# data[].attributes.headline
What is something that your LEA does well in the area of Interventions & Supports that you would like to share?

# data[].attributes.subject
What is something that your LEA does well in the area of Interventions & Supports that you would like to share?

# data[].attributes.body
Please note your district/building in your response :)

# data[].attributes.headline
Selection & Implementation of Instruction, Intervention, Support (Pgs. 22-26)

# data[].attributes.subject
Selection & Implementation of Instruction, Intervention, Support (Pgs. 22-26)

# data[].attributes.body
Section of 3.1-3.5

# data[].attributes.headline
What information from today's session did you connect with that will help you consider equity more proactively when implementing instruction, interventions, and support?   

# data[].attributes.subject
What information from today's session did you connect with that will help you consider equity more proactively when implementing instruction, interventions, and support?   

# data[].attributes.headline
Please sign in with your name & district/building.

# data[].attributes.subject
Please sign in with your name & district/building.

# data[].attributes.headline
February 8, 2022!- Comprehensive Screening & Assessment System

# data[].attributes.subject
February 8, 2022!- Comprehensive Screening & Assessment System

# data[].attributes.body
A comprehensive assessment system contributes to an outcomes-driven approach that includes a meaningful monitoring and evaluation component which leads to a commitment of continuous improvement.

# data[].attributes.headline
BEFORE YOU GO: If you haven't already signed in, please do so in the 2nd Padlet Column from the left.

# data[].attributes.subject
BEFORE YOU GO: If you haven't already signed in, please do so in the 2nd Padlet Column from the left.

# data[].attributes.body
If you did not attend the third session or want to review what was discussed, please click the link below to the previous padlet.

https://padlet.com/StateSupportTeam8/w9ijilt5fhovuzrq

# data[].attributes.body
Be engaged!
Ask questions
Respectful of what others share
Mute on zoom unless speaking
Share out great ideas!
Will respectfully start/stop conversations as needed

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Michigan Department of Education MTSS Practice Profile 5.0July2020

# data[].attributes.body
Please familiarize yourself with this document. Pg 7 provides an overview of the framework. Please look at the third component (Selection & Implementation of Instruction, Interventions & Support) on p. 22-26 to see what is expected, developmental (emerging), and unexpected practice. This will be discussed in greater detail during the session on 1/11/22.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Michigan Department of Education MTSS Practice Profile 5.0July2020

# data[].attributes.body
Please familiarize yourself second component (Comprehensive Screening & Assessment) on p. 27-32 to see what is expected, developmental (emerging), and unacceptable practice. This will be discussed in greater detail during the session on Feb. 8.

# data[].attributes.body
During Session #3, staff from Hudson shared a Problem of Practice related to Tiered Delivery System. Discussion centered around
1) Provision of supports to students who are performing below the "expected" local norms and a belief that these students need intensive interventions outside the general ed. classroom setting.
2) Analyzing & addressing disproportionality
3) Hudson sharing data with stakeholders, building their Tier 1 supports and decision points, analysis of student data, and building differentiation as students become older.

# data[].attributes.body
Clarifying questions should have "brief, factual answers" and are intended to help the group develop a deeper understanding.

# data[].attributes.body
Group discusses the problem while the presenter listens & takes notes. Think about this from the perspective about this month's discussion around Selection and Implementation of Instruction, Interventions and Supports.

Possible questions to explore: What did we hear? What didn’t we hear that we think might be relevant? What questions does this issue raise for us?

# data[].attributes.body
Participants ask probing questions of the presenter. Probing questions help the presenter expand their thinking about the dilemma.

# data[].attributes.body
Presenter reflects on what they have heard and what they are now thinking. Share any points that resonated and potential next steps!

# data[].attributes.body
Share one “take away” from the discussion or something you will bring back to your own practice.

# data[].attributes.headline
Any burning questions that you have for the facilitators of the sessions? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Any burning questions that you have for the facilitators of the sessions? 

# data[].attributes.body
1. Check-in with Hudson City Schools based on Session #3 discussion of the Problem of Practice.
2. Discuss equity connections as related to Implementing Instruction/Interventions/Supports
3. Review Selection & Implementation of Instruction, Interventions, and Supports in MDE MTSS Practice Profile.
4. Reflect/connect by discussing successful strategies and one Problem of Practice (PoP).
5. Recap what we've learned, with an emphasis on how it contributes to the overall success of using an equity lens.

# data[].attributes.headline
Complete your LEA's ratings in the areas of Instruction, Interventions & Supports, noting strengths, opportunities, and next steps. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Complete your LEA's ratings in the areas of Instruction, Interventions & Supports, noting strengths, opportunities, and next steps. 

