Emerging Trends in The Social and Behavioral Sciences

Enabling Improvements: Combining Intervention and Implementation Research

Item

Title

Enabling Improvements: Combining Intervention and Implementation Research

Author

Schober, Barbara

Spiel, Christiane

Research Area

Special Areas of Interdisciplinary Study

Topic

Applications of Social Science Knowledge to Policy

Abstract

Transferring evidence‐based intervention programs effectively into practice and into the wider field of public policy often fails, even if the logic of evidence‐based approaches has become highly important in recent years. As a consequence, the field of implementation research has emerged, implementation frameworks have been developed, and implementation studies have been conducted. However, even if intervention research and implementation research have both achieved mentionable progress in the past, they are rather unrelated, and different traditions and research groups are involved. This might be one of the key reasons why there are still many problems in transferring evidence‐based programs into widespread community. In order to enable improvement in this field, in this essay, we argue for a systematic integration of intervention and implementation research as a promising emerging approach. Therefore, we recommend a six‐step procedure requiring researchers to design and develop intervention programs using a field‐oriented and participative approach from the beginning on. In particular, the perspective of policymakers has to be included as well as the wider context of values, rewarding systems, and basic attitudes in science.

Related Essays

The Role of Data in Research and Policy (Sociology), Barbara A. Anderson

Can Public Policy Influence Private Innovation? (Economics), James Bessen

To Flop Is Human: Inventing Better Scientific Approaches to Anticipating Failure (Methods), Robert Boruch and Alan Ruby

Meta‐Analysis (Methods), Larry V. Hedges and Martyna Citkowicz

Misinformation and How to Correct It (Psychology), John Cook et al.

Youth Entrepreneurship (Psychology), William Damon et al.

Expertise (Sociology), Gil Eyal

Controlling the Influence of Stereotypes on One's Thoughts (Psychology), Patrick S. Forscher and Patricia G. Devine

Setting One's Mind on Action: Planning Out Goal Striving in Advance (Psychology), Peter M. Gollwitzer

The Evidence‐Based Practice Movement (Sociology), Edward W. Gondolf

How Brief Social‐Psychological Interventions Can Cause Enduring Effects (Sociology), Dushiyanthini (Toni) Kenthirarajah and Gregory M. Walton

Quasi‐Experiments (Methods), Charles S. Reichardt

Causation, Theory, and Policy in the Social Sciences (Sociology), Mark C. Stafford and Daniel P. Mears

The Social Science of Sustainability (Political Science), Johannes Urpelainen

Translational Sociology (Sociology), Elaine Wethington

Person‐Centered Analysis (Methods), Alexander von Eye and Wolfgang Wiedermann

Identifier

etrds0412

extracted text

Enabling Improvements: Combining
Intervention and Implementation
Research
BARBARA SCHOBER and CHRISTIANE SPIEL

Abstract
Transferring evidence-based intervention programs effectively into practice and
into the wider field of public policy often fails, even if the logic of evidence-based
approaches has become highly important in recent years. As a consequence, the field
of implementation research has emerged, implementation frameworks have been
developed, and implementation studies have been conducted. However, even if
intervention research and implementation research have both achieved mentionable
progress in the past, they are rather unrelated, and different traditions and research
groups are involved. This might be one of the key reasons why there are still many
problems in transferring evidence-based programs into widespread community. In
order to enable improvement in this field, in this essay, we argue for a systematic
integration of intervention and implementation research as a promising emerging
approach. Therefore, we recommend a six-step procedure requiring researchers to
design and develop intervention programs using a field-oriented and participative
approach from the beginning on. In particular, the perspective of policymakers has
to be included as well as the wider context of values, rewarding systems, and basic
attitudes in science.

INTRODUCTION
With regard to an enormous amount of unsolved problems and demands of
the practice—not least in social contexts—a transfer of existing knowledge
and evidence from science into practice is a prominent issue. Typical
areas providing know-how that could rather directly contribute to an
optimization of the practice are, for example, the educational context and
the field of health. However, transferring scientific evidence and respective
intervention programs sustainably into practice and into the wider field of
public policy seems difficult and often does not work. As a consequence, a
new field of research has emerged: implementation science. Within this field
of research, implementation frameworks have been developed (Meyers,
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Robert Scott and Marlis Buchmann (General Editors) with Stephen Kosslyn (Consulting Editor).
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Durlak, & Wandersmann, 2012) and numerous implementation studies
have been conducted, showing for example that an active, accompanied,
long-term, and multilevel implementation approach is much more effective
than traditional forms of dissemination (Ogden & Fixsen, 2014). However,
there are still many challenges in the field of transferring evidence-based
programs into widespread community practice.
There are various reasons for these problems that could and should be
taken into account, but one very important structural constraint seems
to be rather obvious: So far, intervention research and implementation
research are not systematically connected and many different traditions and
research groups are involved. Implementation research is often mandated
and financed by parties that do not belong to the scientific community and
therefore remains rather isolated. Sometimes, it is even considered to be less
scientifically valuable than research that develops new interventions (Fixsen,
Blase, & van Dyke, 2011). This lack of anchoring of this new discipline might
be one of the key reasons why the efforts of implementation science are
not sufficiently effective so far. On the basis of this assumption, we argue
for a systematic integration of intervention and implementation research.
To realize this, we propose a six-step procedure that requires researchers to
design and develop intervention programs based on a field-oriented and
participative approach from the very beginning on. This means that the successful transfer of evidence into practice—and especially of evidence-based
intervention programs into public policy—should become more likely, if we
leave the perspective of transferring a program to practitioners just at the
end of the research process. We propose to systematically consider the needs
of the field within the whole conceptualization of an intervention as well
as during its evaluation and implementation. In this essay, we present the
baselines of such an approach and discuss its demands as a promising trend
in science (see also Spiel, Schober, & Strohmeier, 2016).
PROGRESS AND LIMITATIONS OF EVIDENCE-BASED
INTERVENTIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION RESEARCH IN THE PAST
DECADES
In the past decades, the evidence-based movement has significantly gained
impact. Especially, in Anglo-American contexts, a lot of effort was put into
making better use of research-based programs in human service areas such as
medicine, child welfare, and health (Fixsen, Blase, Naoom, & Wallace, 2009;
Spiel, 2009). A reason for this trend toward evidence-based measures might
be the massive increase in social challenges that results in the need for proven
measures to cope with them. In turn, this lack of evidence-based measures in

Enabling Improvements: Combining Intervention and Implementation Research

3

this field points out the necessity of transferring relevant existing scientific
knowledge and evidence into practice.
One part of the growing evidence-based movement so far was to ensure
good standards of evidence, which is obviously an important prerequisite for
bringing prevention or intervention programs in the field. For example, the
Society for Prevention Research has provided standards to assist practitioners, policymakers, and administrators in determining which interventions
are efficacious, which are effective, and which are ready for dissemination
(for details, see Flay et al., 2005). The common ground of these standards is
the fact that evidence-based programs are defined by the research methodology used to evaluate them, and the definition of randomized trials as the
gold standard for evidence-based measures (Fixsen et al., 2009).
However, standards alone cannot ensure a transfer of evidence into practice; they are just one aspect of a complex process. Therefore, by focusing
on developing and differentiating criteria, the evidence-based practice
movement so far has not provided the intended benefits—at least not to
its presumably possible extent. Implementation and transfer of scientific
knowledge into practice and in the wider range of public policy has often
even failed (Fixsen et al., 2009). One important factor was that although
program evaluation became a more and more obligatory part in a many
initiatives, it was often lacking a specific and explicit study and enhancement
of the implementation processes. This was acknowledged as fundamental
deficit, based on the insight that an active, long-term, multilevel implementation approach is far more effective than passive forms of dissemination
(Ogden & Fixsen, 2014).
As a consequence, the field of implementation research has emerged (Rossi
& Wright, 1984). Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, and Wallace (2005, p. 5)
defined implementation as the “specific set of activities designed to put into
practice an activity or program of known dimensions.” Consequently, implementation science has been defined as “the scientific study of methods to
promote the systemic uptake of research findings and evidence-based practices into professional practice and public policy” (Forman et al., 2013, p. 80).
Implementation science has grown impressively within the last years, several theoretical models and frameworks have been published and numerous
studies have been conducted. However, despite all these efforts within the
field of implementation science, there is an understanding among researchers
that the empirical support for evidence-based implementation is insufficient
so far (Ogden & Fixsen, 2014). Although there is a large body of empirical
evidence concerning the importance of implementation and growing knowledge of the contextual factors that can influence implementation, knowledge
of how to systematically increase the likelihood of high-quality implementation is still unsatisfactory (for a review, see e.g., Meyers et al., 2012).

