several characteristics influence both training
motivation and training effectiveness:
 higher cognitive ability
 learning orientation
 confidence
 perception of training as relevant and useful
 Interviews with Strengthening Families Program (1014) trainees in Washington indicated that practical
factors (including having a plan to implement) were
also important factors (Hill et al., 2003)
Hypotheses
Method
Brianne K. Hood and Laura G. Hill
Results
6 months after training
Participants
 n = 77 trainees
 Mean Age (SD) = 42 years (11.7)
 72% European American, 22% Latino/a, 6% Other
 21% Male, 79% Female
 Of the 62 trainees (80%) we were able to contact, 35 (56%) had implemented a program within 6 months
of training
Factors associated with program implementation
 Attended one of 6 standardized Strengthening Families
Program trainings with 7 different trainers (all associated
with WSU Extension) during 2005
Did Not Implement
 15 (20%) of trainees were no longer at their original
agencies and we were unable to contact them
60%
58%
42%
40%
 Practical factors were as important or more
important than motivation
Implemented
62%
57%
43%
Procedure
59%
41%
38%
Measures
 The survey completed on the last day of the training
included questions about





demographic information
beliefs about the program
confidence and enthusiasm
perceived community need for program
future plans to implement the program.
Perceived Need
Enthusiasm
Confidence
Plan to Implement
MOTIVATIONAL
FACTORS
Attended with
Team
PRACTICAL
FACTORS
 Having a START DATE planned was the single most
important difference between implementers v nonimplementers
 The total number of specific plans (e.g. budget,
location, start date) was significantly correlated with
program implementation (r = .32, p < .05)
 At the 6-month follow up interview facilitators were asked
whether they had implemented a program since training.
Acknowledgments
 Attending with a team
 Demographic factors were not associated
with program implementation
 Facilitators completed surveys on the last day of training.
 Follow-up interviews were conducted approximately six
months after facilitators completed the training.
 A plan to implement program
Did Not Implement
Implemented
83%
73%
63%
61%
65%
50%
42%
29%
Start Date
Funds Available
Budget Prepared
Location Available
SPECIFICS OF PLANS TO IMPLEMENT
Conclusions
Hypotheses
This research was supported by NIDA grant
19758-01
 These data suggest that agencies should carefully select the individuals they pay to become trained –
enthusiastic, confident facilitators who perceive a need for program will be more likely to implement
 Individuals who attend a training with one or more
people from their area are more likely to have implemented
the program 6 months after training
 Our thanks to WSU Extension trainers and
trainees who took time to help with surveys and
interviews
 Agencies should set detailed plans for future programs before sending individuals to be trained
 Individuals who have a specific plan to implement after
training (e.g., program location and funding sources
identified) are more likely to implement the program.
 Practical factors will be as important or more important
than motivational factors in predicting program
implementation
Contact Information
Laura G. Hill
Department of Human Development
Washington State University
PO Box 66452
Pullman, WA 99164
laurahill@wsu.edu
 Although more expensive, it may be more cost effective to send a full implementation team to train
Selected References
Colquitt, J.A., Lepine, J. A., Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years
of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 678-707.
Hill, L.G., Sage, R., Betz, D., Koehler, C. & Parker, L. (2003, June). Implementation of a model program: A case study from Washington State. Poster
session presented at the 11th Annual Meeting of the Society for Prevention Research, "Research to Policy," Washington, DC, 2003.
Krager, K. McLinden, D., & Casper, W.J. (2004). Collaborative planning for training impact. Human Resource Management, 43(4), 337-351.
Mathieu, J. E. & Martineau, J. (1997). Individual and situational influences on training motivation. In J.K. Ford (Ed.).Improving Training
Effectiveness in Work Organizations, pp. 193 -223. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.