# data[].attributes.body
Use your LEA's individualized template (scroll down in this column). We estimate that this could be a 15-30 min conversation for your group.

As we learn about each of the 5 critical components of MTSS, we will add corresponding sections of the practice profile for you to reflect upon, as well as additional equity considerations and opportunities for your team to explore.

# data[].attributes.body
1.  Middle school is trying to implement some new processes and be able to persevere through in spite of all the COVID struggles right now.
2. Pass the class vs. what is the skill deficit the intervention should be addressing. Can this be addressed through OTES 2.0/HQSD as a conversation starter to support admins with these discussion to ultimately build the capacity of teachers?

# data[].attributes.body
Cuyahoga Falls will present an overview of a problem of practice they are encountering with regards to MTSS/equity and frame information for the group to consider:
· Our district does not currently have an initiative inventory that identifies instructional practices, interventions, and the support necessary. We are interested in determining clear options for instruction/interventions to be used to address needs at Tier I to ensure a minimum of 80% of our population is responsive. How can other districts recommend beginning this process, and what stakeholders are involved in participation?

# data[].attributes.body
1. Identify most critical needs first
2. Identify the necessary stakeholders and teachers being a part of it could really empower them.
3. Tier 1 needs built up, especially through an equity lens.
4. Sustainability
5. Selection & Deselection process built in

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MDE MTSS Practice Profile_Copley Fairlawn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MDE MTSS Practice Profile_Cuyahoga Falls

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MDE MTSS Practice Profile_Summit Academy Akron Elem

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MDE MTSS Practice Profile_Summit Academy Akron MS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MDE MTSS Practice Profile_Summit Academy Akron Secondary

# data[].attributes.body
created by Dr. Michelle Duda

# data[].attributes.body
Click the third tab 'Instruction, Intervention, Supports' and review column C in the MTSS Practice Profile Google Sheet to reveal recommended practices or considerations that help deepen the equity focus of your MTSS work.

Considerations informed by Kumashiro (2015).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MDE MTSS Practice Profile_Completed Sample

# data[].attributes.headline
Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity (Resources and Tools/Rubric)

# data[].attributes.subject
Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity (Resources and Tools/Rubric)

# data[].attributes.body
National Center on Intensive Intervention (NCII)
Purpose:
1. used to select or evaluate an intervention platform
2. to guide the adaptation of intensification of an intervention

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Malone, 2017) can be used to select or evaluate an intervention platform used as the validated intervention platform or the foundation of the DBI process. It can also be used to guide the adaptation of intensification of an intervention during the intervention adaptation step of the DBI process. The Taxonomy includes the following dimensions:

Strength: the evidence of effectiveness for students with intensive needs;

Dosage: the number of opportunities the student has to respond and receive feedback from the teacher;

Alignment: how well the intervention matches the targeted academic skills or behaviors of concern, as well as incorporates grade-appropriate standards or behaviors we would expect for a particular context;

Attention to transfer: whether the intervention is explicitly designed to help students make connections between the skills taught in the intervention and skills learned in other contexts and environments;

Comprehensiveness: how well the intervention incorporates a comprehensive array of explicit instruction principles; and

Behavioral or academic support: whether an academic intervention incorporates behavioral strategies that may support students with self-regulation, motivation, or externalizing behaviors that may impact their ability to learn, or whether a behavioral intervention considers academic components as part of the intervention.

The final dimension of the Taxonomy, individualization, focuses on the ongoing use of progress monitoring data and other diagnostic data sources to intensify and individualize the intervention based on student need. This approach mirrors the remaining steps of the DBI process that consist of data collection and modification in an iterative process until improvement is seen.
Tools and Resources to Learn About the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Malone A. S. (2017). The taxonomy of intervention intensity. Teaching Exceptional Children, 50(1), 35-43.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Intensify Intervention: Intensification Strategies | NCII

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tools and resources that provide an overview of the Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity and supports for selecting, evaluating, and intensifying interventions.

# data[].attributes.headline
Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity Handout: Academics and Behavior

# data[].attributes.subject
Taxonomy of Intervention Intensity Handout: Academics and Behavior

# data[].attributes.body
Guide to intensifying interventions:
1. Strength (effect size)
2. Dosage (# of opportunities)
3. Alignment (addresses target skill deficits)
4. Attention to transfer (transfer skills to other contexts)
5. Comprehensiveness (# of explicit instruction principles)
6.  Behavior support (incorporates self-regulation and EF)
7.  Individualization (able to systematically adjust over time)

# data[].attributes.body
Explicit instruction follows a sequence of steps:

Identify a clear, specific objective.

