The Journal of Primary Prevention

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 35–49 | Cite as

Reconciling Adaptation and Fidelity: Implications for Scaling Up High Quality Youth Programs

  • Yolanda AnyonEmail author
  • Joe Roscoe
  • Kimberly Bender
  • Heather Kennedy
  • Jonah Dechants
  • Stephanie Begun
  • Christine Gallager
Original Paper


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.


Youth 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.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.


  1. 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
  2. Bernal, G., Bonilla, J., & Bellido, C. (1995). Ecological validity and cultural sensitivity for outcome research: Issues for the cultural adaptation and development of psychosocial treatments with Hispanics. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 23, 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Cammarota, J., & Romero, A. F. (2009). A social justice epistemology and pedagogy for Latina/o students: Transforming public education with participatory action research. New Directions for Youth Development, 2009(123), 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castro, F. G., Barrera, M., Jr., & Martinez, C. R., Jr. (2004). The cultural adaptation of prevention interventions: Resolving tensions between fidelity and fit. Prevention Science, 5, 41–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conner, J. O., & Strobel, K. (2007). Leadership development: An examination of individual and programmatic growth. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22(3), 275–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dupuis, J., & Mann-Feder, V. (2013). Moving towards emancipatory practice: Conditions for meaningful youth empowerment in child welfare. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 4(3), 371–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Durlak, J., & Dupre, E. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., & Pachan, M. (2010). A meta-analysis of after-school programs that seek to promote personal and social skills in children and adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3–4), 294–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edwards, D., Johnson, N. A., & McGillicuddy, K. (2003). An emerging model for working with youth. New York: Funders’ Collaborative on Youth Organizing.Google Scholar
  12. Elliott, D. S., & Mihalic, S. (2004). Issues in disseminating and replicating effective prevention programs. Prevention Science, 5(1), 47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Forgatch, M. S., Patterson, G. R., & DeGarmo, D. S. (2005). Evaluating fidelity: Predictive validity for a measure of competent adherence to the Oregon model of parent management training. Behavior Therapy, 36(1), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ginwright, S., & James, T. (2002). From assets to agents of change: Social justice, organizing, and youth development. New Directions for Youth Development, 96, 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hansen, D. M., & Larson, R. W. (2007). Amplifiers of developmental and negative experiences in organized activities: Dosage, motivation, lead roles, and adult-youth ratios. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 360–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harden, T., Kenemore, T., Mann, K., Edwards, M., List, C., & Martinson, K. J. (2015). The Truth N’Trauma Project: Addressing community violence through a youth-led, trauma-informed and restorative framework. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 32(1), 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1983). Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: Some techniques of data reduction and display. Quality and Quantity, 17, 281–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kirshner, B. (2008). Guided participation in three youth activism organizations: Facilitation, apprenticeship, and joint work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17, 60–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kohfeldt, D., Chhun, L., Grace, S., & Langhout, R. D. (2011). Youth empowerment in context: Exploring tensions in school-based YPAR. American Journal of Community Psychology, 47(1–2), 28–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Larson, R. W., & Angus, R. M. (2011). Adolescents’ development of skills for agency in youth programs: Learning to think strategically. Child Development, 82, 277–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Larson, R. W., & Walker, K. C. (2010). Dilemmas of practice: Challenges to program quality encountered by youth program leaders. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3–4), 338–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McIntyre, L. L., Gresham, F. M., DiGennaro, F. D., & Reed, D. D. (2007). Treatment integrity of school-based interventions with children in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1991–2005. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 659–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mihalic, S. F., & Elliott, D. S. (2015). Evidence-based programs registry: Blueprints for healthy youth development. Evaluation and Program Planning, 48, 124–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moore, J. E., Bumbarger, B. K., & Cooper, B. R. (2013). Examining adaptations of evidence-based programs in natural nontexts. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 34(3), 147–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ozer, E. J., & Douglas, L. (2013). The impact of participatory research on urban teens: An experimental evaluation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51(1–2), 66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ozer, E. J., & Douglas, L. (2015). Assessing the key processes of youth-led participatory research: Psychometric analysis and application of an observational rating scale. Youth and Society, 47(1), 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ozer, E. J., Newlan, S., Douglas, L., & Hubbard, E. (2013). “Bounded” empowerment: Analyzing tensions in the practice of youth-led participatory research in urban public schools. American Journal of Community Psychology, 52(1–2), 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ozer, E. J., Ritterman, M. L., & Wanis, M. G. (2010). Participatory action research (PAR) in middle school: Opportunities, constraints, and key processes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(1–2), 152–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Phillips, E. N., Berg, M. J., Rodriguez, C., & Morgan, D. (2010). A case study of participatory action research in a public New England middle school: Empowerment, constraints and challenges. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(1–2), 179–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rodriguez, L. F., & Brown, T. M. (2009). From voice to agency: Guiding principles for participatory action research with youth. New Directions for Youth Development, 123, 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Soleimanpour, S., Brindis, C., Geierstanger, S., Kandawalla, S., & Kurlaender, T. (2008). Incorporating youth-led community participatory research into school health center programs and policies. Public health reports, 123(6), 709–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stirman, S. W., Miller, C. J., Toder, K., & Calloway, A. (2013). Development of a framework and coding system for modifications and adaptations of evidence-based interventions. Implementation Science, 8, 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Tilton, J. (2013). Rethinking youth voice and institutional power: Reflections from inside a service learning partnership in a California juvenile hall. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(8), 1189–1196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Travis, R., & Leech, T. G. (2014). Empowerment-based positive youth development: A new understanding of healthy development for African American youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24(1), 93–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wagaman, M. A. (2015). Changing ourselves, changing the world: Assessing the value of participatory action research as an empowerment-based research and service approach with LGBTQ young people. Child and Youth Services, 36(2), 124–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang, B., Stanton, B., Deveaux, L., Poitier, M., Lunn, S., Koci, V., et al. (2015). Factors influencing implementation dose and fidelity thereof and related student outcomes of an evidence-based national HIV prevention program. Implementation Science, 10(1), 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wong, N. T., Zimmerman, M. A., & Parker, E. A. (2010). A typology of youth participation and empowerment for child and adolescent health promotion. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(1–2), 100–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yohalem, N., & Wilson-Ahlstrom, A. (2010). Inside the black box: Assessing and improving quality in youth programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3–4), 350–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of Social WorkUniversity of DenverDenverUSA
  2. 2.School of Social WorkUniversity of California BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  3. 3.Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social WorkUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations