SEPTEMBER 2014

THE IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXTUAL FIT 

WHEN IMPLEMENTING EVIDENCE-BASED 

INTERVENTIONS

ABOUT THIS ISSUE 

BRIEF

This issue brief was written by

Rob Horner, Ph.D., of the 

University of Oregon; Caryn 

Blitz, Ph.D., of the 

Administration on Children, 

Youth & Families; and Scott W. 

Ross, Ph.D., of the Utah State 

University.

In 2012, ASPE awarded the 

American Institutes for Research 

to manage the Investing in What 

Works (IWW) project, to 

continue ASPE’s efforts to keep 

building the knowledge and 

supports that evidence-based 

programs and initiatives can use 

to improve the quality and 

outcomes of interventions funded 

through federal investments. 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

for Planning and Evaluation

Office of Human 

Services Policy

U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services

Washington, DC 20201

This issue brief was developed under contract with ASPE (Contract #: HHSP23320095626SWC).

Executive Summary

Implementation science informs us that local context is 

important to the successful adoption of evidence-based 

interventions. “Contextual fit” is based on the premise that the 

match between an intervention and local context affects both the 

quality of intervention implementation and whether the 

intervention actually produces the desired outcomes for children 

and families.

Although the importance of contextual variables is often 

referenced, there is neither consensus on the specific elements 

that constitute contextual fit nor a strong research base. In an 

effort to address these gaps, we propose a set of core elements 

drawn from the existing literature that can be used to define 

contextual fit and guide practice, policy, and research. 

We define contextual fit as the match between the strategies, 

procedures, or elements of an intervention and the values,

needs, skills, and resources available in a setting. Contextual 

fit is defined by the perceptions of those who implement, 

receive, and support an intervention. Practitioners should 

understand the important role of the decision agent in the fit 

determination process. Although certain interventions might 

appear to “fit” on paper, practitioners must have a certain level 

of motivation, interest, and support for intervention fit to be 

present.1

1 Dymnicki et al. (2014) provide a broader discussion of the different components that 

comprise readiness for implementing evidence-based interventions, one of which is

motivation. 

Eight elements combine to establish the fit between an 

intervention and a setting:

1. Need: The extent to which an intervention meets an

identified need for a particular target population. The

outcomes of an intervention must be valuable to those
delivering, supporting, and receiving the intervention. In addition, the intervention should 

confer a relative advantage above and beyond existing services. 

2. Precision: The extent to which the core features of an intervention—what is to be 

delivered—are well defined. Interventions that are defined globally are difficult to match 

with a specific setting because the implementers cannot determine exactly what they should 

be delivering.

3. An Evidence-Base: The intervention has demonstrated effectiveness for the target 

population and the outcome(s) of interest. This typically means the intervention is supported 

by rigorous, published research with strong internal and external validity. 

4. Efficiency: The intervention needs to be not only effective but practical. An undervalued 

feature of evidence-based interventions is the level of efficiency (time, personnel, money, 

materials) needed to generate valued outcomes within the time frames and budgets necessary. 

5. Skills/competencies: Contextual fit requires clarity regarding how implementers will acquire 

the skills to use an intervention as intended. The training, coaching, orientation, and support 

needed for personnel to deliver an intervention should be clearly defined. 

6. Cultural Relevance: An intervention should match the values and preferences of those who 

will (a) implement the intervention, (b) benefit from the intervention, and (c) manage and 

support the intervention. Personal, societal, cultural, and professional values matter. The type 

of intervention, how it is implemented, and the intended outcomes should be acceptable to 

those in the local setting.

7. Resources: Contextual fit requires the ability and willingness to allocate the resources 

needed for both initial adoption and sustained implementation. 

8. Administrative and Organizational Support: Contextual fit includes the values and 

preferences of those making administrative decisions. 

Defining, measuring, and applying the elements of contextual fit to large-scale adoption of 

evidence-based interventions will be both effective and efficient with initial and sustained 

implementation. The elements of contextual fit have relevance for (a) the design and selection of 

interventions, (b) the process of initial implementation, and (c) the ongoing adaptation of the 

interventions needed for sustainability.

We offer recommendations for developing formal measures of contextual fit and use these 

measures to prompt a rigorous program of scholarship on the impact of contextual fit variables 

and the likely implications for policy, technical assistance, and the organization of large-scale 

implementation efforts.