Break the information into chunks.

Model with clear explanations.

Verbalize the thinking process.

Provide opportunities to practice.

Give feedback.

Exploring the Foundations of Explicit Instruction article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are many reasons to use explicit instruction. Here are some of the most important.

1. Students get opportunities to practice. Explicit instruction helps students who need intensive intervention, including those with learning disabilities. In your school, you may call this support "Tier 3 intervention."

These students usually need to practice a skill 10 to 30 more times than their peers. Explicit instruction can give them those opportunities to practice. It also gives you a structure to make sure those learners are capable and successful as they practice.

2. It uses data collection and analysis. Each time students practice a skill, you have a chance to collect data. You can use that data to plan your next lesson, like re-teaching or moving on to the next progression of the skill. This data helps you meet the needs of each student.

3. It lightens the "cognitive load." Students who learn and think differently often have trouble with working memory. That makes it hard to make sense of a long series of directions.

Explicit instruction breaks up learning into smaller parts. This lightens the "cognitive load," or how much brain resources a student needs to process information. A lighter cognitive load frees up working memory. That's important because learning new skills requires a lot of working memory.

Read more about working memory and how attention is different from working memory.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are many reasons to use explicit instruction. Here are some of the most important. 1. Students get opportunities to practice. Explicit instruction helps students who need intensive intervention, including those with learning disabilities. In your school, you may call this support "Tier 3 intervention."

# data[].attributes.headline
Considerations for the Core Equity Concepts 

# data[].attributes.subject
Considerations for the Core Equity Concepts 

# data[].attributes.body
Use as equity lens during Problem of Practice
Reflection Question + Core Concept re: MTSS Component
(ie What do we know already about Access when selecting and implementing instruction, intervention, and supports?)

# data[].attributes.headline
Equity at Tiers & Culturally Responsive Practices

# data[].attributes.subject
Equity at Tiers & Culturally Responsive Practices

# data[].attributes.body
Stakeholders think and act strategically at all Tiers of support
Big takeaway: "...it is essential that tier one instruction is culturally responsive, universally designed, and rigorous. Tiered systems of support should also integrate ample opportunities to learn for all students. At tiers two and three, students’ responses should be carefully evaluated alongside considerations about the nature of the classroom instruction and the interventions themselves."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Kitty Chen, James Kigamwa, Erin Macey, Jada Phelps, Marsha Simon, Seena Skelton, and Kathleen King Thorius

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Using Multi-Tiered Systems of Support to Advance Educational Equity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This edition of the Equity Dispatch states that tiered systems of support create opportunities for all stakeholders to think and act strategically to ensure that all students are educated. To promote equity when using these types of systems, it is essential that tier one instruction is culturally re…

# data[].attributes.headline
The Hexagon Tool (Active Implementation Hub)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Hexagon Tool (Active Implementation Hub)

# data[].attributes.body
The Hexagon Tool can be used by communities and organizations to better understand how a new or existing program or practice fits into an implementing site’s existing work and context. The Hexagon Tool can be used at any stage of implementation to assess fit and feasibility. It is most commonly used during the Exploration stage when an implementing site is identifying and selecting new programs and practices to implement. https://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/resources/lesson-1-hexagon-tool

# data[].attributes.body
Using, generating, and sharing evidence about effective strategies to support students gives stakeholders an important tool to accelerate student learning. ESEA1 emphasizes the use of evidence-based activities, strategies, and interventions (collectively referred to as “interventions”). This guidance is designed to help SEAs, LEAs, schools, educators, partner organizations and other stakeholders successfully choose and implement interventions that improve outcomes for students. Part I of this guidance reviews steps for effective decision-making and Part II of this guidance recommends considerations, resources, and criteria for identifying “evidence-based” interventions based on each of ESSA’s four evidence levels in Section 8101(21)(A) of the ESEA.

# data[].attributes.headline
SISEP: Scale-up of Evidence-based Practices

# data[].attributes.subject
SISEP: Scale-up of Evidence-based Practices

# data[].attributes.body
To support implementation of instructional and leadership practices that lead to improved outcomes for students with disabilities
Effective implementation capacity is essential to improving education. The SISEP Center supports education systems in creating implementation capacity for evidence‐based practices benefiting students with disabilities.
Briefs
Whitepapers
Tools
Capacity Assessments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To support implementation of instructional and leadership practices that lead to improved outcomes for students with disabilities, the SISEP center will...

