Examining the Relationship of Acceptability and Use of Intervention Components Before and After Training

Date of Award


Degree Type


Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)



First Advisor

Heather Sterling-Turner

Advisor Department



School psychologists are spending an increasing amount of time in consultative roles suggesting interventions for teachers to implement in their classrooms. It has been hypothesized that teachers' acceptability ratings of proposed interventions are related to the integrity with which they implement interventions. However, there are few empirical studies examining the relationship between treatment acceptability and treatment integrity in consultation, especially with regard to the acceptability of individual components of interventions. Research has suggested other variables influence acceptability and integrity, specifically education (Brook, van Hout, Nieuwenhuyse, & Heerdink, 2003; Rasnake, Martin, Tarnowski, & Mulick, 1993; Singh & Katz, 1985; Tingstrom, 1989) and direct training (Sawka, McCurdy, and Mannella, 2002; Sterling-Turner, Watson, and Moore, 2002). The current study examined the treatment acceptability and use of components of Effective Instruction Delivery (EID) and Time-in (TI) implemented before and after an inservice training in a Head Start setting. Acceptability ratings were collected before training, immediately after training, and after teachers had the opportunity to use the components in their classrooms. Direct observation measures of use were collected before and after teachers received training. The purpose of the present study was to analyze acceptability ratings (collected before training, immediately after training, and following use) and use scores (before training and after training) to determine if changes occurred over time. In addition, acceptability ratings for specific components and subsequent levels of use for those specific components were correlated to investigate the relationship between the two variables. Results of repeated measures ANOVAs indicated a significant increase in teachers' use of the proximity component and a significant decrease in teachers' use of the praise component. None of the computed Spearman's correlation coefficients were significant.