“Going Above and Beyond” in the Education Sector: Extension and Validation of the School Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale (SICBS)

“Going Above and Beyond” in the Education Sector: Extension and Validation of the School Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale (SICBS) | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article “Going Above and Beyond” in the Education Sector: Extension and Validation of the School Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale (SICBS) Catherine Corbin, Mark G Ehrhart, Eric C Brown, Jill Locke, Clayton R Cook, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4682900/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 26 May, 2025 Read the published version in Implementation Science Communications → Version 1 posted 4 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background: Employee behaviors that strategically support implementation (i.e., implementation citizenship behavior) are hypothesized to promote the successful adoption and high-fidelity use of evidence-based practices (EBPs). Implementation citizenship behaviors may vary across contexts, including schools where children and youth are most likely to access and receive mental and behavioral health services. Extension and validation of pragmatic measures are needed to advance nascent research on—and ultimately inform how to leverage best—school-based implementation citizenship behavior. The current study expanded the Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale (ICBS) to create and validate the School Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale (SICBS) in a sample of elementary school personnel implementing one of two widely used and evidence-based prevention programs to support children’s mental and behavioral health. Methods: A sample of 441 public school teachers from 52 elementary schools in the Midwest and Western United States of America completed a survey that included the SICBS, expanded to include two new subscales (taking initiative, advocacy), and additional measures to assess convergent and divergent validity. SICBS was refined and validated via (1) examination of item characteristics curves to reduce items and develop a pragmatic instrument, (2) confirmatory factor analyses to evaluate the hypothesized measurement structure, and (3) assessment of convergent and divergent validity. Results: The original two ICBS subscales (helping others, keeping informed) were retained, and two new three-item subscales resulted from item reduction analyses (taking initiative, advocacy). The hypothesized second-order factor model was well fit to the data (CFI = .99, TLI = .99, RMSEA = .11), all first- (λs = .85-.96) and second-order factor loadings (λs = .93-.95) were high. All four SICBS subscales demonstrated acceptable reliability (αs = .88-.92). Convergent validity was evidenced by moderate correlations with organizational citizenship behavior items ( r s = .42-.49). Divergent validity was demonstrated by weak correlations with teachers’ beliefs about teaching ( r s = .31-.38) and null correlations with most school demographics. Conclusion: Results support the structural, convergent, and divergent validity of the 12-item, 4-factor SICBS. The SICBS provides a deeper understanding of individual implementer actions that may serve as implementation mechanisms or outcomes. Implementation citizenship behavior Measurement Education Prevention Mental Health Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Contributions to the Literature Employees’ prosocial behavior that strategically supports evidence-based practice (EBP) implementation (i.e., implementation citizenship behavior), like helping colleagues solve implementation-related challenges, may improve implementation quality across schools, where most children and youth access and receive mental and behavioral health services. This study expands the Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale to create and validate the School Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale among educators implementing evidence-based prevention programs to support children’s mental and behavioral health. Findings supported the two original in addition to two new subscales, resulting in the four-factor School Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale, which demonstrated convergent and divergent validity. Introduction The adoption, high-fidelity use, and sustainment of evidence-based practices (EBPs) are critical to preventing and addressing growing mental and behavioral health concerns among youth (Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Racine et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2024). A substantial body of work has identified factors likely to impact implementation effectiveness across service settings (Damschroder et al., 2022; Kirk et al., 2016, Moullin et al., 2019), including schools where youth are most likely to access and receive preventive and indicated mental health services (Duong et al., 2022; Langley et al., 2010). Aspects of the organizational context are particularly important determinants (i.e., barriers and facilitators) of implementers’ routine high-quality use of EBP (Aarons et al., 2023; Li et al., 2018). Although considerable research has focused on the role of leadership and organizational climate (Malloy et al., 2015; Meza et al., 2021; Williams et al., 2022; Williams et al., 2024), fewer studies have addressed the role employees and their peers play in facilitating implementation (Haider et al., 2017). Further, the limited availability of validated assessment instruments of these influences has inhibited implementation research and practice in the school context. The development of the Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale (ICBS; Ehrhart et al., 2015) and its school-adapted version (Lyon et al., 2018) provide an opportunity to uncover how employee behavior might be cultivated to strategically