# data[].attributes.body
Each chapter calls attention to a common error, describing how to avoid the pitfalls that lead to false starts, how to determine when you're in one, and how to get back on the right track.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Keeping RTI on Track: How to Identify, Repair and Prevent Mistakes That Derail Implementation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
LRP Publications is a broad-based media company publishing business-to-business newsletters, magazines, books, software and on-line services.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article: A Theory of Organizational Readiness for Change

# data[].attributes.subject
Article: A Theory of Organizational Readiness for Change

# data[].attributes.body
The theory described in this article treats organizational readiness as a shared psychological state in which organizational members feel committed to implementing an organizational change and confident in their collective abilities to do so. The article indicates there is no 'one best way' to increase organizational readiness for change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is organizational readiness for change?

Organizational readiness for change is a multi-level construct. Readiness can be more or less present at the individual, group, unit, department, or organizational level. Readiness can be theorized, assessed, and studied at any of these levels of analysis. However, organizational readiness for change is not a homologous multi-level construct [ 19]. That is, the construct's meaning, measurement, and relationships with other variables differ across levels of analysis [ 17, 20]. Below, I focus on organizational readiness for change as a supra-individual state of affairs and theorize about its organizational determinants and organizational outcomes.

Organizational readiness for change is not only a multi-level construct, but a multi-faceted one. Specifically, organizational readiness refers to organizational members' change commitment and change efficacy to implement organizational change [ 17, 20]. This definition followed the ordinary language use of the term 'readiness,' which connotes a state of being both psychologically and behaviorally prepared to take action ( i.e., willing and able). Similar to Bandura's [ 21] notion of goal commitment, change commitment to change refers to organizational members' shared resolve to pursue the courses of action involved in change implementation. I emphasize shared resolve because implementing complex organizational changes involves collective action by many people, each of whom contributes something to the implementation effort. Because implementation is often a 'team sport,' problems arise when some feel committed to implementation but others do not. Herscovitch and Meyer [ 22] observe that organizational members can commit to implementing an organizational change because they want to (they value the change), because they have to (they have little choice), or because they ought to (they feel obliged). Commitment based on 'want to' motives reflects the highest level of commitment to implement organizational change.

Like Bandura's [ 21] notion of collective efficacy, change efficacy refers to organizational members' shared beliefs in their collective capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action involved in change implementation. Here again, I emphasize shared beliefs and collective capabilities because implementation entails collective (or conjoint) action among interdependent individuals and work units. Coordinating action across many individuals and groups and promoting organizational learning are good examples of collective (or conjoint) capabilities. As Bandura and others note, efficacy judgments refer to action capabilities; efficacy judgments are neither outcome expectancies [ 23- 25] nor assessments of knowledge, skills, or resources [ 23]. Change efficacy is higher when people share a sense of confidence that collectively they can implement a complex organizational change.

Several points about this conceptual definition of organizational readiness for change merit discussion. First, organizational readiness for change is conceived here in psychological terms. Others describe organizational readiness for change in more structural terms, emphasizing the organization's financial, material, human, and informational resources [ 26- 34].

In the theory presented here, organizational structures and resource endowments shape readiness perceptions. In other words, organizational members take into consideration the organization's structural assets and deficits in formulating their change efficacy judgments. Second, organizational readiness for change is situational; it is not a general state of affairs. Some organizational features do seem to create a more receptive context for innovation and change [ 35- 37]. However, receptive context does not translate directly into readiness. The content of change matters as much as the context of change. A healthcare organization could, for example, exhibit a culture that values risk-taking and experimentation a positive working environment ( e.g., good managerial-clinical relationships), and a history of successful change implementation. Yet, despite this receptive context, this organization could still exhibit a high readiness to implement electronic medical records, but a low readiness to implement an open-access scheduling system. Commitment is, in part, change specific; so too are efficacy judgments. It is possible that receptive context is a necessary but not sufficient condition for readiness. For example, good managerial-clinical relationships might be necessary for promoting any change even if it does not guarantee that clinicians will commit to implementing a specific change. The theory proposed here embraces this possibility by regarding receptive organizational context features as possible determinants of readiness rather than readiness itself. Third, the two facets of organizational readiness for change--change commitment and change efficacy--are conceptually interrelated and, I expect, empirically correlated. As Bandura [ 21] notes, low levels of confidence in one's capabilities to execute a course of action can impair one's motivation to engage in that course of action. Likewise, as Maddux [ 25] notes, fear and other negative motivational states can lead one to underestimate or downplay one's judgments of capability. These cognitive and motivational aspects of readiness are expected to covary, but not to covary perfectly. At one extreme, organizational members could be very confident that they could implement an organizational change successfully, yet show little or no motivation to do so. The opposite extreme is also possible, as are all points in between. Organizational readiness is likely to be highest when organizational members not only want to implement an organizational change and but also feel confident that they can do so.