ASPE ISSUE BRIEF | 2 
Key Take Away-Messages

 Contextual fit is an undervalued factor affecting the quality with which evidence-based 

interventions are implemented. Core components of fit to consider include need, 

precision, evidence, feasibility, skills/competencies, cultural relevance, resources, and 

administrative and organizational support. 

 Research is needed to better understand the role and process of contextual fit, the 

elements of contextual fit most important for improving effective implementation, and 

metrics to assess contextual fit.

 Policymakers should include contextual fit criteria in Funding Opportunity 

Announcements to improve the selection, adoption, implementation, and sustainability of 

supported interventions. 

 Technical assistance should focus on building strong contextual fit before investing in 

direct implementation efforts.

The Role of Contextual Fit When Implementing EvidenceBased Interventions

Purpose

The purpose of this issue brief is to propose an expanded role for “contextual fit” in the 

implementation of evidence-based interventions across education and human services domains, 

including mental health, juvenile justice, child welfare, and residential supports. The burgeoning 

field of “implementation science” speaks to the important role of contextual fit in the 

implementation process (Blase & Fixsen, 2013; Fixsen et al., 2005). Our basic premise is that 

contextual fit is important for (a) selecting evidence-based interventions, (b) the initial 

implementation of evidence-based interventions, and (c) the ongoing adaptation and scaling of 

evidence-based interventions. Appreciation of the contribution of contextual fit is not new, but 

for this appreciation to influence common practice, we need an operational definition of 

contextual fit, formal measures of contextual fit, and systematic research that guides both policy 

and practice.

What Is Contextual Fit?

Contextual fit is the match between the strategies, procedures, or elements of an 

intervention and the values, needs, skills, and resources of those who implement and 

experience the intervention. An intervention is said to possess good contextual fit when 

implementers, recipients, and other stakeholders (e.g., parents, teachers, community members, 

administrators, and related service systems) identify the intervention as acceptable, doable, 

effective, and sustainable. The contextual fit of an intervention for a specific setting is local and 

personal. Contextual fit is defined by those who will be implementing, supporting, and receiving 

the intervention (Damschroder et al., 2009). 

ASPE ISSUE BRIEF | 3 
Defining contextual fit requires that we first define an “intervention” and the distinction between 

the core elements of an intervention and the procedures used to achieve those core elements. We 

use the term “intervention” to refer to (a) a procedure, or set of procedures (b) designed for use 

in a specific context (or set of contexts) (c) by a specific set of users (d) to achieve defined 

outcomes (e) for (a) defined population(s) (c.f. Cook, Tankersley, & Landrum, 2009; Dunst, 

Trivette, & Cutspec, 2002; Flay et al., 2005; Horner, Sugai & Anderson, 2010). Interventions are 

what we do to achieve desired outcomes. They include the behaviors, tools, and protocols used 

for assessment, intervention, data collection, and evaluation. Historically, interventions have 

been viewed primarily as solutions to specific problems. This approach emphasizes the match 

between a desired outcome and the intervention, but it ignores the importance of issues like the 

skills of users, extent of need, values related to intervention options, and capacity for data-based 

decision making. 

More recently, there has been a renewed emphasis on interventions as context dependent—

developed with significant assumptions about the specific setting, users, and target populations in 

and for which they can and should be implemented (Spencer, Detrich, & Slocum, 2012). What 

might work well in preschool settings may not work well in juvenile justice contexts, mental 

health clinics, or high schools. When the fit between the setting and the intervention is poor, the 

likelihood of effective implementation diminishes, and the likelihood that implementation will 

lead to valued outcomes evaporates (Fixsen et al., 2010; Fixsen et al. 2005). 

Contextual fit has gained increased attention as program developers, researchers, and 

practitioners have recognized the need to define evidence-based interventions by their outcomes, 

core features, and strategies or intervention packaging to achieve the core features. In the past, 

“interventions” and “core features” have been synonymous. An intervention package for bullying 

prevention, drop-out prevention, self-regulation, or early literacy included a set of core features 

(curriculum content, instructional routines, setting variables) and specific strategies or 

interventions (specific text, training manuals, video exercises, and family supports). 