support EBP implementation. This study extends the work of Ehrhart et al. (2015) and Lyon et al. (2018) by validating the School Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale (SICBS)—adapted to include two new subscales (taking initiative and advocacy)—among front-line implementers of evidence-based universal school-based prevention programs. Organizational Citizenship Behavior and EBP Implementation Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) describes “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the organization” (Organ et al., 2006, p.3). Simply put, OCB describes activities by employees that go “above and beyond” their typical assigned duties to advance broader organizational goals. Specific behaviors underlying OCB can be placed into two major categories: OCB directed toward individuals (e.g., helping or courtesy) or OCB directed towards the organization (e.g., voice or civic virtue) (Williams & Anderson, 1991). Predictors of OCB cut across characteristics of individuals (e.g., personality or attitudes), the task (e.g., feedback), the organization (e.g., organizational structure, cohesiveness), and leaders (e.g., reward behaviors, support) (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Moreover, increased OCB among individuals and groups predicts a range of multilevel indicators of organizational effectiveness including employee performance, decreased turnover, team effectiveness, and healthcare outcomes (Podsakoff et al., 2009; Podsakoff et al., 2014). One development in the OCB literature is the consideration of strategic forms of OCB, or in other words, employee behaviors that exceed expectations in support of a prioritized goal or initiative. For example, customer-focused OCB is associated positively with customer satisfaction (Schneider et al., 2005), and similar findings have emerged related to safety-focused OCB (Griffin & Neal, 2000). An emerging body of research has extended strategic OCB to include a focus on EBP implementation; implementation citizenship behavior (ICB) describes how employees support effective implementation across an organization (Ehrhart et al., 2015). Implementers demonstrate ICB via prosocial behaviors that support colleagues’ adoption and high-fidelity use of EBP and by investing personal resources to remain abreast of changes to and organizational communication about EBP (Ehrhart et al., 2015; Lyon et al., 2018). Pragmatic (i.e., comprehensive, brief, useful) measures (Glasgow & Riley, 2013) of implementation-related behaviors are needed to advance understanding of how they might be leveraged to address the research-to-practice gap. The Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale (ICBS; Ehrhart et al., 2015) is one such measure that has been validated for use in mental health clinics in the United States and Norway (Borge et al., 2021; Ehrhart et al., 2015) and has demonstrated positive associations with EBP attitudes, clinicians’ intentions to implement EBPs, employee- and supervisor-rated performance, and employee tenure (Borge et al., 2021; Ehrhart et al., 2015; Torres et al., 2020). The ICBS also has been adapted and validated for use among school-based mental and behavioral health consultants (Lyon et al., 2018), though not among frontline implementers of universal mental and behavioral prevention programs, such as educators. Moreover, the developers of the school-adapted ICBS suggested that the measure could be expanded to capture additional extra-role behaviors integral to supporting effective EBP implementation in school settings (Lyon et al., 2018). School-Based EBP and Implementation Citizenship Behavior Schools provide a continuum of mental and behavioral healthcare to youth, ranging from primary prevention to more intensive tiers of service provision (Arora et al., 2019). Universal prevention programs are critical as they can interrupt and/or reverse maladaptive developmental trajectories at a point when they may be more readily influenced (Sørlie et al., 2018). The continuous rise in mental health conditions among youth over the past few years (Keyes & Platt, 2024; Racine et al., 2021) clearly underscores the need to identify and develop proximal resources to support effective school-based EBP implementation. Individual implementer characteristics routinely emerge as integral to successful EBP implementation (Powell et al., 2019). Despite a dearth of research linking ICB to implementation outcomes, related constructs suggest the potential of ICB to positively influence EBP implementation. For example, opinion leaders—employees who disproportionately influence the attitudes and behaviors of their peers (Rogers, 1995)—engage in behaviors that overlap with ICB (e.g., share resources, communicate benefits of EBP) and can be instrumental in facilitating high-quality school-based EBP implementation (Atkins et al., 2003). Focus groups with educational stakeholders (e.g., principals, teachers) indicate there may also be additional extra-role implementation-related behaviors educators practice that are specific to the school implementation context (e.g., volunteering to observe or be observed; working with colleagues, families, and community members to promote EBP implementation) (Locke et al., 2019). Two new ICBS subscales are proposed to measure the extent to which teachers (a) take initiative by participating in EBP related activities (e.g., supplemental trainings, being observed by other implementers) that directly support implementation and (b) actively promote (e.g., share positive benefits of EBP) and advocate for EBP use in interactions with peers and other stakeholders (i.e., advocacy). Notably, taking initiative aligns with the individual initiative dimension of OCB (i.e., voluntarily taking on extra responsibilities), whereas advocacy aligns with the organizational loyalty (i.e., externally promoting the organization) dimension (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Given that development