Research Synthesis of Studies Investigating the Relationships Between Practitioner Beliefs and Adoption of Early Childhood Intervention Practices.

Meta-analyses of the findings from 29 studies including 4,194 early childhood practitioners showed that different practitioner belief appraisals (endorsement, importance, selfefficacy) were related to the intent to use and the adoption and use of different kinds of early childhood practices (developmentally appropriate practices, curricular content, classroom practices, instructional practices, social climate). Endorsement was assessed in terms of practitioner beliefs regarding the support for or approval of a specific type of practice. Importance was assessed in terms of the significance or value attributed to a practice by a practitioner. Self-efficacy beliefs were assessed in terms of practitioner attributions of the likelihood that their use of a practice would have expected or anticipated consequences. The average weighted effect size (correlation coefficient) between the belief and practice measures was r = 0.63, although there were differential relationships between the belief and practice measures depending on type of belief and type of practice. Implications for both research and practice are described. Volume 4, Number 1 April 2012 Practical Evaluation Reports are electronic publications of the Center for Practical Evaluation, an organizational unit of the Orelena Hawks Puckett Institute, 8 Elk Mountain Road, Asheville, North Carolina, 28804. Copyright © 2012. Puckett Institute. All rights reserved. www.practicalevaluation. org Introduction Many years of research and literally hundreds of studies have demonstrated that personal belief appraisals are robust predictors of people’s behavior in many domains of life (see especially Bandura, 1997; Skinner, 1995). The types of personal belief appraisals that have been the focus of investigation include, but are not limited to, self-efficacy appraisals (Holden, 1991), outcome expectations (Plourde, 2002), perceived control (Wallston, 2001), causal attributions (Porac, Ferris, & Fedor, 1983), self-beliefs (Valentine, DuBois, & Cooper, 2004), and perceived confidence (Bruder, Dunst, & Mogro-Wilson, 2011) among many other belief appraisal terms and constructs (e.g., Galejs & Pease, 2001; Paczkowski & Baker, 2007; Vandenplas-Holper, 1996). In addition to personal control belief appraisals, belief appraisals about the perceived importance (e.g., Jambunathan, 2005; Kowalski, Pretti-Frontczak, & Johnson, 2001) and the endorsed acceptance (e.g., Miltenberger, 1990; von Brock & Elliott, 1987) of different kinds of practices have been found to be determinants of people’s behavior (e.g., Reimers & Wacker, 1988). These particular types of beliefs have most often been assessed in terms of the social validity of different kinds of practices and the behavioral consequences of adopting and using the interventions (e.g., Finn & Sladeczek, 2001; Foster & Mash, 1999). Studies of these kinds of belief measures have found that stronger importance and endorsement appraisals are associated with increased adoption and use of different kinds of early childhood intervention practices (e.g., Dunst, Pace, & Hamby, 2007; Trivette, Dunst, Masiello, Gorman, & Hamby, 2009). The purpose of the research synthesis described in this Practical Evaluation Report was to determine if early childhood practitioner belief appraisals were related to the adoption and use of different kinds of recommended and evidencebased early childhood practices (e.g., Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; Odom & Wolery, 2003; Sandall, Hemmeter, Smith, & McLean, 2005). The belief appraisals constituting the foPreparation of the research synthesis was supported, in part, by a subcontract from the Tots N Tech Project (Phillippa Campbell, Principal Investigator), Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, to the Orelena Hawks Puckett Institute, Asheville, NC, from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (H327X070003). The opinions expressed, however, are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Thomas Jefferson University or the U.S. Department of Education.