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

What are the reasons for this lack of success for this very promising
approach? On the one hand, implementation science is a very young field of
research. It exists since only some decades with a rather new focus on complex questions of interventions and evaluations and beyond. However, even
if things just need more time to come to action and to bring visible effects,
one impeding and very basic structural deficit or obstacle can be identified:
intervention research and implementation research are rather separated
and joint activities are rare (see e.g., Forman et al., 2013). Scientific intervention research and the connected activities often refer to the theory-driven
development and provision of a prevention or intervention program for
clients. Mostly voluntarily, highly motivated people or institutions (e.g.,
schools) realize the program within a clearly defined period of time. Such
programs are often evaluated within a standard evaluation design (e.g., the
comparison of different measurement groups, pre-post-follow-up designs,
focusing on different levels of effect). The evaluation focuses on questions
such as the following: Does the program work within optimal conditions?
Why does it work? Do the effects persist in the long run? Often, the work of
the respective research projects is considered to be done after investigating
these questions.
On the other hand, implementation research activity often starts just
then and works with already existing programs. It refers to actions taken
within the organizational setting to ensure that the intervention delivered to
clients is complete and appropriate—as only then the assumed effects can be
assured. Therefore, the focus is on the specific conditions of the field, in which
a measure is conducted and on the needs and competences of all stakeholders involved. Typical issues can be as follows: How to ensure the readiness
of an organization for the implementation of a program, for example, in
the sense of (sufficient) staff capacity? How is it possible to provide the
staff with the required competences effectively? Why do proven programs
sometimes exhibit unintended effects when realized in a specific setting?
Often, different research groups with different research traditions are
involved in these two tasks. Beyond, different funding structures and a
different status in science can be identified: intervention researchers are often
specialists in certain fields of health or education, funding their research
within classic scientific structures. Presently, implementation researchers
are mostly given mandates by politicians to take on the implementation
of already existing interventions. Furthermore, implementation research is
very difficult realize within the constraints of university research environments (e.g., owing to time or financial constraints) and is sometimes even
considered to be less scientifically valuable (Fixsen et al., 2011).
This presently prevailing separation of intervention and implementation
research leads to gaps within a coherent improvement process and might

Enabling Improvements: Combining Intervention and Implementation Research

5

be the reason for diverse barriers for a successful transfer of scientific
knowledge to practice. Consequently, we suggest a systematic integration
of the two approaches. Researchers should systematically design and
develop intervention programs using a fundamentally field-oriented and
participative approach [according to the concept of use-inspired basic
research by Stokes (1997)]. This means that the specific needs of the field
and the involved stakeholders should not only be considered in the process
of implementation, transfer or scaling up, but also as part of the whole conceptualization and evaluation of an intervention (Spiel, Schober, Strohmeier,
& Finsterwald, 2011). Consequently, an intervention, its evaluation, and
implementation should be developed in an integrative way. In order to
realize this and to avoid as much presumable risks as possible, the perspective of stakeholders on all relevant levels should be included. Especially,
in fields such as education or health, the perspective of policymakers has
to be integrated explicitly and analyses of supporting or hindering factors
of evidence-based policy need to be included (Davies, 2012; Spiel et al.,
2011). Unquestionably, several researchers would argue that they already
work with these ideas in mind, but a systematic approach is missing so far.
On the basis of this diagnosis, we propose an approach for the systematic
integration of intervention and implementation research in the following
section.
A FRAMEWORK FOR AN INTEGRATION OF INTERVENTION
AND IMPLEMENTATION RESEARCH—SOME CORNERSTONES OF A
NEW APPROACH
Combining theoretical and empirical knowledge from prior research (Glasgow, Vogt, & Boles, 1999; Greenhalgh, Robert, MacFarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou, 2004) with the arguments and desiderates described earlier, we consider
at least six deliberate parameters as constitutive components of an integrative
framework of intervention and implementation research (Figure 1). These
parameters can be considered as steps, as they mostly will occur in succession and at least partly build upon each other, even if some of them can and
might be performed simultaneously. The six steps, respectively, parameters
together must be considered as parts of a dynamic process with many subprocesses, feedback loops, and interdependencies (Spiel et al., 2016).
1. Identifying Desiderates for Research with a Focus on Social Responsibility.
In the case of an integrative approach to intervention/prevention and
implementation research, the basic step is to consciously pay attention
to relevant research topics in this context. Consequently, within this
approach, researchers working on topics relevant for interventions and

Figure 1 Constitutive components of an integrative framework of intervention and implementation research.

Identifying desiderates for research with a focus on social responsibility

Ensuring enough valid knowledge on how to handle the problem

Identifying promising starting points for actions

Cooperating with all stakeholders
in a stable and sustainable manner

Developing measures and
their implementation together

Scaling
up the
program implementation

6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Enabling Improvements: Combining Intervention and Implementation Research

7

for changes in practice should not primarily focus on research desiderates and problems arising from basic research but also on (especially
social) problems in society. This needs the basic attitude of being a
mission-driven researcher, in addition to following a curiosity-driven
approach that is widespread and highly respected in the scientific
community. Therefore, we have to deliberately extend our focus in the
process of identification of valuable research topics and combine quests
for fundamental understanding with a consideration of practical use
(Stokes, 1997). In other words, if scientists intend to contribute to this
field of research, the first step requires sociopolitical responsibility as a
basic mind-set.
2. Ensuring Enough Valid Knowledge on How to Handle the Problem. A second
decisive prerequisite for any kind of transfer is the availability of robust
and sound scientific knowledge (Spiel, Lösel, & Wittmann, 2009).
Reliable research of high scientific quality is needed—with regard
to theory and evidence. Effective interventions and evidence-based
actions in general must be based on enough reliable insights into, for
example, causal mechanisms and connections. This by no means is an
easy demand, especially if we have a look at fields such as education
or health. Just a quick glance on topics such as, for example, students’
motivation in school and how to enhance it leads to a wide body
of literature with some central and undoubted insights, but also to
still many open questions. Consequently, researchers working at the
interface between intervention and implementation have to be experts
in their fields with excellent knowledge of theory, methods, empirical
findings, and limitations.
3. Identifying Promising Starting Points for Actions. The identification of a
desiderate or problem and the availability of relevant insights for initiating changes are still not enough if one does not succeed in identifying concrete and promising starting points for interventions and their
implementation with regard to the prevailing conditions and system
characteristics. This must be emphasized, as a wide body of research
has made clear that many intervention programs and measures do not
work in any case and not at all times (Meyers et al., 2012). Here again,
a necessary condition is high expertise in the relevant scientific field.
However, this must be combined with a differentiated view on prevailing cultural and political conditions. Therefore, researchers who want to
successfully integrate intervention and implementation research need
knowledge and experience in the relevant practical field and its contextual conditions—including knowledge about potential problems and
limitations.

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

4. Cooperating with all Stakeholders in a Stable and Sustainable Manner.
In order to conduct integrative intervention and implementation
research, stable alliances with all stakeholders and especially with
the relevant policymakers are necessary. However, such connections
and working structures are traditionally not established between
science, practice, and politics. Research mostly follows its own, very
intrinsic logic, which often clearly differs from necessities of the practice
and from political thinking. Therefore, a very deliberate process of
establishing cooperation and building alliances is necessary. Among
other things, this includes more awareness of policymakers’ scope of
action. Researchers in this field have to consider that there are decisive
influences on government and policy, beyond evidence. These include
values, beliefs, and ideology, which are the driving forces of many
political processes. Researchers have to keep in mind that policymaking
is highly embedded in a bureaucratic culture and is forced to respond
quickly to everyday contingencies and to often very limited resources
(Davies, 2012). Consequently, researchers have to find ways to integrate
the relevance of evidence within the context of all these influencing
factors. However, this step surely sometimes is burdensome and an
unfamiliar demand for many researchers. However, it is a crucial one
and again addresses a certain basic attitude of researchers: it requires
that researchers make their voice heard.
5. Developing Measures and Their Implementation Together. On the basis of
the four above-described steps, which in fact build the prerequisites
for this fifth one, a coordinated development and implementation of
evidence-based measures can be performed in a theory-driven, ecological, collaborative, and participatory way. This means that researchers,
who want to realize an integrative intervention and implementation
research, have to include the perspectives of all relevant stakeholders
(practitioners, policymakers, government officials, public servants,
and communities) in this development process, communicate in the
language of these diverse stakeholders and meet them as equals.
Therefore, researchers again have to consider parameters for their
research work that differs from many traditional approaches: working
together right from the beginning is not common in many fields and
also requires new conceptions of, for example, research planning
(regarding things such as the duration of project phases; see Meyers
et al., 2012). Here, one big challenge surely is to find a balance between
considering manifold needs and realize a wide participation but also
maintain scientific criteria and standards of evidence. Consequently,
researchers must have theoretical knowledge and practical experience
in their very specific field of expertise, but the required profile for a

Enabling Improvements: Combining Intervention and Implementation Research

9

successful “integrative intervention and implementation researcher”
obviously is much wider.
6. Scaling up the Program Implementation. The final scaling up step is a
classic topic of implementation research as we know it so far. Several
fruitful models and guidelines have been proposed here, such as
Meyers et al. (2012) made evident in their review consisting of 25
frameworks. They found 14 central dimensions within these frameworks and grouped them into thematic areas: (i) assessment strategies,
(ii) decisions about adaptation, (iii) capacity-building strategies, (iv)
creating a structure for implementation, (v) ongoing implementation
support strategies, and (vi) improving future applications. According to
their synthesis, the implementation process consists of a temporal series
of these interrelated steps, which are critical to quality implementation
(see also Spiel et al., 2016).
However, different to prior concepts, in our integrative approach, the necessities and stakeholders for a scaling up are claimed to be taken into account
from beginning on.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES FOR COMBINING
INTERVENTION AND IMPLEMENTATION RESEARCH
In this essay, we propose the systematic integration of intervention and
implementation research as a promising and necessary trend for future
research. From our perspective, such an integration has the potential to
enable large-scale improvements as it supports the direct transfer of scientific knowledge to practice. However, why is this a new approach, as on
the surface, the steps seem self-evident? Furthermore, what are the special
demands for enabling future improvement based on such an approach?
Regarding the first question, one must say that obviously, most, if not
all components (both within and across the six steps), are already known
and have been considered in intervention and implementation research.
However, the new and demanding challenge is our postulation of bringing
them together in an integrative and coordinated way, in order to achieve
success. The abovedescribed approach represents a very basic but also a
very systematic research concept, which is more than purely the sum of its
steps—ignoring one aspect changes the whole dynamic. In addition, the
sound, consistent integration of intervention and implementation research
as described earlier also requires a (re)differentiation of our scientific identity
and the creation of a new, wider job description for researchers in this field.
The conceptual necessity of a basic integration directly leads to the second
question about the future demands. As it became evident above, combining