of the ICBS was guided by OCB theory and research (Ehrhart et al., 2015), this alignment gives credence for the consideration of taking initiative and advocacy as potential components of ICB. Study Aims As indicated in multiple implementation frameworks (Damschroder et al., 2022; Moullin et al., 2019), identifying and validly measuring characteristics of the organizational context likely to improve EBP implementation is imperative for research and practice. This study expands upon behaviors measured by the original ICBS by adding two new subscales and validating the SICBS among elementary school teachers implementing one of two universal EBPs: Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS; Lewis & Sugai, 1999) and Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS; Greenberg et al., 1995). Confirmatory factor analysis was used to establish the measurement structure of the adapted SICBS, followed by item response theory to refine newly added subscales. Convergent and divergent validity were established using data on educators’ OCB, attitudes toward teaching, and school demographics. Moreover, recent work validating related instruments tested invariance across versions that referenced either a specific EBP or EBP in general (Lyon et al., 2022; Thayer et al., 2022) to determine whether items with more specificity (i.e., specific EBP), which may more strongly predict implementation outcomes, measured the same underlying construct as the more general items. Aligned with these efforts, we also examined the invariance of the SICBS across survey referents. We hypothesized the following: Hypothesis 1: The adapted SICBS with a second-order factor structure will fit the data such that four first order factors (helping others, keeping informed, taking initiative,advocacy) will comprise one higher order School Implementation Citizenship Behavior factor. Hypothesis 2: Correlations between the adapted SICBS and OCB total and subscale scores will be moderate to strong (convergent validity). Hypothesis 3 : Correlations between the adapted SICBS total and subscale scores, teachers’ general attitudes toward teaching, and school demographics will be weak and/or nonsignificant (divergent validity). Hypothesis 4: The SICBS will be invariant across EBP referent type (i.e., general vs. specific). Methods Setting and participants Setting Schools were eligible to participate if implementing one of two evidence-based interventions ( n = 39 SW-PBIS; n = 13 PATHS). A total of 441 teachers from 52 elementary schools in 6 school districts in Washington, Ohio, and Illinois were recruited. On average, students across schools were 66% non-White (range 21 to 100%) and 57% low-income status (range 4 to 100%). Of the 500 teachers contacted to participate, 88% completed the online survey (see Procedures). Teacher-level demographics An average of nine teachers per school were invited to complete the survey. Most teachers were female, White, reported an average of 11.6 years of experience, and held a master’s degree (Table 1). The analytic sample was sometimes less than 441 due to missing data (< 5% across all study constructs). Table 1 Participant demographics for School Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale (SICBS) General (N=218), Specific (N=222), and combined (N=440) samples Participant Information General Freq (%) Specific Freq (%) Combined Freq (%) Age 18 to 24 years old 25 to 34 years old 35 to 44 years old 45 to 54 years old 55 to 64 years old 65 to 74 years old Total 7 (3.2) 65 (30.0) 58 (26.7) 55 (25.3) 31 (14.3) 1 (0.5) 217 (100.0) 14 (6.3) 64 (29.0) 63 (28.5) 47 (21.3) 30 (13.6) 3 (1.4) 221 (100.0) 21 (4.8) 129 (29.5) 121 (27.6) 102 (23.3) 61 (13.9) 4 (0.9) 438 (100.0) Gender Male Female Other Total 26 (12.0) 190 (87.6) 1 (0.5) 217 (100.0) 19 (8.6) 201 (91.4) 0 (0.0) 220 (100.0) 45 (10.3) 391 (89.5) 1 (0.2) 437 (100.0) Race American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian Black or African American Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander White or Caucasian Multiracial Other Total 7 (3.2) 1 (0.5) 14 (6.5) 0 (0.0) 178 (82.4) 11 (5.1) 5 (2.3) 216 (100.0) 1 (0.5) 5 (2.3) 8 (3.7) 1 (0.5) 184 (85.2) 10 (4.6) 7 (3.2) 216 (100.0) 8 (1.9) 6 (1.4) 22 (5.1) 1 (0.2) 362 (83.8) 21 (4.9) 12 (2.8) 432 (100.0) Ethnicity Latino/Hispanic Non-Latino/Hispanic Total 14 (6.5) 203 (93.5) 217 (100.0) 17 (7.7) 203 (92.3) 220 (100.0) 31 (7.1) 406 (92.9) 437 (100.0) Highest Degree Earned Bachelors Masters Doctoral Total 72 (33.2) 144 (66.4) 1 (0.5) 217 (100.0) 68 (30.9) 152 (69.1) 0 (0.0) 220 (100.0) 140 (32.0) 296 (67.7) 1 (0.2) 437 (100.0) Grade K – 2 nd 3 rd – 5 th and other Total 91 (41.7) 127 (58.3) 218 (100.0) 99 (44.6) 123 (55.4) 222 (100.0) 190 (43.2) 250 (56.8) 440 (100.0) PBIS T1 N, Mean ± sd PATHS N, Mean ± sd COMBINED N, Mean ± sd Years in Current Role 217, 11.9 ± 6.9 220, 11.3 ± 7.1 437, 11.6 ± 7.0 Years at Current School 217, 7.0 ± 6.0 220, 6.9 ± 5.9 437, 6.9 ± 6.0 Procedures This study was part of a federally-funded measure adaptation and development project that produced validated assessments of the school organizational implementation context. Feedback from focus groups with educator stakeholder groups (Locke et al., 2019) informed the initial modification of the school-adapted ICBS (Lyon et al., 2018). Changes were made to item wording to ensure construct equivalence for school-based implementers (Hambleton, 1996). The current study further expanded the original two dimensions of the school-adapted ICBS of helping and keeping informed to include items that measure behavioral indicators hypothesized to underlie the extent to which educators supported EBP implementation by (a) taking initiative and engaging in (b) advocacy. Human subjects approval was obtained from the University of Washington Institutional Review Board and, when applicable, participating school districts’ research and evaluation departments. Recruitment began with study investigators contacting school