Implementers were expected to purchase or adopt the intervention; in so doing, they would use 

the intervention procedures to achieve the core features and through the core features the valued 

outcomes. Experience with large-scale implementation of evidence-based interventions has 

forced the recognition that intervention strategies for achieving core features may vary across 

settings (Horner et al., 2013). For example, a core feature of Positive Behavioral Interventions 

and Supports is defining and teaching a small number of social expectations to all students in the 

school. The core feature is the building of a school wide social culture with a common set of 

expectations. However, although this core feature is constant across settings, the specific 

expectations taught and the process for teaching these expectations can vary across elementary, 

middle, and high schools and across urban, suburban, and rural schools. The social and ethnic 

culture of a community may affect how these expectations are constructed and taught. The core 

feature is held constant, but the procedures to achieve the core feature are adapted to the context. 

This distinction is relevant because contextual fit applies both to the core features that should be 

present in an implementation setting and the intervention strategies used to achieve these core 

features.

ASPE ISSUE BRIEF | 4 
How Does Contextual Fit Align With Existing Implementation Frameworks?

One of the reasons the implementation of evidence-based interventions in human service systems 

is so challenging is that interventions are delivered by providers and organizations to individuals 

in communities, all within complex, multilayered social ecologies. A variety of models 

summarize the many implementation factors or “drivers” at various levels of the social ecology 

that facilitate or impede effective implementation (Aarons, Hurlburt, & Hurwitz, 2011; 

Damschroder & Hagedorn, 2011; Fixsen, Blase, Naoom, & Wallace, 2009; Glisson & 

Schoenwald, 2005). 

Which Constructs Are the Most Important for Determining Contextual Fit?

To date, contextual fit has been discussed most often as a general concept with overarching 

implications. There is a need to operationalize the construct in a way that allows for agreement in 

the field and enables the development of formal measures. Table 2 summarizes themes drawn 

from the literature to help define elements of contextual fit (Blase, Kiser, & Van Dyke, 2013; 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, 2012; Horner et al., 2003; Sandler, Albin, Horner, 

& Yovanoff, 2003). Table 1 presents the eight core components of fit and application questions 

that can be asked for each element. 

Table1. Summary of Elements of Contextual Fit

Element Application Questions for Each Element

Need 1a. Is the outcome of the intervention highly valued?

1b. Is the level of current success low enough that there is a need for something 

different according to: 

Those receiving support (children, youth, families, clients) 

Those providing support 

Those responsible for effective support (administrators, community members, 

political leaders)

Precision 2a. Is the proposed intervention defined with clarity and is detail provided to 

determine what is done, by whom, when, and why? 

Are core features defined?

Are strategies for achieving the core features defined?

An Evidence-Base 3a. Does empirical evidence exist that the implementation of the core features 

results in valued outcomes? Does the evidence document the target population, 

setting conditions, and usability conditions in which valued outcomes were 

achieved?

Efficiency 4a. Are the time and effort for initial adoption reasonable?

4b. Are the time and effort for sustained adoption as efficient or more efficient than 

current interventions (given the outcomes generated)?

ASPE ISSUE BRIEF | 5 
Element Application Questions for Each Element

Skills/competencies 5a. Are the skills needed to implement the intervention defined?

5b. Are materials and procedures available to establish needed skills?

5c. Does the level of skill development fit professional standards and or the 

organizational staffing structure?

Cultural relevance 6a. Are the outcomes of the intervention valued by those who receive them?

6b. Are the strategies and procedures consistent with the personal values of those 

who will perform them? 

6c. Are the strategies and procedures consistent with the personal values of those 

who will receive them?

Resources 7a. What time, funding, and materials are required for initial adoption?

7b. What training, coaching, and performance feedback are needed for high-fidelity 

implementation?

7c. What time, funding, and materials are required for sustained adoption? 

7d. What fidelity measures are needed to ensure monitoring of an implementation?

Administrative and 

organizational 

support 

8a. Is adoption of the intervention supported by key leaders?

8b. Will adoption of the intervention be monitored by key leaders? 

8c. Will fidelity and impact of the intervention be monitored by key leaders? 

8d. Is there a documented commitment to make the intervention a standard 

operating procedure?

Contextual fit influences the implementation process at three points. The first is in the 

exploration and selection of an effective intervention. An intervention should match the skills, 

values, and resources of those in the implementation context—that is, those who are providing, 

supporting, and receiving the intervention. Contextual fit plays an important role in selecting the 

evidence-based intervention that best matches the skills, values, and resources of the local 

setting.