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

intervention and implementation research is very demanding. Therefore,
the appropriate acknowledgement in the scientific community is essential.
Science must change its very established “provision logic” and consequently,
individual researchers cannot be the only ones engaging in this kind of
research. Universities also have to include it in their mission. We therefore
strongly recommend a discussion of success criteria in academia (Fixsen
et al., 2011). The social responsibilities of academics and universities, respectively, have to be considered more deeply. The current gratification system
in science is more oriented to basic than to applied research. Mission-driven
research picking up problems in society presently is less financed and
noticed. Consequently, the number of researchers engaged in this field is
limited—even if in the last years some advances became obvious.
All in all, some systematic changes in concepts, attitudes, and valuing structures must be considered, and the stakeholders within the action triangle
of science, practice, and policy must come to a culture of appreciation and
professionalized communication. The positive starting point is that a lot of
knowledge already exists. However, the success of effective intervention and
implementation research in the following years will depend on how we succeed in bringing a joined engagement to take social responsibility for outcomes beyond pure scientific indices or short-term political success to action.
REFERENCES
Davies, P. (2012). The state of evidence-based policy evaluation and its role in
policy formation. National Institute Economic Review, 219(1), 41–52. doi:10.1177/
002795011221900105.
Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., Naoom, S. F., & Wallace, F. (2009). Core implementation components. Research on Social Work Practice, 19(5), 531–531.
doi:10.1177/1049731509335549.
Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K., & Van Dyke, M. (2011). Mobilizing communities for implementing evidence-based youth violence prevention programming: A Commentary. American Journal of Community Psychology (Special Issue), 48(1–2), 133–137.
doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9410-1.
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005).
Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of
South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, National
Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication No. 231). Retrieved from
http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/resources/implementation-research-synthesis-literature.
Flay, B. R., Biglan, A., Boruch, R. F., Castro, F. G., Gottfredson, D., Kellam, S., … Ji,
P. (2005). Standards of evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination. Prevention Science, 6(3), 151–175. doi:10.1007/s11121-005-5553.
Forman, S. G., Shapiro, E. S., Codding, R. S., Gonzales, J. E., Reddy, L. A., Rosenfield,
S. A., … Stoiber, K. C. (2013). Implementation Science and School Psychology.
School Psychology Quarterly, 28(2), 77–100. doi:10.1037/spq0000019.

Enabling Improvements: Combining Intervention and Implementation Research

11

Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999). Evaluating the public health impact
of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. American Journal of
Public Health, 89(9), 1322–1327. doi:10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322.
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion
of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations.
The Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581–629. doi:10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x.
Meyers, D. C., Durlak, J. A., & Wandersmann, A. (2012). The quality implementation
framework: A synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 50(3–4), 462–480. doi:10.1007/s10464-012-9522-x.
Ogden, T., & Fixsen, D. L. (2014). Implementation science: A brief overview
and a look ahead. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 222(1), 4–11. doi:10.1027/21512604/a000160.
Rossi, P. H., & Wright, J. D. (1984). Evaluation research: An assessment.
Annual Review of Sociology, 10, 331–352. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/
stable/2083179?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.
Spiel, C. (2009). Evidence-based practice: A challenge for European developmental psychology. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6(1), 11–33.
doi:10.1080/17405620802485888.
Spiel, C., Lösel, F., & Wittmann, W. W. (2009). Transfer psychologischer Erkenntnisse – eine notwendige, jedoch schwierige Aufgabe [Transfer psychological findings – a necessary but difficult task]. Psychologische Rundschau, 60(4), 257–258.
doi:10.1026/0033-3042.60.4.257.
Spiel, C., Schober, B., Strohmeier, D., & Finsterwald, M. (2011). Cooperation among
researchers, policy makers, administrators, and practitioners: Challenges and recommendations. ISSBD Bulletin, 2(60), 11–14.
Spiel, C., Schober, B., & Strohmeier, D. (2016). Implementing intervention
research into public policy – the “I3 -approach”. Prevention Science, 1–10.
doi:10.1007/s11121-016-0638-3.
Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant. Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

FURTHER READING
Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K., Metz, A., & Van Dyke, M. (2013). Statewide implementation
of evidence-based programs. Exceptional Children (Special Issue), 79(2), 213–230.
doi:10.1177/001440291307900206.
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005).
Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of
South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, National
Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication No. 231). Retrieved from
http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/resources/implementation-research-synthesis-literature
Meyers, D. C., Durlak, J. A., & Wandersmann, A. (2012). The Quality Implementation
Framework: A Synthesis of Critical Steps in the Implementation Process. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 50(3–4), 462–480. doi:10.1007/s10464-012-9522-x.

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Spiel, C., Schober, B., Strohmeier, D., & Finsterwald, M. (2011). Cooperation among
Researchers, Policy Makers, Administrators, and Practitioners: Challenges and
Recommendations. ISSBD Bulletin 2011, 2(60), 11–14.
Spiel, C., Schober, B., & Strohmeier, D. (2016). Implementing Intervention
Research into Public Policy – the “I3 -Approach”. Prevention Science, 1–10.
doi:10.1007/s11121-016-0638-3.

BARBARA SCHOBER SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Barbara Schober is the cochair of the faculty research topic “Promotion
of lifelong learning in the educational system.” She is a member of the
management board of the Austrian Psychological Society, the senate of
the University, and international scientific and advisory boards of research
projects and journals. She follows a mission-driven research approach within
the field of “Bildung-Psychology” and is the project (co)leader of diverse
third-party-funded research projects and the (co)author of over numerous
international publications and presentations. Her research focuses on
lifelong learning, learning motivation, self-regulation, gender differences
in educational contexts, teacher training, development and evaluation of
intervention programs, and implementation research.
CHRISTIANE SPIEL SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Christiane Spiel is and has been the chair and a member of various
international advisory and editorial boards as, for example, president
of the European Society for Developmental Psychology, president of the
Austrian Psychology Association, and president of the DeGEval—Society
for Evaluation (in Germany and Austria). She was the founding dean of the
faculty of psychology at the University of Vienna and is the vice-chair of the
board of directors of the Wuppertal University in Germany. Currently, she
is one of the key authors of the International Panel on Social Progress and
member of the board of directors of the Global Implementation Initiative.
Her research topics are on bullying and victimization, lifelong learning,
integration in multicultural school classes, evaluation and intervention research, implementation science, and quality management in the
educational system.
RELATED ESSAYS
The Role of Data in Research and Policy (Sociology), Barbara A. Anderson
Can Public Policy Influence Private Innovation? (Economics), James Bessen
To Flop Is Human: Inventing Better Scientific Approaches to Anticipating
Failure (Methods), Robert Boruch and Alan Ruby

Enabling Improvements: Combining Intervention and Implementation Research

13

Meta-Analysis (Methods), Larry V. Hedges and Martyna Citkowicz
Misinformation and How to Correct It (Psychology), John Cook et al.
Youth Entrepreneurship (Psychology), William Damon et al.
Expertise (Sociology), Gil Eyal
Controlling the Influence of Stereotypes on One’s Thoughts (Psychology),
Patrick S. Forscher and Patricia G. Devine
Setting One’s Mind on Action: Planning Out Goal Striving in Advance
(Psychology), Peter M. Gollwitzer
The Evidence-Based Practice Movement (Sociology), Edward W. Gondolf
How Brief Social-Psychological Interventions Can Cause Enduring Effects
(Sociology), Dushiyanthini (Toni) Kenthirarajah and Gregory M. Walton
Quasi-Experiments (Methods), Charles S. Reichardt
Causation, Theory, and Policy in the Social Sciences (Sociology), Mark C.
Stafford and Daniel P. Mears
The Social Science of Sustainability (Political Science), Johannes Urpelainen
Translational Sociology (Sociology), Elaine Wethington
Person-Centered Analysis (Methods), Alexander von Eye and Wolfgang
Wiedermann



Enabling Improvements: Combining
Intervention and Implementation
Research
BARBARA SCHOBER and CHRISTIANE SPIEL

Abstract
Transferring evidence-based intervention programs effectively into practice and
into the wider field of public policy often fails, even if the logic of evidence-based
approaches has become highly important in recent years. As a consequence, the field
of implementation research has emerged, implementation frameworks have been
developed, and implementation studies have been conducted. However, even if
intervention research and implementation research have both achieved mentionable
progress in the past, they are rather unrelated, and different traditions and research
groups are involved. This might be one of the key reasons why there are still many
problems in transferring evidence-based programs into widespread community. In
order to enable improvement in this field, in this essay, we argue for a systematic
integration of intervention and implementation research as a promising emerging
approach. Therefore, we recommend a six-step procedure requiring researchers to
design and develop intervention programs using a field-oriented and participative
approach from the beginning on. In particular, the perspective of policymakers has
to be included as well as the wider context of values, rewarding systems, and basic
attitudes in science.