What circumstances are likely to generate a shared sense of readiness? Consistent leadership messages and actions, information sharing through social interaction, and shared experience--including experience with past change efforts--could promote commonality in organizational members' readiness perceptions [ 19]. Broader organizational processes like attraction, selection, socialization, and attrition might also play a role [ 38- 40]. Conversely, organizational members are unlikely to hold common perceptions of readiness when leaders communicate inconsistent messages or act in inconsistent ways, when intra-organizational groups or units have limited opportunity to interact and share information, or when organizational members do not have a common basis of experience. Intra-organizational variability in readiness perceptions indicates lower organizational readiness for change and could signal problems in implementation efforts that demand coordinated action among interdependent actors.

What conditions promote organizational readiness for change?

If generating a shared sense of readiness sounds difficult, that is because it probably is. This might explain why many organizations fail to generate sufficient organizational readiness and, consequently, experience problems or outright failure when implementing complex organizational change. Although organizational readiness for change is difficult to generate, motivation theory and social cognitive theory suggest several conditions or circumstances that might promote it (see Figure 1).

Determinants and Outcomes of Organizational Readiness for Change. Included in separate document, per instructions to authors concerning figures.

Change valence

Drawing on motivation theory [ 41- 43], I propose that change commitment is largely a function of change valence. Simply put, do organizational members value the specific impending change? For example, do they think that it is needed, important, beneficial, or worthwhile? The more organizational members value the change, the more they will want to implement the change, or, put differently, the more resolve they will feel to engage in the courses of action involved in change implementation. Change valence is a parsimonious construct that brings some theoretical coherence to the numerous and disparate drivers of readiness that change management experts and scholars have discussed [ 11, 13, 22, 28, 44- 46]. Organizational members might value a planned organizational change because they believe some sort of change is urgently needed. They might value it because they believe the change is effective and will solve an important organizational problem. They might value it because they value the benefits that they anticipate the organizational change will produce for the organization, patients, employees, or them personally. They might value it because it resonates with their core values. They might value it because managers support it, opinion leaders support it, or peers support it. Given the many reasons why organizational members might value an organizational change, it seems unlikely that any of these specific reasons will exhibit consistent, cross-situational relationships with organizational readiness for change. In fact, it might not be necessary that all organizational members value an organizational change for the same reasons. Change valence resulting from disparate reasons might be just as potent a determinant of change commitment as change valence resulting from commonly shared reasons. For organizational readiness, the key question is: regardless of their individual reasons, do organizational members collectively value the change enough to commit to its implementation?

Change efficacy

Drawing on social cognitive theory, and specifically the work of Gist and Mitchell [ 47], I propose that change efficacy is a function of organizational members' cognitive appraisal of three determinants of implementation capability: task demands, resource availability, and situational factors. As Gist and Michell [[ 47]:184] observe, efficacy is a 'comprehensive summary or judgment of perceived capability to perform a task.' In formulating change-efficacy judgments, organizational members acquire, share, assimilate, and integrate information bearing on three questions: do we know what it will take to implement this change effectively; do we have the resources to implement this change effectively; and can we implement this change effectively given the situation we currently face? Implementation capability depends in part on knowing what courses of action are necessary, what kinds of resources are needed, how much time is needed, and how activities should be sequenced. In addition to gauging knowledge of task demands, organizational members also cognitively appraise the match between task demands and available resources. That is, they assess whether the organization has the human, financial, material, and informational resources necessary to implement the change well. Finally, they consider situational factors such as, for example, whether sufficient time exists to implement the change well or whether the internal political environment supports implementation. When organizational members share a common, favorable assessment of task demands, resource availability, and situational factors, they share a sense of confidence that collectively they can implement a complex organizational change. In other words, change efficacy is high.

Contextual factors

Change management experts and scholars have discussed other, broader contextual conditions that affect organizational readiness for change. For example, some contend that an organizational culture that embraces innovation, risk-taking, and learning supports organizational readiness for change [ 48- 51]. Others stress the importance of flexible organizational policies and procedures and positive organizational climate ( e.g., good working relationships) in promoting organizational readiness [ 52- 54]. Still others suggest that positive past experience with change can foster organizational readiness [ 2]. I contend that these broader, contextual conditions affect organizational readiness through the more proximal conditions described above. Organizational culture, for example, could amplify or dampen the change valence associated with a specific organizational change, depending on whether the change effort fits or conflicts with cultural values. Likewise, organizational policies and procedures could positively or negatively affect organizational members' appraisals of task demands, resource availability, and situational factors. Finally, past experience with change could positive or negatively affect organizational members' change valence ( e.g., whether they think the change really will deliver touted benefits) and change efficacy judgments ( e.g., whether they think the organization can effectively execute and coordinate change-related activities).