district central administrators to discuss the project and secure participation. Participating central administrators then identified eligible schools and helped distribute information about the study, its benefits, and data collection procedures to site-based administrators. The opportunity to participate was presented to educators, typically during staff meetings or via email, resulting in the recruitment of 4-10 teachers from each school. Research staff used contact information from participating teachers for all project communications (e.g., sending survey links). Data were collected between September and November of 2017. Initial email communication to teachers provided a project description, obtained informed consent, and included a unique link to the web-based survey. Teachers had one-month from receipt of the initial email to complete their survey. Weekly email reminders were sent in an effort to increase survey response rates. Measures School Implementation Citizenship Behavior (SICBS) The original ICBS (Ehrhart et al., 2015) and initial school-adapted ICBS (Lyon et al., 2018) are six-item instruments designed to measure implementer behaviors strategically directed toward effective EBP implementation. The ICBS is intended to be completed by supervisors and the school version by individual implementers, thus measuring slightly different forms of ICB. All items are scored on a 4-point Likert scale that ranges from 0 ( not at all ) to 4 ( to a very great extent ). Past research has supported the measurement structure of both instruments as characterized by two correlated latent factors (helping others, keeping informed) defined by three items each (Ehrhart et al., 2015; Lyon et al., 2018). The two newly proposed subscales were developed iteratively across two phases. Educational stakeholders (e.g., teachers, principals) first provided feedback via focus groups that informed novel school-based ICB that were subsequently refined and organized by expert summit participants into taking initiative ( n =4 candidate items) and advocacy ( n =5 candidate items); the initial version of the adapted SICBS included 15 items. Item reduction procedures, reliability, and validity of the adapted SICBS are reported in the Results. Additionally, and consistent with other instruments developed in the context of the broader project (Lyon et al., 2022; Thayer et al., 2022), two versions of the adapted SICBS were created that differed in the referent used. Items in one version referenced EBP generally (e.g., “ School staff keep informed of changes in EBPs ”), whereas items in the other version referenced a specific EBP (e.g., “ School staff keep informed of changes in SWPBIS/PATHS ”). Invariance in the underlying factor structure of the EBP-general and EBP-specific versions of the adapted SICBS was tested using multigroup modeling (see Results). Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Schools (OCBS) The OCBS (Dipaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2001) is a 12-item scale that measures teachers’ perceptions of general (i.e., not implementation-specific) OCB among colleagues in their school. Teachers rated their agreement with items using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ( Strongly disagree ) to 4 ( Strongly agree ). The OCBS captures behaviors directed toward individuals (e.g., “ Teachers/school staff voluntarily help new teachers ”) and the organization (e.g., “ Teachers/school staff committees in this school work productively ”). Evidence supports OCBS as a unitary construct with strong psychometric properties (DiPaola & Mendes da Costa Neves, 2009). Internal consistency was acceptable (α = .75). Public School Teacher Questionnaire (PSTQ) The PSTQ—a long-time staple of the Schools and Staffing Survey conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (2007)—is a measure of teachers’ general attitudes toward teaching. We anticipated teachers’ general attitudes would correlate weakly with a specific type teaching-adjacent behavior (i.e., implementation citizenship) and thus included the PSTQ as a measure of divergent validity. Teachers responded to nine items assessing various attitudes toward the teaching profession (e.g., “ The teaching profession is something that I enjoy and feel competent doing ”) using 4-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree . The PTSQ is a psychometrically validated scale (Rimm-Kaufman & Sawyer, 2004) and demonstrated acceptable internal consistency in this sample (α = .81). Data analytic approach SICBS subscale ICCs indicated a substantial amount (18-22%) of between-school variance. Therefore, CFAs were tested in Mplus v8 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017) specifying robust standard errors and using type=complex to account for the nested structure of the data and weighted least squares means and variances (WLSMV) estimation with delta parameterization given the ordered-categorical response scale. Model fit was assessed using the following indices and associated thresholds as evidence of a model well fit to the data: chi-square test statistic, Comparative Fit Index (CFI ≤ .95; Hu & Bentler, 1999), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI ≤ .95; Tucker & Lewis, 1973), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA ≤ .05; Bollen & Long, 1993; Rigdon, 1996). Standardized factor loadings ( β ) less than .55 were considered low and required further examination (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2018). The minimum sample size to detect close to exact model fit based on RMSEA with 80% power is n = 221 (MacCallum et al., 1996). Two measurement models were examined and compared. The first included four correlated latent factors representing the hypothesized SICBS subscales. The second model specified a second-order latent factor in which the four first-order factors loaded onto the higher-order Implementation Citizenship factor. Each of these models was tested once prior