ASPE ISSUE BRIEF | 6 
Second, contextual fit is 

important to consider when 

adopting an intervention 

during the installation and 

initial implementation stage. 

The way an intervention is 

introduced can determine 

whether it is accepted and 

adopted by both the 

community and service 

providers. The timing, 

amount, format, and 

integration of training into an 

existing service setting can 

affect the likelihood that the 

new intervention will be 

implemented well and yield 

positive results (assuming 

that readiness for the 

intervention has already been 

established). 

The third point of impact 

where contextual fit affects 

implementation is in the 

adaptation of an intervention 

once it has been 

implemented. Effective 

implementation does not end 

with initial adoption; it is a 

continuous process of 

tailoring an intervention to 

improve efficiency and 

effectiveness. The sustained

use of an intervention may 

depend on implementers’ 

ability to continually adapt 

the intervention as 

conditions in the setting 

evolve (McIntosh et al., 

2013). Adaptations need to 

be developed with full 

consideration of the extent to 

which they “fit” with the skills, values, and resources of those who use and benefit from the 

intervention. 

Determining Need: 

The Kansas Intensive Permanency Project

The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) Children’s 

Bureau (CB) and Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation 

(OPRE) developed the Permanency Innovations Initiative (PII), a 

multisite federal demonstration project designed to improve 

permanency outcomes among children in foster care who face the 

most serious barriers to permanency. Implemented in 2010, this 

5-year, $100-million initiative includes six grantees, each with a 

unique intervention designed to reduce long-term foster care stays 

and improve child and family outcomes. The project is distinguished 

by its provision of rigorous evaluation, purposeful application of 

implementation science, and coordinated dissemination of findings. 

In its intent to assist grantees to develop or adapt evidencesupported interventions (ESIs), PII aims to build an evidence base 

and disseminate findings throughout the child welfare field. Intensive 

technical assistance is available through federal program staff at CB 

and OPRE and from technical assistance contractors (Permanency 

Innovations Initiative Training and Technical Assistance Project & 

Permanency Innovations Initiative Evaluation Team, 2013). 

One of the six PII grantees, the Kansas Intensive Permanency 

Project (KIPP), is a statewide public–private partnership between the 

University of Kansas School of Social Welfare, the Kansas 

Department for Children and Families, and Kansas’ private providers 

of foster care. KIPP is testing the effectiveness of an evidencebased parenting intervention on the safety, permanency, and wellbeing outcomes of a subpopulation of children at risk of long-term 

foster care (LTFC): children with serious emotional disturbance. The 

goal of the first stage of implementation—exploration—was to 

assess the match between community needs, evidence-based 

interventions, and community resources (Fixsen et al., 2005). (A 

more detailed discussion of KIPP can be found in Akin, Bryson, 

Testa, Blase, & McDonald, 2013). To determine need, KIPP 

engaged in a series of data mining activities to better identify and 

understand the target population, critical barriers encountered by 

parents, and system barriers to permanency. The activities included

(1) review and analysis of administrative and program data to 

identify factors that place certain groups of children at risk for LTFC; 

(2) case reviews and data extraction to uncover family 

characteristics associated with LTFC; and (3) electronic informant 

surveys for child welfare staff, administrators, and advocates across 

the state to identify system barriers to permanency. Based on this 

input, the project team identified a list of parenting models and 

assessed their relevance to the selected target population. (For 

further information on how KIPP selected and implemented the 

chosen parenting intervention, see Bryson, Akin, Blase, McDonald, 

& Walker, 2014).