INTRODUCTION
With regard to an enormous amount of unsolved problems and demands of
the practice—not least in social contexts—a transfer of existing knowledge
and evidence from science into practice is a prominent issue. Typical
areas providing know-how that could rather directly contribute to an
optimization of the practice are, for example, the educational context and
the field of health. However, transferring scientific evidence and respective
intervention programs sustainably into practice and into the wider field of
public policy seems difficult and often does not work. As a consequence, a
new field of research has emerged: implementation science. Within this field
of research, implementation frameworks have been developed (Meyers,
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Robert Scott and Marlis Buchmann (General Editors) with Stephen Kosslyn (Consulting Editor).
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Durlak, & Wandersmann, 2012) and numerous implementation studies
have been conducted, showing for example that an active, accompanied,
long-term, and multilevel implementation approach is much more effective
than traditional forms of dissemination (Ogden & Fixsen, 2014). However,
there are still many challenges in the field of transferring evidence-based
programs into widespread community practice.
There are various reasons for these problems that could and should be
taken into account, but one very important structural constraint seems
to be rather obvious: So far, intervention research and implementation
research are not systematically connected and many different traditions and
research groups are involved. Implementation research is often mandated
and financed by parties that do not belong to the scientific community and
therefore remains rather isolated. Sometimes, it is even considered to be less
scientifically valuable than research that develops new interventions (Fixsen,
Blase, & van Dyke, 2011). This lack of anchoring of this new discipline might
be one of the key reasons why the efforts of implementation science are
not sufficiently effective so far. On the basis of this assumption, we argue
for a systematic integration of intervention and implementation research.
To realize this, we propose a six-step procedure that requires researchers to
design and develop intervention programs based on a field-oriented and
participative approach from the very beginning on. This means that the successful transfer of evidence into practice—and especially of evidence-based
intervention programs into public policy—should become more likely, if we
leave the perspective of transferring a program to practitioners just at the
end of the research process. We propose to systematically consider the needs
of the field within the whole conceptualization of an intervention as well
as during its evaluation and implementation. In this essay, we present the
baselines of such an approach and discuss its demands as a promising trend
in science (see also Spiel, Schober, & Strohmeier, 2016).
PROGRESS AND LIMITATIONS OF EVIDENCE-BASED
INTERVENTIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION RESEARCH IN THE PAST
DECADES
In the past decades, the evidence-based movement has significantly gained
impact. Especially, in Anglo-American contexts, a lot of effort was put into
making better use of research-based programs in human service areas such as
medicine, child welfare, and health (Fixsen, Blase, Naoom, & Wallace, 2009;
Spiel, 2009). A reason for this trend toward evidence-based measures might
be the massive increase in social challenges that results in the need for proven
measures to cope with them. In turn, this lack of evidence-based measures in

Enabling Improvements: Combining Intervention and Implementation Research

3

this field points out the necessity of transferring relevant existing scientific
knowledge and evidence into practice.
One part of the growing evidence-based movement so far was to ensure
good standards of evidence, which is obviously an important prerequisite for
bringing prevention or intervention programs in the field. For example, the
Society for Prevention Research has provided standards to assist practitioners, policymakers, and administrators in determining which interventions
are efficacious, which are effective, and which are ready for dissemination
(for details, see Flay et al., 2005). The common ground of these standards is
the fact that evidence-based programs are defined by the research methodology used to evaluate them, and the definition of randomized trials as the
gold standard for evidence-based measures (Fixsen et al., 2009).
However, standards alone cannot ensure a transfer of evidence into practice; they are just one aspect of a complex process. Therefore, by focusing
on developing and differentiating criteria, the evidence-based practice
movement so far has not provided the intended benefits—at least not to
its presumably possible extent. Implementation and transfer of scientific
knowledge into practice and in the wider range of public policy has often
even failed (Fixsen et al., 2009). One important factor was that although
program evaluation became a more and more obligatory part in a many
initiatives, it was often lacking a specific and explicit study and enhancement
of the implementation processes. This was acknowledged as fundamental
deficit, based on the insight that an active, long-term, multilevel implementation approach is far more effective than passive forms of dissemination
(Ogden & Fixsen, 2014).
As a consequence, the field of implementation research has emerged (Rossi
& Wright, 1984). Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, and Wallace (2005, p. 5)
defined implementation as the “specific set of activities designed to put into
practice an activity or program of known dimensions.” Consequently, implementation science has been defined as “the scientific study of methods to
promote the systemic uptake of research findings and evidence-based practices into professional practice and public policy” (Forman et al., 2013, p. 80).
Implementation science has grown impressively within the last years, several theoretical models and frameworks have been published and numerous
studies have been conducted. However, despite all these efforts within the
field of implementation science, there is an understanding among researchers
that the empirical support for evidence-based implementation is insufficient
so far (Ogden & Fixsen, 2014). Although there is a large body of empirical
evidence concerning the importance of implementation and growing knowledge of the contextual factors that can influence implementation, knowledge
of how to systematically increase the likelihood of high-quality implementation is still unsatisfactory (for a review, see e.g., Meyers et al., 2012).

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

What are the reasons for this lack of success for this very promising
approach? On the one hand, implementation science is a very young field of
research. It exists since only some decades with a rather new focus on complex questions of interventions and evaluations and beyond. However, even
if things just need more time to come to action and to bring visible effects,
one impeding and very basic structural deficit or obstacle can be identified:
intervention research and implementation research are rather separated
and joint activities are rare (see e.g., Forman et al., 2013). Scientific intervention research and the connected activities often refer to the theory-driven
development and provision of a prevention or intervention program for
clients. Mostly voluntarily, highly motivated people or institutions (e.g.,
schools) realize the program within a clearly defined period of time. Such
programs are often evaluated within a standard evaluation design (e.g., the
comparison of different measurement groups, pre-post-follow-up designs,
focusing on different levels of effect). The evaluation focuses on questions
such as the following: Does the program work within optimal conditions?
Why does it work? Do the effects persist in the long run? Often, the work of
the respective research projects is considered to be done after investigating
these questions.
On the other hand, implementation research activity often starts just
then and works with already existing programs. It refers to actions taken
within the organizational setting to ensure that the intervention delivered to
clients is complete and appropriate—as only then the assumed effects can be
assured. Therefore, the focus is on the specific conditions of the field, in which
a measure is conducted and on the needs and competences of all stakeholders involved. Typical issues can be as follows: How to ensure the readiness
of an organization for the implementation of a program, for example, in
the sense of (sufficient) staff capacity? How is it possible to provide the
staff with the required competences effectively? Why do proven programs
sometimes exhibit unintended effects when realized in a specific setting?
Often, different research groups with different research traditions are
involved in these two tasks. Beyond, different funding structures and a
different status in science can be identified: intervention researchers are often
specialists in certain fields of health or education, funding their research
within classic scientific structures. Presently, implementation researchers
are mostly given mandates by politicians to take on the implementation
of already existing interventions. Furthermore, implementation research is
very difficult realize within the constraints of university research environments (e.g., owing to time or financial constraints) and is sometimes even
considered to be less scientifically valuable (Fixsen et al., 2011).
This presently prevailing separation of intervention and implementation
research leads to gaps within a coherent improvement process and might

Enabling Improvements: Combining Intervention and Implementation Research

5

be the reason for diverse barriers for a successful transfer of scientific
knowledge to practice. Consequently, we suggest a systematic integration
of the two approaches. Researchers should systematically design and
develop intervention programs using a fundamentally field-oriented and
participative approach [according to the concept of use-inspired basic
research by Stokes (1997)]. This means that the specific needs of the field
and the involved stakeholders should not only be considered in the process
of implementation, transfer or scaling up, but also as part of the whole conceptualization and evaluation of an intervention (Spiel, Schober, Strohmeier,
& Finsterwald, 2011). Consequently, an intervention, its evaluation, and
implementation should be developed in an integrative way. In order to
realize this and to avoid as much presumable risks as possible, the perspective of stakeholders on all relevant levels should be included. Especially,
in fields such as education or health, the perspective of policymakers has
to be integrated explicitly and analyses of supporting or hindering factors
of evidence-based policy need to be included (Davies, 2012; Spiel et al.,
2011). Unquestionably, several researchers would argue that they already
work with these ideas in mind, but a systematic approach is missing so far.
On the basis of this diagnosis, we propose an approach for the systematic
integration of intervention and implementation research in the following
section.
A FRAMEWORK FOR AN INTEGRATION OF INTERVENTION
AND IMPLEMENTATION RESEARCH—SOME CORNERSTONES OF A
NEW APPROACH
Combining theoretical and empirical knowledge from prior research (Glasgow, Vogt, & Boles, 1999; Greenhalgh, Robert, MacFarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou, 2004) with the arguments and desiderates described earlier, we consider
at least six deliberate parameters as constitutive components of an integrative
framework of intervention and implementation research (Figure 1). These
parameters can be considered as steps, as they mostly will occur in succession and at least partly build upon each other, even if some of them can and
might be performed simultaneously. The six steps, respectively, parameters
together must be considered as parts of a dynamic process with many subprocesses, feedback loops, and interdependencies (Spiel et al., 2016).
1. Identifying Desiderates for Research with a Focus on Social Responsibility.
In the case of an integrative approach to intervention/prevention and
implementation research, the basic step is to consciously pay attention
to relevant research topics in this context. Consequently, within this
approach, researchers working on topics relevant for interventions and

Figure 1 Constitutive components of an integrative framework of intervention and implementation research.