to and once post item reduction. Guided by theory and aligned with the goal of developing a comprehensive and pragmatic measure of school ICB, the decision was made to prioritize the second-order factor model if the four first-order latent factors demonstrated appreciable factor loadings. To ensure the development of a pragmatic measure, we used item response theory analysis to retain the three items that best represented each of the two newly added subscales (de Ayala, 2013). Item characteristic curves were examined by the study team and decisions regarding item reduction were made to maximize item coverage and limit redundancy of information. After reducing items, we again tested both CFA models. Next, the invariance of the underlying factor structure of the EBP-general and EBP-specific versions of the adapted SICBS was tested using multigroup modeling. Two statistics were used in favor of the chi-square test statistic, which is heavily influenced by sample size (Meade et al., 2008). The q effect size was used to estimate the difference in magnitude between factor loadings across survey type, where values that cluster around zero indicate no substantive difference and values of .10, .30, and .50 indicate a small, medium, and large effect size, respectively (Pornprasertmanit, 2014). Additionally, d Cox , which ranges from 0 to 1 (Sánchez-Meca et al., 2003), was used to estimate the between-group differences in thresholds. In the absence of agreed upon cut points for d Cox , we used a decision rule informed by similar effect sizes (Cohen, 1988) such that values above .50 indicated moderate differences and would be flagged for further investigation. Convergent and divergent validity were assessed by examining correlations among SICBS total and subscale mean scores and those of measures that were hypothesized to yield moderate to strong (convergent) or weak to no (divergent) association. The SICBS is hypothesized to be a unitary construct and moderate-to-strong correlations among subscales were therefore anticipated. The OCBS—a general form of citizenship behavior—was expected to demonstrate moderate-to-large correlations with the SICBS (convergent validity). We hypothesized that educators’ attitudes toward teaching would be weakly positively related to SICBS, and less so than global OCB (divergent validity). Finally, teachers’ experience implementing EBP may be influenced by certain school-level demographics. As such, null-to-weak correlations between SICBS total and subscale mean scores and school-level demographics were hypothesized. Results Preliminary confirmatory factor analysis The first-order (CFI = .98, TLI = .98, RMSEA = .11) and the second-order factor models (CFI = .98, TLI = .97, RMSEA = .12) demonstrated acceptable fit to the data. First-order factor loadings were all greater than .55 (λs = .79-.94) and correlations among the four latent factors were high ( r s = .82-.91). Second-order factor loadings were appreciable (λs = .91-.95). Item reduction Figures 1 and 2 present the item characteristic curves for the candidate items of the two new subscales: taking initiative ( n = 4; items 7–10) and advocacy ( n = 5; items 11–14). There was overlap of information provided by all taking initiative candidate items. Though the eighth item captures a small amount of unique information on the lower end of the taking initiative latent continuum (i.e., the curve is shifted to the left on the x-axis), the item was less behavioral than the other subscale candidate items. Therefore, Item 8 was dropped from the taking initiative subscale. Information provided across advocacy candidate items was more variable. Item 11 provided very little information (i.e., a consistently low peak across the x-axis). Items 12 and 14 provided a similar amount, but unique, information (i.e., peaks did not overlap). Conversely, Items 13 and 14 provided near identical information. Item 13 provided more information than Items 14 and the team preferred the wording and content of Item 13. For these reasons, Items 11 and 14 were dropped from the advocacy subscale. Table 2 presents summary statistics reliabilities for each SICBS subscale and Table 3 presents individual item response frequencies. Table 2 Summary Statistics for School Implementation Citizenship Behavior (SICBS) Subscales ICBS Subscale N , M ± SD Cronbach’s α Helping Others 440, 2.20 ± 0.94 .91 Keeping Informed 440, 2.08 ± 0.99 .92 Taking Initiative 440, 2.16 ± 0.96 .88 Advocacy 440, 2.40 ± 0.96 .92 Table 3 Response Frequencies for School Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale (SICBS) Items SICBS Subscale Not at All n , % Slight Extent n ,% Moderate Extent n ,% Great Extent n ,% Very Great Extent n ,% Helping Others Teachers/school staff assist others to make sure they implement EBP properly. 23, 5.2 78, 17.7 171, 38.9 125, 28.4 43, 9.8 Teachers/school staff help teach EBP implementation procedures to new staff. 27, 6.1 88, 20.0 151, 34.3 132, 30.0 42, 9.5 Teachers/school staff help others with responsibilities related to the implementation of EBP. 24, 5.5 75, 17.0 163, 37.0 136, 30.9 42, 9.5 Keeping Informed Teachers/school staff keep informed of changes in EBP policies and procedures. 36, 8.2 87, 19.8 156, 35.5 124, 28.2 37, 8.4 Teachers/school staff keep up with the latest news regarding EBP. 43, 9.8 111, 25.2 152, 34.5 103, 23.4 31, 7.0 Teachers/school staff keep up with school communication (e.g., memos, announcements, etc.) related to EBP. 32, 7.3 69, 15.7 157, 35.7 134, 30.5 48, 10.9 Taking Initiative Teachers/school staff take initiative surrounding the implementation of EBP. 22, 5.0 71, 16.1 150, 34.1 149, 33.9 48, 10.9 Teachers/school staff participate in voluntary activities (e.g., extra meetings) involving the implementation of EBP. 42, 9.6 101, 23.1 153, 34.9 105, 24.0 37, 8.4 Teachers/school staff willingly take on additional responsibilities related to the implementation of EBP. 30, 6.8 83, 18.9 153, 34.8 124, 28.2 50, 11.4 Advocacy Teachers/school staff advocate for EBP implementation in their interactions with other staff. 