ASPE ISSUE BRIEF | 7 
Addressing Skills/Competencies: It’s Your Game Project 

in South Carolina Schools

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Adolescent 

Health (OAH) Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) Program works to preven 

teen pregnancy by supporting the replication of evidence-based 

interventions and the implementation of demonstration programs to 

develop and test new models and innovative strategies. In September 

2010, OAH provided funding to 75 grantees to replicate medically accurate 

age-appropriate, evidence-based TPP interventions that have been proven 

through rigorous evaluation to prevent teen pregnancy and/or associated 

sexual risk behaviors. The South Carolina (SC) Campaign to Prevent Teen 

Pregnancy (SC Campaign) received funding from OAH to replicate It’s 

Your Game, Keep it Real (IYG), a 2-year, middle school, evidence-based 

intervention shown to delay the initiation of sex, increase positive beliefs 

about abstinence, and decrease unprotected sex at last intercourse. The 

curriculum consists of 12 lessons in seventh grade and 12 lessons in 

eighth grade. The SC Campaign partnered with 10 SC school districts 

representing 24 middle schools to participate in the project, most of which 

selected physical education teachers or coaches to implement the IYG 

curriculum at school. As a condition of the agreement between the SC 

Campaign and participating schools, IYG facilitators were required to be 

trained by a certified trainer before implementing the intervention. 

Implementation began in 12 schools during the 2011–2012 school year 

and has expanded to 25 schools across the state in the current school yea 

(2013–2014).

The SC Campaign has held a 3-day training of facilitators each year since 

2011 for rising IYG facilitators. The training included a review of the 

curriculum’s logic model, core components, and theoretical foundation. To

ensure fidelity, a lesson-by-lesson review of the curriculum also was 

conducted and teach-back sessions were used to build educators’

implementation skills. Moreover, the SC Campaign included instruction on 

values clarification and opportunities for participants to practice answering 

sensitive questions to better prepare them for implementing a reproductive 

health curriculum. The literature has shown that training is necessary but 

not sufficient for quality implementation; instead, training should be 

supplemented with site-specific, customized technical assistance (TA). As 

a result, SC Campaign staff provide IYG facilitators with continuous, 

customized TA to address site-specific needs that is informed by data on 

fidelity and implementation quality collected from facilitators and 

independent observations of the intervention. The ability to identify 

facilitator needs through fidelity data is important because facilitators with 

lower capacity levels are less likely to request TA or assistance. Because 

of data-informed TA, SC Campaign staff could provide strategies to 

address issues in real time so that further threats to implementation were 

prevented. Long-term responses to challenges to implementation fidelity, 

such as trainings and webinars, were also developed based on site needs 

as derived from data collected from facilitators and independent observers 

(For further information on how the SC Campaign used real-time fidelity 

data to inform TA, see Kershner et al., 2014).

What Does 

Contextual Fit Look 

Like in Practice?

Examples of the impact that 

contextual fit can have on 

implementation are available 

in every discipline. Consider 

one intervention focused on 

reducing substance abuse 

developed in the Midwest 

that emphasized both the 

development of after-school 

community activities and 

family support. The 

intervention had been used 

with significant success in 

two midwestern states and 

was highly anticipated by 

community organizers in an 

urban west coast context. The 

intervention manual and 

materials were purchased; 

midwestern developers were 

hired to assist with 

implementation; and a series 

of community events, 

training forums for mental 

health professionals, and 

orientations for youth and 

families were funded. 

Unfortunately, there was no 

effort to assess whether the 

roles, responsibilities, and 

specific strategies of the 

intervention were valued by 

and culturally comfortable 

with the families, youth, or 

local professionals. 

Insufficient attention was 

paid to language differences 

and parents’ expectations. 

The poor match between the 

vision that parents in the host city had for themselves and the expectations of the intervention led 

to both poor-quality implementation and no change in substance abuse levels. The same 

ASPE ISSUE BRIEF | 8 
intervention implemented two years later in a southwestern urban setting was launched only after 

adapting the intervention to fit the local culture. Core features of the intervention were retained, 

but the process of introduction (presentations by local leaders, not external leaders) was modified 

to launch the program from within the community rather than as an external “initiative.” 

Recasting materials to fit local language and cultural norms combined with a strong emphasis on 

training by local community members rather than external experts enhanced the contextual fit of 

the intervention for that specific location. The result was higher implementation fidelity and 

valued improvement in reported rates of substance abuse by youth. 

How Should Contextual Fit Be Measured?

One reason contextual fit has received muted attention is that there is no accepted approach for 

how to measure it. Horner and colleagues (2003) provide one possible approach in their 16-item 

assessment of contextual fit (each item is rated on a 6-point Likert-like scale).2

2 A copy of this measure can be found at

http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/cdesped/download/pdf/selfassess_contextfitschools.pdf. 