Identifying desiderates for research with a focus on social responsibility

Ensuring enough valid knowledge on how to handle the problem

Identifying promising starting points for actions

Cooperating with all stakeholders
in a stable and sustainable manner

Developing measures and
their implementation together

Scaling
up the
program implementation

6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Enabling Improvements: Combining Intervention and Implementation Research

7

for changes in practice should not primarily focus on research desiderates and problems arising from basic research but also on (especially
social) problems in society. This needs the basic attitude of being a
mission-driven researcher, in addition to following a curiosity-driven
approach that is widespread and highly respected in the scientific
community. Therefore, we have to deliberately extend our focus in the
process of identification of valuable research topics and combine quests
for fundamental understanding with a consideration of practical use
(Stokes, 1997). In other words, if scientists intend to contribute to this
field of research, the first step requires sociopolitical responsibility as a
basic mind-set.
2. Ensuring Enough Valid Knowledge on How to Handle the Problem. A second
decisive prerequisite for any kind of transfer is the availability of robust
and sound scientific knowledge (Spiel, Lösel, & Wittmann, 2009).
Reliable research of high scientific quality is needed—with regard
to theory and evidence. Effective interventions and evidence-based
actions in general must be based on enough reliable insights into, for
example, causal mechanisms and connections. This by no means is an
easy demand, especially if we have a look at fields such as education
or health. Just a quick glance on topics such as, for example, students’
motivation in school and how to enhance it leads to a wide body
of literature with some central and undoubted insights, but also to
still many open questions. Consequently, researchers working at the
interface between intervention and implementation have to be experts
in their fields with excellent knowledge of theory, methods, empirical
findings, and limitations.
3. Identifying Promising Starting Points for Actions. The identification of a
desiderate or problem and the availability of relevant insights for initiating changes are still not enough if one does not succeed in identifying concrete and promising starting points for interventions and their
implementation with regard to the prevailing conditions and system
characteristics. This must be emphasized, as a wide body of research
has made clear that many intervention programs and measures do not
work in any case and not at all times (Meyers et al., 2012). Here again,
a necessary condition is high expertise in the relevant scientific field.
However, this must be combined with a differentiated view on prevailing cultural and political conditions. Therefore, researchers who want to
successfully integrate intervention and implementation research need
knowledge and experience in the relevant practical field and its contextual conditions—including knowledge about potential problems and
limitations.

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

4. Cooperating with all Stakeholders in a Stable and Sustainable Manner.
In order to conduct integrative intervention and implementation
research, stable alliances with all stakeholders and especially with
the relevant policymakers are necessary. However, such connections
and working structures are traditionally not established between
science, practice, and politics. Research mostly follows its own, very
intrinsic logic, which often clearly differs from necessities of the practice
and from political thinking. Therefore, a very deliberate process of
establishing cooperation and building alliances is necessary. Among
other things, this includes more awareness of policymakers’ scope of
action. Researchers in this field have to consider that there are decisive
influences on government and policy, beyond evidence. These include
values, beliefs, and ideology, which are the driving forces of many
political processes. Researchers have to keep in mind that policymaking
is highly embedded in a bureaucratic culture and is forced to respond
quickly to everyday contingencies and to often very limited resources
(Davies, 2012). Consequently, researchers have to find ways to integrate
the relevance of evidence within the context of all these influencing
factors. However, this step surely sometimes is burdensome and an
unfamiliar demand for many researchers. However, it is a crucial one
and again addresses a certain basic attitude of researchers: it requires
that researchers make their voice heard.
5. Developing Measures and Their Implementation Together. On the basis of
the four above-described steps, which in fact build the prerequisites
for this fifth one, a coordinated development and implementation of
evidence-based measures can be performed in a theory-driven, ecological, collaborative, and participatory way. This means that researchers,
who want to realize an integrative intervention and implementation
research, have to include the perspectives of all relevant stakeholders
(practitioners, policymakers, government officials, public servants,
and communities) in this development process, communicate in the
language of these diverse stakeholders and meet them as equals.
Therefore, researchers again have to consider parameters for their
research work that differs from many traditional approaches: working
together right from the beginning is not common in many fields and
also requires new conceptions of, for example, research planning
(regarding things such as the duration of project phases; see Meyers
et al., 2012). Here, one big challenge surely is to find a balance between
considering manifold needs and realize a wide participation but also
maintain scientific criteria and standards of evidence. Consequently,
researchers must have theoretical knowledge and practical experience
in their very specific field of expertise, but the required profile for a

Enabling Improvements: Combining Intervention and Implementation Research

9

successful “integrative intervention and implementation researcher”
obviously is much wider.
6. Scaling up the Program Implementation. The final scaling up step is a
classic topic of implementation research as we know it so far. Several
fruitful models and guidelines have been proposed here, such as
Meyers et al. (2012) made evident in their review consisting of 25
frameworks. They found 14 central dimensions within these frameworks and grouped them into thematic areas: (i) assessment strategies,
(ii) decisions about adaptation, (iii) capacity-building strategies, (iv)
creating a structure for implementation, (v) ongoing implementation
support strategies, and (vi) improving future applications. According to
their synthesis, the implementation process consists of a temporal series
of these interrelated steps, which are critical to quality implementation
(see also Spiel et al., 2016).
However, different to prior concepts, in our integrative approach, the necessities and stakeholders for a scaling up are claimed to be taken into account
from beginning on.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES FOR COMBINING
INTERVENTION AND IMPLEMENTATION RESEARCH
In this essay, we propose the systematic integration of intervention and
implementation research as a promising and necessary trend for future
research. From our perspective, such an integration has the potential to
enable large-scale improvements as it supports the direct transfer of scientific knowledge to practice. However, why is this a new approach, as on
the surface, the steps seem self-evident? Furthermore, what are the special
demands for enabling future improvement based on such an approach?
Regarding the first question, one must say that obviously, most, if not
all components (both within and across the six steps), are already known
and have been considered in intervention and implementation research.
However, the new and demanding challenge is our postulation of bringing
them together in an integrative and coordinated way, in order to achieve
success. The abovedescribed approach represents a very basic but also a
very systematic research concept, which is more than purely the sum of its
steps—ignoring one aspect changes the whole dynamic. In addition, the
sound, consistent integration of intervention and implementation research
as described earlier also requires a (re)differentiation of our scientific identity
and the creation of a new, wider job description for researchers in this field.
The conceptual necessity of a basic integration directly leads to the second
question about the future demands. As it became evident above, combining

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

intervention and implementation research is very demanding. Therefore,
the appropriate acknowledgement in the scientific community is essential.
Science must change its very established “provision logic” and consequently,
individual researchers cannot be the only ones engaging in this kind of
research. Universities also have to include it in their mission. We therefore
strongly recommend a discussion of success criteria in academia (Fixsen
et al., 2011). The social responsibilities of academics and universities, respectively, have to be considered more deeply. The current gratification system
in science is more oriented to basic than to applied research. Mission-driven
research picking up problems in society presently is less financed and
noticed. Consequently, the number of researchers engaged in this field is
limited—even if in the last years some advances became obvious.
All in all, some systematic changes in concepts, attitudes, and valuing structures must be considered, and the stakeholders within the action triangle
of science, practice, and policy must come to a culture of appreciation and
professionalized communication. The positive starting point is that a lot of
knowledge already exists. However, the success of effective intervention and
implementation research in the following years will depend on how we succeed in bringing a joined engagement to take social responsibility for outcomes beyond pure scientific indices or short-term political success to action.
REFERENCES
Davies, P. (2012). The state of evidence-based policy evaluation and its role in
policy formation. National Institute Economic Review, 219(1), 41–52. doi:10.1177/
002795011221900105.
Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., Naoom, S. F., & Wallace, F. (2009). Core implementation components. Research on Social Work Practice, 19(5), 531–531.
doi:10.1177/1049731509335549.
Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K., & Van Dyke, M. (2011). Mobilizing communities for implementing evidence-based youth violence prevention programming: A Commentary. American Journal of Community Psychology (Special Issue), 48(1–2), 133–137.
doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9410-1.
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005).
Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of
South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, National
Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication No. 231). Retrieved from
http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/resources/implementation-research-synthesis-literature.
Flay, B. R., Biglan, A., Boruch, R. F., Castro, F. G., Gottfredson, D., Kellam, S., … Ji,
P. (2005). Standards of evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination. Prevention Science, 6(3), 151–175. doi:10.1007/s11121-005-5553.
Forman, S. G., Shapiro, E. S., Codding, R. S., Gonzales, J. E., Reddy, L. A., Rosenfield,
S. A., … Stoiber, K. C. (2013). Implementation Science and School Psychology.
School Psychology Quarterly, 28(2), 77–100. doi:10.1037/spq0000019.

Enabling Improvements: Combining Intervention and Implementation Research

11

Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999). Evaluating the public health impact
of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. American Journal of
Public Health, 89(9), 1322–1327. doi:10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322.
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion
of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations.
The Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581–629. doi:10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x.
Meyers, D. C., Durlak, J. A., & Wandersmann, A. (2012). The quality implementation
framework: A synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 50(3–4), 462–480. doi:10.1007/s10464-012-9522-x.
Ogden, T., & Fixsen, D. L. (2014). Implementation science: A brief overview
and a look ahead. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 222(1), 4–11. doi:10.1027/21512604/a000160.
Rossi, P. H., & Wright, J. D. (1984). Evaluation research: An assessment.
Annual Review of Sociology, 10, 331–352. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/
stable/2083179?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.
Spiel, C. (2009). Evidence-based practice: A challenge for European developmental psychology. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6(1), 11–33.
doi:10.1080/17405620802485888.
Spiel, C., Lösel, F., & Wittmann, W. W. (2009). Transfer psychologischer Erkenntnisse – eine notwendige, jedoch schwierige Aufgabe [Transfer psychological findings – a necessary but difficult task]. Psychologische Rundschau, 60(4), 257–258.
doi:10.1026/0033-3042.60.4.257.
Spiel, C., Schober, B., Strohmeier, D., & Finsterwald, M. (2011). Cooperation among
researchers, policy makers, administrators, and practitioners: Challenges and recommendations. ISSBD Bulletin, 2(60), 11–14.
Spiel, C., Schober, B., & Strohmeier, D. (2016). Implementing intervention
research into public policy – the “I3 -approach”. Prevention Science, 1–10.
doi:10.1007/s11121-016-0638-3.
Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant. Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

FURTHER READING
Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K., Metz, A., & Van Dyke, M. (2013). Statewide implementation
of evidence-based programs. Exceptional Children (Special Issue), 79(2), 213–230.
doi:10.1177/001440291307900206.
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005).
Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of
South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, National
Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication No. 231). Retrieved from
http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/resources/implementation-research-synthesis-literature
Meyers, D. C., Durlak, J. A., & Wandersmann, A. (2012). The Quality Implementation
Framework: A Synthesis of Critical Steps in the Implementation Process. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 50(3–4), 462–480. doi:10.1007/s10464-012-9522-x.