22, 5.0 82, 18.6 159, 36.1 131, 29.8 46, 10.5 Teachers/school staff work to ensure that staff see the positive benefits of EBP implementation. 18, 4.1 65, 14.8 130, 29.5 158, 35.9 69, 15.7 Teachers/school staff here are proponents of EBP. 13, 3.0 57, 13.0 123, 28.0 170, 38.6 77, 17.5 Confirmatory factor analysis post-item reduction The first- (Fig. 3 ) and second-order factor models (Fig. 4 ) were re-assessed using the reduced version of the SICBS. Both models again demonstrated identical and acceptable fit to the data (CFI = .99, TLI = .99, RMSEA = .11), though the RMSEA was above the desired threshold of .05. First-order factor loadings were high (λs = .85-.96) and correlations among the first-order latent factors were high, r s = .87-.92. Second-order factor loadings were well above the .55 threshold (λs = .93-.95). Aligned with our goal of producing a pragmatic measure and aligned with theory and psychometric results, the second-order factor structure was retained. Measurement invariance Two models (freely estimated, parameters constrained to equality) were examined and compared to assess the invariance of SICBS across EBP general and specific EBP referents. Results indicated that the constrained model fit significantly worse than the freely estimated model, \(\:{\chi\:}^{2}\left(60\right)=84.3,\:p<\:.05\) . Conversely, other fit indices less sensitive to sample size improved from the freely estimated to fully constrained model (∆TLI = .01, ∆CFI = .01, ∆RMSEA = − .05). We examined the q and d Cox statistics to further probe the potential lack of invariance. The q statistic value for all factor loadings clustered around zero (range = -0.05-0.02). The d Cox statistics were below the .50 cutoff for all thresholds (range = .00 − .30). Despite the significant \(\:{\chi\:}^{2}\) difference test, the preponderance of evidence (i.e., improvement in CFI, TLI, and RSMEA; low q and d Cox statistics) indicate that the SICBS is invariant across general and specific EBP referents. Convergent and divergent validity Table 4 presents bivariate correlations between the adapted SICBS total and scale scores and measures of convergent (top of the table) and divergent (bottom of the table) validity. Aligned with CFA results, correlations among SICBS subscales ( r s = .78-.83) and the total score (all r s = .92) were high. Associations between global OCB and SICBS subscale and total scores (convergent validity) were moderate ( r s = .43-.49) and higher than those for PTSQ ( r s = .31-.38; divergent validity), which were weak. Moreover, SICBS total and subscale scores were unassociated with most school-level demographics but were somewhat positively related to attendance rates and negatively related to the percentage of non-White students in the school. Table 4 Correlations Among Theoretically Related and Unrelated Variables. SICBS 1 Convergent SICBS 1 A B C D E A. Helping Others 1.00 B. Keeping Informed .828 ** 1.00 C. Taking Initiative .781 ** .783 ** 1.00 D. Advocacy .787 ** .789 ** .819 ** 1.00 E. Total .921 ** .924 ** .918 ** .921 ** 1.00 OCBS 2 Total .429 ** .430 ** .466 ** .480 ** .490 ** Divergent PSTQ 3 Total .314 ** .367 ** .349 ** .380 ** .383 ** School Demographics School Size .040 .087 .114 * .163 ** .110 * % White .064 .097 * .072 .096 .090 % Non-White − .115 * − .148 ** − .148 ** − .175 ** − .160 ** % Transitional Bilingual − .052 − .080 − .021 − .065 − .060 % Special Education − .011 − .071 − .048 − .048 − .049 % Attendance Rates .102 * .146 ** .094 .133 ** .130 * Note. 1 = School Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale; 2 = Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale; 3 = Public School Teacher Questionnaire * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). Discussion This study examined the psychometric properties of the School Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale (SICBS) among general educators implementing universal school-based prevention programs. Three key findings emerged. First, taking initiative and advocacy were confirmed as new subscales related to, yet statistically distinct from, the two original ICBS subscales (helping others, keeping informed). Second, results supported the structural, convergent, and divergent validity of the instrument. Third, the SICBS was found to be invariant across versions of the survey with EBP-specific or EBP-general referents. The ability to robustly measure ICB presents an opportunity to both leverage and track implementer behaviors likely to enrich the overall quality of EBP implementation within an organization. The two new SICBS subscales reflect the idea that different behavioral approaches may be needed to overcome the unique collection of implementation barriers that characterize specific service settings (Locke et al., 2019 ). Schools that lack implementation support staff often struggle to successfully implement schoolwide prevention programs like SWPBIS (Fox et al., 2022 ). Teachers who take initiative (e.g., voluntarily take on additional implementation-related responsibilities) may be bridging existing resource gaps to facilitate EBP implementation in their school. Moreover, teachers who are vocal about the benefits of EBP (i.e., advocacy) may be setting and maintaining social norms and expectations that help foster enthusiasm around EBP implementation. These types of social norms may be especially important in schools given the effectiveness of universal prevention programming depends largely on high-fidelity implementation across all implementing educators (Noltemeyer et al., 2019 ). The invariance of the SICBS across EBP referent type is consistent with the School Implementation Leadership (Lyon et al., 2022) and Climate (Thayer et al., 2022) Scales, which are instruments developed alongside SICBS as part of the larger study. Schools commonly implement a multitude of EBPs simultaneously, making instruments