 Although this 

self-assessment has been used in studies assessing the contextual fit of behavior support plans in 

school, home, and community settings, and the resulting outcome score has been correlated with 

fidelity of implementation (e.g., Rodriguez, Loman, & Horner, 2009; Sandler et al., 2003; Smith, 

2013), it has not been extended to studies or interventions outside of education. Currently, no 

contextual fit measure with documented psychometric properties can be used to evaluate the 

implementation of a broad range of evidence-based interventions across educational, mental 

health, juvenile justice, and community contexts. 

To establish a useful measure of contextual fit, there must be agreement on the core elements of 

contextual fit. Then, these elements need to be included in a standard measurement protocol that 

can provide a “total contextual fit score” and scores about each element of contextual fit. 

Demonstrating the content validity of such a measure would then have to be combined with 

demonstrations of reliability and internal validity (Algozzine, Newton, Horner, Todd, 

& Algozzine, 2012). 

What Are the Policy Implications of Contextual Fit?

Increasingly, federal, state, and local agencies are focused on improving the implementation of 

evidence-based interventions (Spencer et al., 2012). However, existing implementation science 

models do not fully consider the realities and constraints imposed by federal grants award and 

management processes. For example, organizations that seek federal grants must respond to 

Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) within short timeframes and adapt proposals to 

respond to problems or issues that have already been identified by the federal government. In 

contrast, many implementation science models assume a community-driven planning and 

conceptualization process in which local groups of concerned persons or organizations identify a 

problem, build commitment to address the problem, identify the best evidence-based 

interventions for solving the problem, and then find the resources to refine and implement the 

ASPE ISSUE BRIEF | 9 

 
interventions selected. The implementation timeframes of discretionary grant projects are further 

constrained by the limited duration of grants, which typically last from 3 to 5 years and 

sometimes as little as 17 months. These factors all affect the speed and trajectory of the entire 

implementation process for a discretionary grant program from initial startup to long-term 

intervention adaptation and sustainability. 

To address these limitations, we offer three policy considerations. First, policymakers could 

consider including criteria for contextual fit into FOAs to facilitate preparing and selecting 

grantees. The elements of contextual fit should be clearly defined and grantees should be 

evaluated on their plans for assessing each of the elements. And, because assessment of 

contextual fit is multifaceted, longer planning periods may be necessary to ensure the successful 

selection, adoption, implementation, and sustainability of grantee interventions. 

Second, because longer planning periods within a 5- or 3-year grant may not be feasible, 

policymakers might also consider developing a series of FOAs, beginning with planning grants 

that assess contextual fit and tie it to implementation readiness, so that grantees can build their 

infrastructure and capacity for implementing evidence-based interventions over time to ensure 

optimal success. An example of this is a series of cooperative agreements and grants offered by 

the Center for Substance Prevention (CSAP) at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration (see http://www.samhsa.gov/grants/2009/sp_09_001.aspx). The funding 

opportunities began with developing and implementing comprehensive needs assessments to 

estimate the prevalence of substance abuse among youth in target communities. Based upon the 

data, the target communities were able to develop plans to build collaboration and capacity for 

substance abuse prevention efforts across service systems. CSAP then funded an effort focused 

on building core measures for intermediate and distal substance abuse outcomes across a limited 

number of states. The next opportunity was the State Incentive Grants (SIGs) that funded the 

implementation of evidence-based interventions statewide. The next generation of SIG grants 

were the Strategic Prevention Framework grants (SPF-SIGs), culminating in the current SPFPartnerships for Success (PFS) grants. It is through these various funding opportunities provided 

over a 14-year period that CSAP has supported states and communities in the development of 

infrastructure and capacity to implement evidence-based interventions.

Third, policymakers should investigate the kinds of changes needed in the organization of 

federal, state, and regional TA efforts to help grantees determine contextual fit. Assessment of 

any single element of contextual fit can be intensive and time consuming, as evidenced in the 

assessment of need by the KIPP (see p. 6) and IYG (see p. 7). Assistance for implementing new 

interventions should be tied to establishing a contextual foundation in which implementation will 

be both efficient and effective. The U.S. Department of Education’s current emphasis on TA of 

“multi-tiered systems of support” is a good example. Not only are interventions defined with 

multiple tiers of intensity, but the TA available to schools and communities is organized around 

multiple tiers of TA intensity. Some schools/communities will need more training, more 

coaching, and more organizational support to adopt new interventions. Intervention intensity 

should match the needs of the individual and TA intensity should match the needs of the host 

organization. A major step toward advancing these multi-tiered efforts will be the incorporation 

of contextual fit measures at both the intervention and TA levels. 