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Spiel, C., Schober, B., Strohmeier, D., & Finsterwald, M. (2011). Cooperation among
Researchers, Policy Makers, Administrators, and Practitioners: Challenges and
Recommendations. ISSBD Bulletin 2011, 2(60), 11–14.
Spiel, C., Schober, B., & Strohmeier, D. (2016). Implementing Intervention
Research into Public Policy – the “I3 -Approach”. Prevention Science, 1–10.
doi:10.1007/s11121-016-0638-3.

BARBARA SCHOBER SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Barbara Schober is the cochair of the faculty research topic “Promotion
of lifelong learning in the educational system.” She is a member of the
management board of the Austrian Psychological Society, the senate of
the University, and international scientific and advisory boards of research
projects and journals. She follows a mission-driven research approach within
the field of “Bildung-Psychology” and is the project (co)leader of diverse
third-party-funded research projects and the (co)author of over numerous
international publications and presentations. Her research focuses on
lifelong learning, learning motivation, self-regulation, gender differences
in educational contexts, teacher training, development and evaluation of
intervention programs, and implementation research.
CHRISTIANE SPIEL SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Christiane Spiel is and has been the chair and a member of various
international advisory and editorial boards as, for example, president
of the European Society for Developmental Psychology, president of the
Austrian Psychology Association, and president of the DeGEval—Society
for Evaluation (in Germany and Austria). She was the founding dean of the
faculty of psychology at the University of Vienna and is the vice-chair of the
board of directors of the Wuppertal University in Germany. Currently, she
is one of the key authors of the International Panel on Social Progress and
member of the board of directors of the Global Implementation Initiative.
Her research topics are on bullying and victimization, lifelong learning,
integration in multicultural school classes, evaluation and intervention research, implementation science, and quality management in the
educational system.
RELATED ESSAYS
The Role of Data in Research and Policy (Sociology), Barbara A. Anderson
Can Public Policy Influence Private Innovation? (Economics), James Bessen
To Flop Is Human: Inventing Better Scientific Approaches to Anticipating
Failure (Methods), Robert Boruch and Alan Ruby

Enabling Improvements: Combining Intervention and Implementation Research

13

Meta-Analysis (Methods), Larry V. Hedges and Martyna Citkowicz
Misinformation and How to Correct It (Psychology), John Cook et al.
Youth Entrepreneurship (Psychology), William Damon et al.
Expertise (Sociology), Gil Eyal
Controlling the Influence of Stereotypes on One’s Thoughts (Psychology),
Patrick S. Forscher and Patricia G. Devine
Setting One’s Mind on Action: Planning Out Goal Striving in Advance
(Psychology), Peter M. Gollwitzer
The Evidence-Based Practice Movement (Sociology), Edward W. Gondolf
How Brief Social-Psychological Interventions Can Cause Enduring Effects
(Sociology), Dushiyanthini (Toni) Kenthirarajah and Gregory M. Walton
Quasi-Experiments (Methods), Charles S. Reichardt
Causation, Theory, and Policy in the Social Sciences (Sociology), Mark C.
Stafford and Daniel P. Mears
The Social Science of Sustainability (Political Science), Johannes Urpelainen
Translational Sociology (Sociology), Elaine Wethington
Person-Centered Analysis (Methods), Alexander von Eye and Wolfgang
Wiedermann


Enabling Improvements: Combining
Intervention and Implementation
Research
BARBARA SCHOBER and CHRISTIANE SPIEL

Abstract
Transferring evidence-based intervention programs effectively into practice and
into the wider field of public policy often fails, even if the logic of evidence-based
approaches has become highly important in recent years. As a consequence, the field
of implementation research has emerged, implementation frameworks have been
developed, and implementation studies have been conducted. However, even if
intervention research and implementation research have both achieved mentionable
progress in the past, they are rather unrelated, and different traditions and research
groups are involved. This might be one of the key reasons why there are still many
problems in transferring evidence-based programs into widespread community. In
order to enable improvement in this field, in this essay, we argue for a systematic
integration of intervention and implementation research as a promising emerging
approach. Therefore, we recommend a six-step procedure requiring researchers to
design and develop intervention programs using a field-oriented and participative
approach from the beginning on. In particular, the perspective of policymakers has
to be included as well as the wider context of values, rewarding systems, and basic
attitudes in science.

INTRODUCTION
With regard to an enormous amount of unsolved problems and demands of
the practice—not least in social contexts—a transfer of existing knowledge
and evidence from science into practice is a prominent issue. Typical
areas providing know-how that could rather directly contribute to an
optimization of the practice are, for example, the educational context and
the field of health. However, transferring scientific evidence and respective
intervention programs sustainably into practice and into the wider field of
public policy seems difficult and often does not work. As a consequence, a
new field of research has emerged: implementation science. Within this field
of research, implementation frameworks have been developed (Meyers,
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Robert Scott and Marlis Buchmann (General Editors) with Stephen Kosslyn (Consulting Editor).
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Durlak, & Wandersmann, 2012) and numerous implementation studies
have been conducted, showing for example that an active, accompanied,
long-term, and multilevel implementation approach is much more effective
than traditional forms of dissemination (Ogden & Fixsen, 2014). However,
there are still many challenges in the field of transferring evidence-based
programs into widespread community practice.
There are various reasons for these problems that could and should be
taken into account, but one very important structural constraint seems
to be rather obvious: So far, intervention research and implementation
research are not systematically connected and many different traditions and
research groups are involved. Implementation research is often mandated
and financed by parties that do not belong to the scientific community and
therefore remains rather isolated. Sometimes, it is even considered to be less
scientifically valuable than research that develops new interventions (Fixsen,
Blase, & van Dyke, 2011). This lack of anchoring of this new discipline might
be one of the key reasons why the efforts of implementation science are
not sufficiently effective so far. On the basis of this assumption, we argue
for a systematic integration of intervention and implementation research.
To realize this, we propose a six-step procedure that requires researchers to
design and develop intervention programs based on a field-oriented and
participative approach from the very beginning on. This means that the successful transfer of evidence into practice—and especially of evidence-based
intervention programs into public policy—should become more likely, if we
leave the perspective of transferring a program to practitioners just at the
end of the research process. We propose to systematically consider the needs
of the field within the whole conceptualization of an intervention as well
as during its evaluation and implementation. In this essay, we present the
baselines of such an approach and discuss its demands as a promising trend
in science (see also Spiel, Schober, & Strohmeier, 2016).
PROGRESS AND LIMITATIONS OF EVIDENCE-BASED
INTERVENTIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION RESEARCH IN THE PAST
DECADES
In the past decades, the evidence-based movement has significantly gained
impact. Especially, in Anglo-American contexts, a lot of effort was put into
making better use of research-based programs in human service areas such as
medicine, child welfare, and health (Fixsen, Blase, Naoom, & Wallace, 2009;
Spiel, 2009). A reason for this trend toward evidence-based measures might
be the massive increase in social challenges that results in the need for proven
measures to cope with them. In turn, this lack of evidence-based measures in

Enabling Improvements: Combining Intervention and Implementation Research

3

this field points out the necessity of transferring relevant existing scientific
knowledge and evidence into practice.
One part of the growing evidence-based movement so far was to ensure
good standards of evidence, which is obviously an important prerequisite for
bringing prevention or intervention programs in the field. For example, the
Society for Prevention Research has provided standards to assist practitioners, policymakers, and administrators in determining which interventions
are efficacious, which are effective, and which are ready for dissemination
(for details, see Flay et al., 2005). The common ground of these standards is
the fact that evidence-based programs are defined by the research methodology used to evaluate them, and the definition of randomized trials as the
gold standard for evidence-based measures (Fixsen et al., 2009).
However, standards alone cannot ensure a transfer of evidence into practice; they are just one aspect of a complex process. Therefore, by focusing
on developing and differentiating criteria, the evidence-based practice
movement so far has not provided the intended benefits—at least not to
its presumably possible extent. Implementation and transfer of scientific
knowledge into practice and in the wider range of public policy has often
even failed (Fixsen et al., 2009). One important factor was that although
program evaluation became a more and more obligatory part in a many
initiatives, it was often lacking a specific and explicit study and enhancement
of the implementation processes. This was acknowledged as fundamental
deficit, based on the insight that an active, long-term, multilevel implementation approach is far more effective than passive forms of dissemination
(Ogden & Fixsen, 2014).
As a consequence, the field of implementation research has emerged (Rossi
& Wright, 1984). Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, and Wallace (2005, p. 5)
defined implementation as the “specific set of activities designed to put into
practice an activity or program of known dimensions.” Consequently, implementation science has been defined as “the scientific study of methods to
promote the systemic uptake of research findings and evidence-based practices into professional practice and public policy” (Forman et al., 2013, p. 80).
Implementation science has grown impressively within the last years, several theoretical models and frameworks have been published and numerous
studies have been conducted. However, despite all these efforts within the
field of implementation science, there is an understanding among researchers
that the empirical support for evidence-based implementation is insufficient
so far (Ogden & Fixsen, 2014). Although there is a large body of empirical
evidence concerning the importance of implementation and growing knowledge of the contextual factors that can influence implementation, knowledge
of how to systematically increase the likelihood of high-quality implementation is still unsatisfactory (for a review, see e.g., Meyers et al., 2012).

