1. Social agreement. Currently achieved through a variety of means
|
· Agree on common process
· Use empirical evidence in intervention planning
|
· Identify criteria to develop the process that results in objective social agreement.
|
2. Incomplete or lack of understanding of the evidence.
|
· Evidence presented in user-friendly format for audience;
· Increased readability = increased use.
· Increased skill of user in fully understanding and using the evidence
|
· Increase user-friendly journals (those with easy “readability”
· Support more training, both at pre-service and in-service levels.
· Mentoring
· Coaching
· Direct observation
· Feedback
|
3. Identified “expert” makes recommendation (expert may or may not have evidence)
|
· Ensure competence of the “expert” (must use evidence)
|
· Educate consumers to look at data during intervention planning.
· Selection process of “expert”
|
4. Insufficient training at pre- and in-service levels (ability to use evidence to make decisions)
|
· increase frequency of effective training opportunities
· increase quality of training (utilizing instruction, modeling, rehearsal, feedback)
· increase functionality of training exercise/types (to address outcomes practitioners eventually want to achieve
|
At both levels (pre- and in-service):
1) address cultural variables that impede change
- University contingencies
- contingencies on policy makers
2) increase use of ASR (active student responding)/interactivity
|