ASPE ISSUE BRIEF | 10
What Are the Research Implications of Contextual Fit?

For contextual fit to assume the role it is touted to fill in implementation science, a concerted 

effort is needed to build a solid empirical foundation. Three initial steps for future research are 

needed: (a) developing technically adequate measures of contextual fit, (b) documenting the role 

of contextual fit in the effectiveness and efficiency of implementation, and (c) determining the 

extent to which questions of contextual fit can be used to assess readiness for implementation. 

The first step is to develop technically adequate measures of contextual fit. Contextual fit needs 

to be defined with operational precision. The field needs to agree on the elements of contextual 

fit that allow strong content validity measures, which must be demonstrated to be both valid and 

reliable. The challenges related to assessing perceptions need to be addressed, and the field 

requires multiple approaches for systematically measuring the degree of fit that an intervention 

has within a specified setting.

The second line of research need involves documenting the role of contextual fit in the 

effectiveness and efficiency of implementation. We propose that contextual fit improves not only 

the likelihood that an intervention will be adopted with fidelity, but the efficiency (time, money, 

personnel) needed to achieve adoption. These are compelling claims, but to date they are claims 

based more on theory than documented evidence. Once we have valid, reliable measures of 

contextual fit, the field will be open to systematic studies (both correlational and experimental) 

that assess the role of contextual fit in implementation.

A related line of research will focus on the extent to which questions of contextual fit may be 

used to assess “readiness for implementation.” If intervention implementation is delayed until the 

“exploration” process indicates there is a good match between the intervention and the setting, is 

the intervention more likely to be implemented? And is investment in building fit before 

investing in active implementation cost-effective? These and related questions need to be 

assessed in formal studies.

Summary

Contextual fit is a construct that has gained increased attention from those who implement 

evidence-based interventions across education and human services domains. Contextual fit is 

based on the premise that the match between an intervention and local context affects both the 

quality of the intervention implemented and whether the intervention actually produces the 

outcomes desired for the children and families receiving the intervention. Although contextual fit 

is not new, an operational definition, formal measures, and systematic research that guides both 

policy and practice are needed before assessing the fit of evidence-based interventions for a 

particular context can become common practice. We encourage current implementers to 

incorporate efforts to assess and adapt contextual fit into the interventions they intend to adopt. 

More importantly, we encourage the formal development of measurement technology and 

experimental studies that can further define the role of contextual fit in implementation science. 

 

ASPE ISSUE BRIEF | 11
References

Aarons, G. A., Hurlburt, M., & Hurwitz, S. M. (2011). Advancing a conceptual model of 

evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Administration and 

Policy in Mental Health, 38, 4–23. 

Akin, B., Bryson, S., Testa, M., Blase, K., & McDonald, T. (2013). Usability testing, initial 

implementation, and formative evaluation of an evidence-based intervention: Lessons 

from a demonstration project to reduce long-term foster care. Evaluation and Program 

Planning, 41, 19–30. 

Algozzine, B., Newton, J. S., Horner, R. H., Todd, A. W., & Algozzine, K. (2012). Development 

and technical characteristics of a team decision-making assessment tool decision 

observation, recording, and analysis (DORA). Journal of Psychoeducational 

Assessment, 30(3), 237–249. 

Blase, K. & Fixsen, D. (2013). Core intervention components: Identifying and operationalizing 

what makes programs work, ASPE Research Brief, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, February, 2013. 

Blase, K., Kiser, L., & Van Dyke, M. (2013). The Hexagon Tool: Exploring context. Chapel Hill, 

NC: National Implementation Research Network, FPG Child Development Institute, 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Bryson, S. A., Akin, B. A., Blase, K. A., McDonald, T., & Walker, S. (2014). Selecting an EBP 

to reduce long-term foster care: Lessons from a university–child welfare agency 

partnership. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 11(1–2), 208–221. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. (2009). Identifying and selecting evidence-based 

interventions: Revised guidance document for the Strategic Prevention Framework State 

Incentive Grant Program. HHS Pub. No. (SMA)09-4205. Rockville, MD: Center for 

Substance Abuse Prevention, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration.

Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., & Landrum, T. J. (2009). Determining evidence-based practices in 

special education. Exceptional Children, 75, 365–383. 

Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowery, J. C. 

(2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A 

consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science, 

4(1), 50-65. 

Damschroder, L. J. & Hagedorn, H. J. (2011). A guiding framework and approach for 

implementation research in substance use disorders treatment. Psychology of Addictive 

Behaviors, 25(2), 194–205. 

ASPE ISSUE BRIEF | 12
Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Cutspec, P. A. (2002). Toward an operational definition of 

evidence-based practices. Centerscope, 1(1), 1–10. 

Dymnicki, A., Wandersman, A., Osher, D., Grigorescu, V., Huang, L. & Meyer, A. (2014). 

Willing, able→ ready: Basics and policy implications of readiness as a key component 

for implementation of evidence-based practices. ASPE Issue Brief, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Office of Human Services Policy, 

United States Department of Health and Human Services.

Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., Duda, M. A., Naoom, S. F., Van Dyke, M., Weisz, J. R., et al. 

(2010). Implementation of evidence-based treatments for children and adolescents: 

Research findings and their implications for the future. In J. Weisz & A. Kazdin (Eds.), 

Implementation and dissemination: Extending treatments to new populations and new 

settings (2nd ed.) (pp. 435–450). New York, NY: Guilford. 

Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., Naoom, S. F., & Wallace, F. (2009). Core implementation 

components. Research on Social Work Practice, 19(5), 531–540. 

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). 

Flay, B. R., Biglan, A., Boruch, R. F., Castro, F. G., Gottfredson, D., Kellam, S., et al. (2005). 

Standards of evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination. Prevention 

Science, 6, 151−175. 

Glisson, C., & Schoenwald, S. K. (2005). The ARC organizational and community intervention 

strategy for implementing evidence-based children's mental health treatments. Mental 

Health Services Research, 7(4), 243–259. 

Horner, R. H., Kincaid, D., Sugai, G., Lewis, T., Eber, L., Barrett, S., et al. (2013). Scaling up 

School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: The experiences of seven 

states with documented success. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions. 

Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2010). Examining the evidence-base for schoolwide positive behavior support. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42(8), 1–14. 

Horner R. H., Salentine, S., & Albin, R. (2003). Self-assessment of contextual fit in schools. Available 

from

http://measures.earlyadolescence.org/media/upload/ContextualFitinSchools_9081581.pdf

Kershner, S., Flynn, S., Prince, M., Potter, S. C., Craft, L., & Alton, F. (2014). Using data to 

improve fidelity when implementing evidence-based programs. Journal of Adolescent 

Health, 54(3), S29-S36. 

ASPE ISSUE BRIEF | 13
McIntosh, K., Mercer, S., Hume, A., Frank, J., Turri, M., & Mathews, M. (2013). Factors related 

to sustained implementation of schoolwide Positive Behavior Support. Exceptional 

Children, 79(3), 293–311. 

Permanency Innovations Initiative Training and Technical Assistance Project & Permanency 

Innovations Initiative Evaluation Team. (2013). The PII approach: Building 

implementation and evaluation capacity in child welfare (Rev. ed). Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and 

Families, Children’s Bureau, and Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation. 

Rodriguez, B. J., Loman, S. L., & Horner, R. H. (2009). A preliminary analysis of the effects of 

coaching feedback on teacher implementation fidelity of first step to success. Behavior 

Analysis in Practice, 2(2), 3–11. 

Sandler, L., Albin, R. W., Horner, R. H., & Yovanoff, P. (2003). Contextual fit and the viability 

of behavior support plans. Unpublished manuscript, Educational and Community 

Supports, University of Oregon. 

Smith, T. (2013). What is evidence-based behavior analysis? The Behavior Analyst, 36(1), 7–33. 

Spencer, T. D., Detrich, R., & Slocum, T. A. (2012). Evidence-based practice: A framework for 

making effective decisions. Education and Treatment of Children, 35(2) 127–152. 

ASPE ISSUE BRIEF | 14
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

& HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary

Washington, DC

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use $300

ASPE ISSUE BRIEF | 15
ASPE ISSUE BRIEF | 16