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

What are the reasons for this lack of success for this very promising
approach? On the one hand, implementation science is a very young field of
research. It exists since only some decades with a rather new focus on complex questions of interventions and evaluations and beyond. However, even
if things just need more time to come to action and to bring visible effects,
one impeding and very basic structural deficit or obstacle can be identified:
intervention research and implementation research are rather separated
and joint activities are rare (see e.g., Forman et al., 2013). Scientific intervention research and the connected activities often refer to the theory-driven
development and provision of a prevention or intervention program for
clients. Mostly voluntarily, highly motivated people or institutions (e.g.,
schools) realize the program within a clearly defined period of time. Such
programs are often evaluated within a standard evaluation design (e.g., the
comparison of different measurement groups, pre-post-follow-up designs,
focusing on different levels of effect). The evaluation focuses on questions
such as the following: Does the program work within optimal conditions?
Why does it work? Do the effects persist in the long run? Often, the work of
the respective research projects is considered to be done after investigating
these questions.
On the other hand, implementation research activity often starts just
then and works with already existing programs. It refers to actions taken
within the organizational setting to ensure that the intervention delivered to
clients is complete and appropriate—as only then the assumed effects can be
assured. Therefore, the focus is on the specific conditions of the field, in which
a measure is conducted and on the needs and competences of all stakeholders involved. Typical issues can be as follows: How to ensure the readiness
of an organization for the implementation of a program, for example, in
the sense of (sufficient) staff capacity? How is it possible to provide the
staff with the required competences effectively? Why do proven programs
sometimes exhibit unintended effects when realized in a specific setting?
Often, different research groups with different research traditions are
involved in these two tasks. Beyond, different funding structures and a
different status in science can be identified: intervention researchers are often
specialists in certain fields of health or education, funding their research
within classic scientific structures. Presently, implementation researchers
are mostly given mandates by politicians to take on the implementation
of already existing interventions. Furthermore, implementation research is
very difficult realize within the constraints of university research environments (e.g., owing to time or financial constraints) and is sometimes even
considered to be less scientifically valuable (Fixsen et al., 2011).
This presently prevailing separation of intervention and implementation
research leads to gaps within a coherent improvement process and might

Enabling Improvements: Combining Intervention and Implementation Research

5

be the reason for diverse barriers for a successful transfer of scientific
knowledge to practice. Consequently, we suggest a systematic integration
of the two approaches. Researchers should systematically design and
develop intervention programs using a fundamentally field-oriented and
participative approach [according to the concept of use-inspired basic
research by Stokes (1997)]. This means that the specific needs of the field
and the involved stakeholders should not only be considered in the process
of implementation, transfer or scaling up, but also as part of the whole conceptualization and evaluation of an intervention (Spiel, Schober, Strohmeier,
& Finsterwald, 2011). Consequently, an intervention, its evaluation, and
implementation should be developed in an integrative way. In order to
realize this and to avoid as much presumable risks as possible, the perspective of stakeholders on all relevant levels should be included. Especially,
in fields such as education or health, the perspective of policymakers has
to be integrated explicitly and analyses of supporting or hindering factors
of evidence-based policy need to be included (Davies, 2012; Spiel et al.,
2011). Unquestionably, several researchers would argue that they already
work with these ideas in mind, but a systematic approach is missing so far.
On the basis of this diagnosis, we propose an approach for the systematic
integration of intervention and implementation research in the following
section.
A FRAMEWORK FOR AN INTEGRATION OF INTERVENTION
AND IMPLEMENTATION RESEARCH—SOME CORNERSTONES OF A
NEW APPROACH
Combining theoretical and empirical knowledge from prior research (Glasgow, Vogt, & Boles, 1999; Greenhalgh, Robert, MacFarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou, 2004) with the arguments and desiderates described earlier, we consider
at least six deliberate parameters as constitutive components of an integrative
framework of intervention and implementation research (Figure 1). These
parameters can be considered as steps, as they mostly will occur in succession and at least partly build upon each other, even if some of them can and
might be performed simultaneously. The six steps, respectively, parameters
together must be considered as parts of a dynamic process with many subprocesses, feedback loops, and interdependencies (Spiel et al., 2016).
1. Identifying Desiderates for Research with a Focus on Social Responsibility.
In the case of an integrative approach to intervention/prevention and
implementation research, the basic step is to consciously pay attention
to relevant research topics in this context. Consequently, within this
approach, researchers working on topics relevant for interventions and

Figure 1 Constitutive components of an integrative framework of intervention and implementation research.

Identifying desiderates for research with a focus on social responsibility

Ensuring enough valid knowledge on how to handle the problem

Identifying promising starting points for actions

Cooperating with all stakeholders
in a stable and sustainable manner

Developing measures and
their implementation together

Scaling
up the
program implementation

6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Enabling Improvements: Combining Intervention and Implementation Research

7

for changes in practice should not primarily focus on research desiderates and problems arising from basic research but also on (especially
social) problems in society. This needs the basic attitude of being a
mission-driven researcher, in addition to following a curiosity-driven
approach that is widespread and highly respected in the scientific
community. Therefore, we have to deliberately extend our focus in the
process of identification of valuable research topics and combine quests
for fundamental understanding with a consideration of practical use
(Stokes, 1997). In other words, if scientists intend to contribute to this
field of research, the first step requires sociopolitical responsibility as a
basic mind-set.
2. Ensuring Enough Valid Knowledge on How to Handle the Problem. A second
decisive prerequisite for any kind of transfer is the availability of robust
and sound scientific knowledge (Spiel, Lösel, & Wittmann, 2009).
Reliable research of high scientific quality is needed—with regard
to theory and evidence. Effective interventions and evidence-based
actions in general must be based on enough reliable insights into, for
example, causal mechanisms and connections. This by no means is an
easy demand, especially if we have a look at fields such as education
or health. Just a quick glance on topics such as, for example, students’
motivation in school and how to enhance it leads to a wide body
of literature with some central and undoubted insights, but also to
still many open questions. Consequently, researchers working at the
interface between intervention and implementation have to be experts
in their fields with excellent knowledge of theory, methods, empirical
findings, and limitations.
3. Identifying Promising Starting Points for Actions. The identification of a
desiderate or problem and the availability of relevant insights for initiating changes are still not enough if one does not succeed in identifying concrete and promising starting points for interventions and their
implementation with regard to the prevailing conditions and system
characteristics. This must be emphasized, as a wide body of research
has made clear that many intervention programs and measures do not
work in any case and not at all times (Meyers et al., 2012). Here again,
a necessary condition is high expertise in the relevant scientific field.
However, this must be combined with a differentiated view on prevailing cultural and political conditions. Therefore, researchers who want to
successfully integrate intervention and implementation research need
knowledge and experience in the relevant practical field and its contextual conditions—including knowledge about potential problems and
limitations.

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

4. Cooperating with all Stakeholders in a Stable and Sustainable Manner.
In order to conduct integrative intervention and implementation
research, stable alliances with all stakeholders and especially with
the relevant policymakers are necessary. However, such connections
and working structures are traditionally not established between
science, practice, and politics. Research mostly follows its own, very
intrinsic logic, which often clearly differs from necessities of the practice
and from political thinking. Therefore, a very deliberate process of
establishing cooperation and building alliances is necessary. Among
other things, this includes more awareness of policymakers’ scope of
action. Researchers in this field have to consider that there are decisive
influences on government and policy, beyond evidence. These include
values, beliefs, and ideology, which are the driving forces of many
political processes. Researchers have to keep in mind that policymaking
is highly embedded in a bureaucratic culture and is forced to respond
quickly to everyday contingencies and to often very limited resources
(Davies, 2012). Consequently, researchers have to find ways to integrate
the relevance of evidence within the context of all these influencing
factors. However, this step surely sometimes is burdensome and an
unfamiliar demand for many researchers. However, it is a crucial one
and again addresses a certain basic attitude of researchers: it requires
that researchers make their voice heard.
5. Developing Measures and Their Implementation Together. On the basis of
the four above-described steps, which in fact build the prerequisites
for this fifth one, a coordinated development and implementation of
evidence-based measures can be performed in a theory-driven, ecological, collaborative, and participatory way. This means that researchers,
who want to realize an integrative intervention and implementation
research, have to include the perspectives of all relevant stakeholders
(practitioners, policymakers, government officials, public servants,
and communities) in this development process, communicate in the
language of these diverse stakeholders and meet them as equals.
Therefore, researchers again have to consider parameters for their
research work that differs from many traditional approaches: working
together right from the beginning is not common in many fields and
also requires new conceptions of, for example, research planning
(regarding things such as the duration of project phases; see Meyers
et al., 2012). Here, one big challenge surely is to find a balance between
considering manifold needs and realize a wide participation but also
maintain scientific criteria and standards of evidence. Consequently,
researchers must have theoretical knowledge and practical experience
in their very specific field of expertise, but the required profile for a

