Assessing a positive support practice includes gathering information about how well individuals within an organization are implementing new skills.
Individual and Team Self-Report
Individuals or teams within an organization may review a list of key features considered essential parts of a positive support and document progress making sure these elements are implemented. A common term used to describe the assessment of how well a positive support is implemented is referred to as fidelity of implementation.
An important part of a performance assessment includes an external observer visiting an organization to evaluate the fidelity of implementation of a positive support. Sometimes organizations choose to collaborate on the external review process. A professional from one organization with expertise in positive support visits the neighboring organization. Another strategy used for external review is to request a professional from a state of university setting to complete a performance assessment.
Tools That Assess Fidelity of Implementation Can Include Different Types of Information:
- Interviews with people receiving services and staff members representing different areas of the organization implementing a positive support;
- A review of policies, trainings, curriculum, and other related documents; and
- Observations of everyday routines and settings where a positive support is implemented.
The information is summarized by the reviewer who shares the information with the organization-wide team who requested the evaluation.
Assessing the Reliability of the Review Process
The professional providing an external review of a positive support collaborates with other reviewers to establish that the assessment process is reliable. It is important to demonstrate that scores on a positive support review would be consistent if someone else with experience in a positive support practice reviewed the same organization. The reviewer shows this reliability by completing a review at the same time as another reviewer. The scores across two reviewers are then compared. An organization that demonstrates that an external review is consistent across others with expertise provides stronger evaluation evidence.