Reconciling Adaptation and Fidelity: Implications for Scaling Up High Quality Youth Programs
In the field of prevention science, some consider fidelity to manualized protocols to be a hallmark of successful implementation. A growing number of scholars agree that high-quality implementation should also include some adaptations to local context, particularly as prevention programs are scaled up, in order to strengthen their relevance and increase participant engagement. From this perspective, fidelity and adaptation can both be seen as necessary, albeit mutually exclusive, dimensions of implementation quality. In this article, we propose that the relationship between these two constructs may be more complex, particularly when adaptations are consistent with the key principles underlying the program model. Our argument draws on examples from the implementation of a manualized youth voice program (YVP) in two different organizations serving six distinct communities. Through a series of retreats, implementers identified examples of modifications made and grouped them into themes. Results suggest that some adaptations were actually indicators of fidelity to the key principles of YVPs: power-sharing, youth ownership, and engagement in social change. We therefore offer suggestions for re-conceptualizing the fidelity-adaptation debate, highlight implications for measurement and assessment, and illustrate that the de facto treatment of adaptation and fidelity as opposing constructs may limit the diffusion or scaling up of these types of youth programs.
KeywordsYouth programs Fidelity Adaptation Implementation Measurement Scale Prevention
This study was funded by Public Good Grants to Dr. Anyon and Dr. Bender by the Center for Community Engagement to Advance Scholarship and Learning at the University of Denver.
Compliance With Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
- Anyon, Y., Brink, K., Crawford, M., Fernandez, M., Hofstedt, M., Osberg, J., et al. (Eds.). (2007). Youth engaged in leadership and learning: A handbook for program staff, teachers, and community leaders. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University, John W. Gardner Center for Youth and Their Communities.Google Scholar
- Biggs, B. K., Vernberg, E. M., Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., & Dill, E. J. (2008). Teacher adherence and its relation to teacher attitudes and student outcomes in an elementary school-based violence prevention program. School Psychology Review, 37, 533.Google Scholar
- Bragg, S. (2007). “Student voice” and governmentality: The production of enterprising subjects? Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 28(3), 343–358.Google Scholar
- Edwards, D., Johnson, N. A., & McGillicuddy, K. (2003). An emerging model for working with youth. New York: Funders’ Collaborative on Youth Organizing.Google Scholar
- Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., & Friedman, R. M. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231).Google Scholar
- Roscoe, J., Anyon, Y. & Jenson, J. (2016). Fidelity and adaptation of youth empowerment programming in community practice. In Poster presented at the annual conference of the Society for Social Work Research, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration. (2002). Finding the balance: Program fidelity and adaptation in substance abuse prevention. A state-of-the-art review [and] executive summary. 2002 conference edition. Retrieved on April 16, 2016 from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED469354&site=eds-live.