Enabling Improvements: Combining Intervention and Implementation Research

9

successful “integrative intervention and implementation researcher”
obviously is much wider.
6. Scaling up the Program Implementation. The final scaling up step is a
classic topic of implementation research as we know it so far. Several
fruitful models and guidelines have been proposed here, such as
Meyers et al. (2012) made evident in their review consisting of 25
frameworks. They found 14 central dimensions within these frameworks and grouped them into thematic areas: (i) assessment strategies,
(ii) decisions about adaptation, (iii) capacity-building strategies, (iv)
creating a structure for implementation, (v) ongoing implementation
support strategies, and (vi) improving future applications. According to
their synthesis, the implementation process consists of a temporal series
of these interrelated steps, which are critical to quality implementation
(see also Spiel et al., 2016).
However, different to prior concepts, in our integrative approach, the necessities and stakeholders for a scaling up are claimed to be taken into account
from beginning on.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES FOR COMBINING
INTERVENTION AND IMPLEMENTATION RESEARCH
In this essay, we propose the systematic integration of intervention and
implementation research as a promising and necessary trend for future
research. From our perspective, such an integration has the potential to
enable large-scale improvements as it supports the direct transfer of scientific knowledge to practice. However, why is this a new approach, as on
the surface, the steps seem self-evident? Furthermore, what are the special
demands for enabling future improvement based on such an approach?
Regarding the first question, one must say that obviously, most, if not
all components (both within and across the six steps), are already known
and have been considered in intervention and implementation research.
However, the new and demanding challenge is our postulation of bringing
them together in an integrative and coordinated way, in order to achieve
success. The abovedescribed approach represents a very basic but also a
very systematic research concept, which is more than purely the sum of its
steps—ignoring one aspect changes the whole dynamic. In addition, the
sound, consistent integration of intervention and implementation research
as described earlier also requires a (re)differentiation of our scientific identity
and the creation of a new, wider job description for researchers in this field.
The conceptual necessity of a basic integration directly leads to the second
question about the future demands. As it became evident above, combining

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

intervention and implementation research is very demanding. Therefore,
the appropriate acknowledgement in the scientific community is essential.
Science must change its very established “provision logic” and consequently,
individual researchers cannot be the only ones engaging in this kind of
research. Universities also have to include it in their mission. We therefore
strongly recommend a discussion of success criteria in academia (Fixsen
et al., 2011). The social responsibilities of academics and universities, respectively, have to be considered more deeply. The current gratification system
in science is more oriented to basic than to applied research. Mission-driven
research picking up problems in society presently is less financed and
noticed. Consequently, the number of researchers engaged in this field is
limited—even if in the last years some advances became obvious.
All in all, some systematic changes in concepts, attitudes, and valuing structures must be considered, and the stakeholders within the action triangle
of science, practice, and policy must come to a culture of appreciation and
professionalized communication. The positive starting point is that a lot of
knowledge already exists. However, the success of effective intervention and
implementation research in the following years will depend on how we succeed in bringing a joined engagement to take social responsibility for outcomes beyond pure scientific indices or short-term political success to action.
REFERENCES
Davies, P. (2012). The state of evidence-based policy evaluation and its role in
policy formation. National Institute Economic Review, 219(1), 41–52. doi:10.1177/
002795011221900105.
Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., Naoom, S. F., & Wallace, F. (2009). Core implementation components. Research on Social Work Practice, 19(5), 531–531.
doi:10.1177/1049731509335549.
Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K., & Van Dyke, M. (2011). Mobilizing communities for implementing evidence-based youth violence prevention programming: A Commentary. American Journal of Community Psychology (Special Issue), 48(1–2), 133–137.
doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9410-1.
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005).
Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of
South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, National
Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication No. 231). Retrieved from
http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/resources/implementation-research-synthesis-literature.
Flay, B. R., Biglan, A., Boruch, R. F., Castro, F. G., Gottfredson, D., Kellam, S., … Ji,
P. (2005). Standards of evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination. Prevention Science, 6(3), 151–175. doi:10.1007/s11121-005-5553.
Forman, S. G., Shapiro, E. S., Codding, R. S., Gonzales, J. E., Reddy, L. A., Rosenfield,
S. A., … Stoiber, K. C. (2013). Implementation Science and School Psychology.
School Psychology Quarterly, 28(2), 77–100. doi:10.1037/spq0000019.

Enabling Improvements: Combining Intervention and Implementation Research

11

Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999). Evaluating the public health impact
of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. American Journal of
Public Health, 89(9), 1322–1327. doi:10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322.
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion
of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations.
The Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 581–629. doi:10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x.
Meyers, D. C., Durlak, J. A., & Wandersmann, A. (2012). The quality implementation
framework: A synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 50(3–4), 462–480. doi:10.1007/s10464-012-9522-x.
Ogden, T., & Fixsen, D. L. (2014). Implementation science: A brief overview
and a look ahead. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 222(1), 4–11. doi:10.1027/21512604/a000160.
Rossi, P. H., & Wright, J. D. (1984). Evaluation research: An assessment.
Annual Review of Sociology, 10, 331–352. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/
stable/2083179?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.
Spiel, C. (2009). Evidence-based practice: A challenge for European developmental psychology. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6(1), 11–33.
doi:10.1080/17405620802485888.
Spiel, C., Lösel, F., & Wittmann, W. W. (2009). Transfer psychologischer Erkenntnisse – eine notwendige, jedoch schwierige Aufgabe [Transfer psychological findings – a necessary but difficult task]. Psychologische Rundschau, 60(4), 257–258.
doi:10.1026/0033-3042.60.4.257.
Spiel, C., Schober, B., Strohmeier, D., & Finsterwald, M. (2011). Cooperation among
researchers, policy makers, administrators, and practitioners: Challenges and recommendations. ISSBD Bulletin, 2(60), 11–14.
Spiel, C., Schober, B., & Strohmeier, D. (2016). Implementing intervention
research into public policy – the “I3 -approach”. Prevention Science, 1–10.
doi:10.1007/s11121-016-0638-3.
Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant. Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

FURTHER READING
Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K., Metz, A., & Van Dyke, M. (2013). Statewide implementation
of evidence-based programs. Exceptional Children (Special Issue), 79(2), 213–230.
doi:10.1177/001440291307900206.
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005).
Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of
South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, National
Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication No. 231). Retrieved from
http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/resources/implementation-research-synthesis-literature
Meyers, D. C., Durlak, J. A., & Wandersmann, A. (2012). The Quality Implementation
Framework: A Synthesis of Critical Steps in the Implementation Process. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 50(3–4), 462–480. doi:10.1007/s10464-012-9522-x.

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Spiel, C., Schober, B., Strohmeier, D., & Finsterwald, M. (2011). Cooperation among
Researchers, Policy Makers, Administrators, and Practitioners: Challenges and
Recommendations. ISSBD Bulletin 2011, 2(60), 11–14.
Spiel, C., Schober, B., & Strohmeier, D. (2016). Implementing Intervention
Research into Public Policy – the “I3 -Approach”. Prevention Science, 1–10.
doi:10.1007/s11121-016-0638-3.

BARBARA SCHOBER SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Barbara Schober is the cochair of the faculty research topic “Promotion
of lifelong learning in the educational system.” She is a member of the
management board of the Austrian Psychological Society, the senate of
the University, and international scientific and advisory boards of research
projects and journals. She follows a mission-driven research approach within
the field of “Bildung-Psychology” and is the project (co)leader of diverse
third-party-funded research projects and the (co)author of over numerous
international publications and presentations. Her research focuses on
lifelong learning, learning motivation, self-regulation, gender differences
in educational contexts, teacher training, development and evaluation of
intervention programs, and implementation research.
CHRISTIANE SPIEL SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Christiane Spiel is and has been the chair and a member of various
international advisory and editorial boards as, for example, president
of the European Society for Developmental Psychology, president of the
Austrian Psychology Association, and president of the DeGEval—Society
for Evaluation (in Germany and Austria). She was the founding dean of the
faculty of psychology at the University of Vienna and is the vice-chair of the
board of directors of the Wuppertal University in Germany. Currently, she
is one of the key authors of the International Panel on Social Progress and
member of the board of directors of the Global Implementation Initiative.
Her research topics are on bullying and victimization, lifelong learning,
integration in multicultural school classes, evaluation and intervention research, implementation science, and quality management in the
educational system.
RELATED ESSAYS
The Role of Data in Research and Policy (Sociology), Barbara A. Anderson
Can Public Policy Influence Private Innovation? (Economics), James Bessen
To Flop Is Human: Inventing Better Scientific Approaches to Anticipating
Failure (Methods), Robert Boruch and Alan Ruby

Enabling Improvements: Combining Intervention and Implementation Research

13

Meta-Analysis (Methods), Larry V. Hedges and Martyna Citkowicz
Misinformation and How to Correct It (Psychology), John Cook et al.
Youth Entrepreneurship (Psychology), William Damon et al.
Expertise (Sociology), Gil Eyal
Controlling the Influence of Stereotypes on One’s Thoughts (Psychology),
Patrick S. Forscher and Patricia G. Devine
Setting One’s Mind on Action: Planning Out Goal Striving in Advance
(Psychology), Peter M. Gollwitzer
The Evidence-Based Practice Movement (Sociology), Edward W. Gondolf
How Brief Social-Psychological Interventions Can Cause Enduring Effects
(Sociology), Dushiyanthini (Toni) Kenthirarajah and Gregory M. Walton
Quasi-Experiments (Methods), Charles S. Reichardt
Causation, Theory, and Policy in the Social Sciences (Sociology), Mark C.
Stafford and Daniel P. Mears
The Social Science of Sustainability (Political Science), Johannes Urpelainen
Translational Sociology (Sociology), Elaine Wethington
Person-Centered Analysis (Methods), Alexander von Eye and Wolfgang
Wiedermann



Media

Enabling Improvements: Combining Intervention and Implementation Research