What outcomes result from organizational readiness for change?

Outcomes are perhaps the least theorized and least studied aspect of organizational readiness for change. Change experts assert that greater readiness leads to more successful change implementation. But how, or why, is this so? Social cognitive theory suggests that when organizational readiness for change is high, organizational members are more likely to initiate change ( e.g., institute new policies, procedures, or practices), exert greater effort in support of change, and exhibit greater persistence in the face of obstacles or setbacks during implementation [ 21, 47]. Motivation theory not only supports these hypotheses, but suggests another [ 22, 41- 43]. When organizational readiness is high, organizational members will exhibit more pro-social, change-related behavior--that is, actions supporting the change effort that exceed job requirements or role expectations. Research by Herscovitch and Meyer [ 22] supports this contention. They found that organizational members whose commitment to change was based on ( i.e., determined by) 'want to' motives rather than 'need to' motives or 'ought to' motives exhibited not only more cooperative behavior ( e.g., volunteering for problem-solving teams), but also championing behavior ( e.g., promoting the value of the change to others).

What is the end result of all this change-related effort? Drawing on implementation theory, the most proximal outcome is likely to be effective implementation. Following Klein and Sorra [ 55], implementation effectiveness refers to the consistency and quality of organizational members' initial or early use of a new idea, program, process, practice, or technology. To illustrate, when organizational readiness for change is high, community health centers providers and staff will more skillfully and persistently take action to put a diabetes registry in practice and demonstrate more consistent, high-quality use of the registry. By contrast, when organizational readiness for change is low or nonexistent, community health center providers and staff will resist initiating change, put less effort into implementation, persevere less in the face of implementation challenges, and exhibit compliant registry use, at best. In the absence of further intervention, registry use is likely to be intermittent, scattered, and uneven.

Organizational readiness for change does not guarantee that the implementation of a complex organizational change will succeed in terms of improving quality, safety, efficiency or some other anticipated outcome. Implementation effectiveness is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for achieving positive outcomes [ 55]. If the complex organizational change is poorly designed, or if it lacks efficacy, no amount of consistent, high-quality use will generate anticipated benefits. Moreover, it is important to recognize that organizational members can misjudge organizational readiness by, for example, overestimating (or even underestimating) their collective capabilities to implement the change. As Bandura [ 21, 23] notes, efficacy judgments based on rich, accurate information, preferably based on direct experience, are more predictive than those based on incomplete or erroneous information.

Some thoughts on testing this theory

Because this theory of organizational readiness for change is pitched at the organizational level of analysis, a test of the theory's predictions would require a multi-organization research design in which a set of organizations implements a common, or at least comparable, complex organizational change. A large healthcare system implementing Six Sigma or lean manufacturing on a system-wide basis would provide a useful opportunity to test the theory. So too would an association of community health centers agreeing to implement a common multi-component diabetes management program, or a group of affiliated specialty practices deciding to implement a common electronic medical record.

Could the theory be tested at the clinic, department, or divisional level? The idea of testing the theory at an intra-organizational level of analysis holds some appeal given sample size and statistical power considerations. If a reasonable case can be made that the clinics, departments, or divisions are distinct units of implementation ( e.g., they have some autonomy in change implementation), then the idea of testing the theory at an intra-organizational level of analysis seems defensible. However, careful consideration should be given to the question of whether the construct's meaning, measurement, and functional relations change by moving to the analysis down to intra-organizational level.

It is important to note that organizational readiness for change is conceptualized here as a 'shared team property'--that is, a psychological state that organizational members hold in common [ 19]. The extent to which this shared psychological state exists in any given situation is an empirical issue requiring the examination of within-group agreement statistics. If sufficient within-group agreement exists ( i.e., organizational members agree in their readiness perceptions), then analysis of organizational readiness as a shared team property can proceed. If insufficient within-group agreement exists ( i.e., organizational members disagree in their readiness perceptions), organizational readiness as a shared team property does not exist. Instead, the analyst must either focus on a lower level of analysis ( e.g., team readiness) or conceptualize organizational readiness as a configural property and theorize about the determinants and outcomes of intra-organizational variability in readiness perceptions [ 19].

