- Development of the URP suite of instruments is driven by commitment to strengthening uptake and sustained implementation of evidence-informed practices in school setting. Over time, the Usage Rating Profile (URP) has evolved to include core potential influences on usage at the individual (i.e. Acceptability, Understanding), intervention (i.e., Feasibility), and environmental (i.e., Family-School Collaboration, System Climate, System Support) factors.
- Our conceptualization of usability aligns with industry standards regarding the development of safe, reliable, and good quality products and services. The International Organization for Standardization is an independent, non-governmental organization which sets these standards, which are driven to focus on correct use (learning) by humans with a wide range of capabilities coupled with effective, efficient, and satisfactory attainment of goals. These definitions of usability have direct parallels with the goals of child- and school-focused innovation use.
- The history of the URP suite of instruments began through the lens of social validity, or the extent to which intervention goals, procedures, and effects are judged to be significant, important, and appropriate by stakeholders (Wolf, 1978). Decades of work by child- and school-focused researchers such as Alan Kazdin, Joe Witt, Brian Martens, Steve Elliott, and others was based upon the premise that consumers are more likely to use treatments that they find to be acceptable. By identifying those features of interventions that were either acceptable or unacceptable (e.g., resources required, theoretical orientation), the hypothesis was that intervention tailoring could maximize usage. The core of the URP suite is built from these early measures of acceptability.
- As time proceeded, researchers in other fields such as medicine and social services began to acknowledge additional influences that extended beyond the individual user. That is, usability certainly includes features of individual knowledge, skills, and attitudes about the innovation – yet also expands to features in the larger system. In other words, an ecological perspective has been embraced to extend usability not only to initial perceptions and uptake but also sustainment of use. This work has developed into the interdisciplinary field of implementation science.
- To illustrate how the URP suite might be used in implementation evaluation, we have aligned the URP factors with two implementation frameworks that are common to education settings:
Usage Rating Profile |
Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR: https://cfirguide.org/) |
Exploration, Preparation, implementation, Sustainment Framework (EPIS: https://episframework.com/) |
|
Individual |
Acceptability/Willingness to Change
Understanding |
Individuals Involved | Inner context (individual characteristics) |
Intervention |
Acceptability (of Innovation)
Feasibility |
Intervention Characteristics | Innovation Factors |
Environment - Immediate |
System Climate
System Support Family-School Collaboration |
Inner Setting | Inner Context
Bridging Factors |
Environment - Broader |
Outer Setting | Outer Context | |
Process of Implementation |
Planning, engaging, executing, reflecting and evaluating | Preparation, exploration, implementation, sustainment |