Finally, as noted earlier, most publicly available instruments for measuring organizational readiness for change exhibit limited evidence of reliability and validity. As two recently published reviews indicate, most of the instruments employed in peer-reviewed research were not developed systematically using theory, nor were they subjected to extensive psychometric testing [ 17, 18]. There are a few instruments have undergone thorough psychometric assessment. However, none of these instruments is suitable for measuring organizational readiness for change as defined above, either because they focus on individual readiness rather than organizational readiness, or because they treat readiness as a general state of affairs rather than something change-specific, or because they include items that the theory presented above considers determinants of readiness rather than readiness itself ( e.g., items pertaining to change valence). Although it is beyond the scope of this article to discuss measurement issues in detail, an instrument that would best fit the construct of readiness as described above would have the following characteristics:

1. 1.
Some means of focusing respondents' attention on a specific impending organizational change, perhaps by including a brief description of the change in the survey instrument and by mentioning the change by name in the instructions for specific item sets.

2. 2.
Group-referenced rather than self-referenced items ( e.g., items focusing on collective commitment and capabilities rather than personal commitment and capabilities).

3. 3.
Items that only capture change commitment or change efficacy, not related constructs, like the antecedent conditions discussed above (Nunnally [ 56] refers to such items as direct measures).

4. 4.
Efficacy items that are tailored to the specific organizational change, yet not so tailored that that the instrument could be used in other circumstances without substantial modification.

Satisfying this last point would be challenging, but it does not seem impossible. Health behavior scientists have successfully developed self-efficacy instruments for smoking, physical activity, and other health behaviors that are reliable and valid within their domain of application [ 57- 63]. Although item content is tailored, the instruments are based on theory and have enough features in common that scholars can accumulate scientific knowledge across health problems. With respect to organizational readiness for change, it might be possible to identify a set of frequently occurring courses of action that must be skillfully organized and executed to achieve effective implementation of complex organizational changes. Possible candidates include: developing an effective strategy or plan for implementing the change; getting people involved and invested in implementing the change; coordinating tasks so that implementation goes smoothly; anticipating or preventing problems that might arise during implementation; and managing the politics of implementing the change. A pool of items could perhaps be developed that researchers could use in order to construct organizational readiness for change instruments that fit specific change contexts, yet share at least some content with other tailored instruments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A theory of organizational readiness for change - Implementation Science

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Background Change management experts have emphasized the importance of establishing organizational readiness for change and recommended various strategies for creating it. Although the advice seems reasonable, the scientific basis for it is limited. Unlike individual readiness for change, organizational readiness for change has not been subject to extensive theoretical development or empirical study.

# data[].attributes.body
The Hexagon Tool can be used by communities and organizations to better understand how a new or existing program or practice fits into an implementing site’s existing work and context. The Hexagon Tool can be used at any stage of implementation to assess fit and feasibility. It is most commonly used during the Exploration stage when an implementing site is identifying and selecting new programs and practices to implement.

# data[].attributes.headline
State Implementation and Scaling-Up of Evidence-Based Practices (SISEP) Center

# data[].attributes.subject
State Implementation and Scaling-Up of Evidence-Based Practices (SISEP) Center

# data[].attributes.body
The SISEP Center supports education systems in creating implementation capacity for evidence‐based practices benefiting students with disabilities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
State Implementation and Scaling-Up of Evidence-Based Practices (SISEP) Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The National Implementation Research Network is a network of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. All NIRN materials are disseminated through the NIRN UNC website with appropriate attribution and copyright notices. NIRN materials retrieved from other websites may have incorrect attribution or copyright notices.

# data[].attributes.body
School Psychologist
The Edge Academy/Akros Middle School

# data[].attributes.body
We needed to create a NEW zoom meeting link for our MTSS for Equity session this morning that begins at 9:00am, we apologize for any inconvenience!

Please use this link below today for our session:

Join Zoom Meeting

https://zoom.us/j/98247306998?pwd=YTlhZ3BVcGJ4UXoxaDNPYmk1MGpZZz09

Meeting ID: 982 4730 6998

Passcode: MTSS

One tap mobile

+13126266799,,98247306998#,,,,*498963# US (Chicago)

+19292056099,,98247306998#,,,,*498963# US (New York)

Dial by your location

+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)

+1 929 205 6099 US (New York)

+1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)

+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)

+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)

+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)

Meeting ID: 982 4730 6998

Passcode: 498963

Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/acSSWdGS3Z

# data[].attributes.body
Cuyahoga Falls City Schools

# data[].attributes.body
Cuyahoga Falls CSD

# data[].attributes.body
Oakmont Education - Towpath East/Old Brook Parma

# data[].attributes.body
Copley-Fairlawn

# data[].attributes.body
Hudson City Schools

# data[].attributes.body
Cuyahoga Falls City Schools

# data[].attributes.body
Cuyahoga Falls

# data[].attributes.body
Cuyahoga Falls City Schools

# data[].attributes.headline
Christina Fraser and Megan Caranna-Towpath Trail High School.

# data[].attributes.subject
Christina Fraser and Megan Caranna-Towpath Trail High School.

# data[].attributes.body
Oakmont Education

# data[].attributes.body
Hudson City Schools

# data[].attributes.body
Summit Academy Akron Elementary

# data[].attributes.body
Hudson City Schools

# data[].attributes.body
Twinsburg City Schools

# data[].attributes.body
CF

# data[].attributes.body
Summit Academy Secondary - Akrong

# data[].attributes.body
Summit Academy Akron Elementary

# data[].attributes.body
Cuyahoga Falls City Schools

# data[].attributes.body
Hudson City Schools

# data[].attributes.body
Hudson City Schools

# data[].attributes.headline
What were some of the positives ten years ago with the previous binder form of the initiative inventory?

# data[].attributes.subject
What were some of the positives ten years ago with the previous binder form of the initiative inventory?

# data[].attributes.body
1. Encompassed everything in one spot
2. Teachers had easy access and there was ongoing reference to it when deciding on interventions

# data[].attributes.headline
When you speak of an initiative inventory, are you referring to a particular structured program that addresses interventions? Is that what the district is considering? 

# data[].attributes.subject
When you speak of an initiative inventory, are you referring to a particular structured program that addresses interventions? Is that what the district is considering? 

# data[].attributes.body
District is looking for a systemically used inventory that addresses interventions as part of it.

# data[].attributes.headline
Was the previous binder reviewed consistently to add new information and who developed it?

# data[].attributes.subject
Was the previous binder reviewed consistently to add new information and who developed it?

# data[].attributes.body
1. Unsure who developed it 10 yrs ago.
2. Black rubbermaid containers contained interventions for staff to use as resources.

# data[].attributes.body
If you are interested in determining clear options for instruction/interventions, why not start with your teachers? What is giving them results in their classrooms that could be possibly used throughout the district? We started with our teachers and we found the most success with implementing strategies we use now.

# data[].attributes.body
Utilizing teacher leaders to increase buy-in and creditibility for the process.

# data[].attributes.body
What are the most critical areas of intervention need? Target specific domains first to address and narrow the focus and then build up with your staff to create the inventory.

# data[].attributes.body
Are intervention specialists being used as a resource for intervention strategies?

# data[].attributes.headline
IES Practice Guides (including intervention)

# data[].attributes.subject
IES Practice Guides (including intervention)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A practice guide is a publication that presents recommendations for educators to address challenges in their classrooms and schools. They are based on reviews of research, the experiences of practitioners, and the expert opinions of a panel of nationally recognized experts.

To search by Topic or Keyword, use the Practice Guide Search.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A practice guide is a publication that presents recommendations for educators to address challenges in their classrooms and schools. They are based on reviews of research, the experiences of practitioners, and the expert opinions of a panel of nationally recognized experts. To search by Topic or Keyword, use the Practice Guide Search.

# data[].attributes.body
Ensuring that when using intervention specialists as resources for strategies, that there is planning time and availability for these discussions.

# data[].attributes.body
Using related service providers to help with intervention ideas (OT/SLP for fine motor and communication concerns).

# data[].attributes.body
Having relevant staff as part of the team

# data[].attributes.body
Implementation Science Resources

# data[].attributes.body
Twinsburg City Schools

# data[].attributes.body
Consdiering Tier One strategies/interventions from the classroom is a key first step to moving forward in an initative inventory.

# data[].attributes.body
A profound question always is; "who is at the table"

# data[].attributes.body
We like the Taxonomy and would like to add it to our resources

# data[].attributes.body
Really like the Taxonomy of Intervention will be added to our RTI resource guide!

# data[].attributes.body
The Taxonomy and Hexagon Tools

# data[].attributes.body
The resources shared in Equity Connections are very helpful. A little overwhelming to process, but I look forward to diving deeper into it and sharing them with our District MTSS Committee.

# data[].attributes.body
Do you have any districts that provide good time for coplanning? If so, I would love to see schedules.

# data[].attributes.body
Wondering if this work has to identify equity as a primary goal or if the mtss work itself promotes equity as an oucome...