that reliably measure ICB irrespective of the EBP referent critical to progressing our understanding of how ICB manifests and exerts influence in schools. The moderate levels of helping others and keeping informed (Table 2 ) were slightly higher than those reported by school-based mental and behavioral health consultants (Lyon et al., 2018 ), though more aligned with those reported by mental and behavioral health service providers and their supervisors (Ehrhart et al., 2015 ; Torres et al., 2020 ). Although this might simply be a function of differences across regions and school districts, it also could reflect the strong orientation toward teaming and professional development that tends to characterize many educators. Implications for improving implementation citizenship behavior in schools EBP implementation is a socially-mediated process that involved working with and through others to create the conditions for initiating, improving, and sustaining behavior change. ICB appears to be an important facilitator of EBP implementation (Borge et al., 2021 ; Ehrhart et al., 2015 ; Torres et al., 2020 ) and may prove critical to supporting implementation success in schools. Identifying approaches that enhance ICB in schools, where implementation quality continues to vary substantially (Noltemeyer et al., 2019 ), may be warranted. Leadership and Organizational Change for Implementation (LOCI; Aarons et al., 2017 ) is an evidence-based implementation intervention that develops strategic implementation leadership and climate (Aarons et al., 2015 ; Skar et al., 2022 ; Williams et al., 2024 ), ultimately improving educators ICB (Corbin et al., under review). Similarly, Helping Educational Leadership Mobilize evidence (HELM)—a recent adaptation of LOCI to promote implementation of universal school-based programs (Collins et al., 2024; Locke et al., 2024)—increased implementation climate and educators’ ICB (Locke et al., under review). HELM encourages school leaders to establish and use distributed leadership teams such that responsibility for organizational change to promote EBP implementation is shared among key school personnel (Diamond & Spillane, 2016 ). Successfully enacting change, however, hinges on identifying appropriate team members—a task for which the pragmatic and psychometrically sound SICBS may be particularly well suited. Limitations and Future Directions This study provides evidence of the strong psychometric functioning of the SICBS. However, these findings are contextualized by several limitations that can inform future research. First, data were collected from schools implementing one of two universal prevention programs. Applying the SICBS in the context of other school-based program implementation (e.g., Tier 2) is an important next step for continued measure development and validation. Second, the ICBS was validated previously using leader reports of employees’ (Borge et al., 2021 ; Ehrhart et al., 2015 ; Torres et al., 2020 ) and school-based mental health consultants’ self-reported implementation citizenship behavior (Lyon et al., 2018 ). Studies that examine and compare SICBS across reporters may illuminate under which conditions each version of the instrument is most applicable. Third, a critical next step is to empirically examine the potential antecedents (e.g., implementation leadership and climate, implementer characteristics) and outcomes (e.g., program fidelity) of ICB (Aarons et al., 2017 ). Fourth, future work should focus on the relative influence of employees’ ICB within organizations and investigate if the SICBS can be used to identify and leverage teachers who are ready and willing to support EBP implementation in any way they can (e.g., as implementation team members) (Locke et al., 2017 ). Finally, this work should be replicated among more broadly diverse implementers to confirm the strong psychometric functioning of the SICBS. Conclusion This study extended a measure of implementation citizenship behavior to include additional extra-role behaviors thought to substantively influence school-based EBP implementation. Evidence supports the structural, convergent, and divergent validity of the resulting four subscales of the School Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale (SICBS) in a sample of educators implementing one of two widely used universal school-based prevention programs. As a pragmatic measure, the SICBS can be used to capitalize on and/or track implementer behaviors likely to enhance the implementation and thus the overall impact of universal prevention programs on students' mental and behavioral health outcomes. Abbreviations CFA: Confirmatory factor analysis CFI: Comparative fit index EBP: Evidence-based practice HELM: Helping Educational Leaders Mobilize evidence ICB: Implementation citizenship behavior ICBS: Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale ICC: Intraclass correlation LOCI: Leadership and Organizational Change for Implementation OCB: Organizational citizenship behavior OCBS: Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale PATHS: Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies PSTQ: Public School Teacher Questionnaire RMSEA: Root mean square error of approximation SICBS: School Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale SWPBIS: Schoolwide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports TLI: Tucker-Lewis index WLSMV: Weighted least squares means and variances. Declarations Ethics approval. All procedures were approved by the University of Washington IRB (Study No. 52311). Consent for publication. Not applicable. Availability of data and material. The data sets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Declaration of competing interests. All authors declare they have no competing interests. Funding. This publication was funded by the Institute of Education Sciences (R305A160114; R305A200023). GAA was supported by NIDA grant R01DA04989, NCI grant U01CA275118, and NIMH grant P50MH126231. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Institute of Education Sciences, which had no decision-making authority or input surrounding this manuscript. Author contributions. ARL and CRC developed the project’s overarching scientific aims and design. CMC and ECB conducted the data analyses, and ARL, ECB, MGE, and JL iteratively revised and finalized the instrument based on analyses. CMC drafted all sections of the manuscript. MGE drafted portions of the introduction. All authors (CMC, MGE, ECB, JL, CRC, GAA, and ARL) reviewed and refined the manuscript and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgements. We would like to thank our school and district partners for this work. References Aarons, G. A., Ehrhart, M. G., Farahnak, L. R., & Hurlburt, M. S. (2015). Leadership and organizational change for implementation (LOCI): a randomized mixed method pilot study of a leadership and organization development intervention for evidence-based practice implementation. Implementation Science, 10 (11). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-014-0192-y Aarons, G. A., Ehrhart, M. G., Lengnick-Hall, R., & Moullin, J. C. (2023). The role of organizational processes in dissemination and implementation research. In R. C. Brownson, G. A. Colditz, & E. K. Proctor (Eds.), Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating science to practice (3rd ed., pp. 192-211). Oxford University Press. Aarons, G. A., Ehrhart, M. G., Moullin, J. C., Torres, E. M., & Green, A. E. (2017). Testing the leadership and organizational change for implementation (LOCI) intervention in substance abuse treatment: a cluster randomized trial study protocol. Implementation Science, 12 (29). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0562-3 Arora, P. G., Collins, T. A., Dart, E. H., Hernández, S., Fetterman, H., & Doll, B. (2019). Multi-tiered systems of support for school-based mental health: A systematic review of depression interventions. School Mental Health, 11, 240-264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-019-09314-4 Atkins, M. S., Graczyk, P. A., Frazier, S. L., & Abdul-Adil, J. (2003). Toward a new model for promoting urban children’s mental health: Accessible, effective, and sustainable school-based mental health services. School Psychology Review, 32 (4), 503-514. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2003.12086214 Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (Eds.). (1993). Testing structural equation models . Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Borge, R. H., Skar, A., S., Endsjø, M., & Egeland, K. M. (2021). Good soldiers for implementation: validation of the Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale and its relation to implementation leadership and intentions to use evidence-based practices. Implementation Science Communications, 2 (136). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-021-00240-8 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences (2nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Corbin, C. M., Zhang, Y., Ehrhart, M. G., Locke, J., & Lyon, A. R. (under review). Testing an organizational implementation process model related to teachers’ implementation-related attitudes and behaviors: A multilevel mediation analysis. Damschroder, L. J., Reardon, C. M., Widerquist, M. A. O., & Lowrey, J. (2022). The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implementation Science, 17 (75). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01245-0 de Ayala, R. J. (2013). The theory and practice of item response theory (7 th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Diamond, J. B., & Spillane, J. P. (2016). School leadership and management from a distributed perspective: A 2016 retrospective and prospective. Management in Education, 30 (4), 147-154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020616665938 DiPaola, M. F., & Mendes da Costa Neves, P. M. (2009). Organizational citizenship behaviors in American and Portuguese public schools: Measuring the construct across cultures. Journal of Educational Administration, 40 (4), 490-507. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230910967464 DiPaola, M., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Organizational citizenship behavior in schools and its relationship to school climate. Journal of School Leadership, 11 (5), 424-447. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460101100503 Duong, M. T., Bruns, E. J., Lee, K., Cox, S., Coifman, J., Maywork, A., & Lyon, A. R. (2021). Rates of mental health service utilization by children and adolescence in schools and other common service settings: A systemic review and meta-analysis. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 48, 420-439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-020-01080-9 Durlak, J. A., & Dupre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327-350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0 Ehrhart, M. G., Aarons, G. A., & Farahnak, L. R. (2015). Going above and beyond for implementation: The development and validity testing of the Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale (ICBS). Implementation Science, 10, 65. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0255-8 Fox, R. A., Leif, E. S., Moore, D. W., FUrlonger, B., Anderson, A., & Sharma, U. (2022). A systematic review of the facilitators and barriers to the sustained implementation of School-wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports. Education and the Treatment of Children, 45, 105-126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43494-021-00056-0 Glasgow, R. E., & Riley, W. T. (2013). Pragmatic measures: What they are and why we need them. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 45 (2), 237-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2013.03.010 Greenberg, M. T., Kusche, C. A., Cook, E. T., & Quamma, J. P. (2009). Promoting emotional competence in school-aged children: The effects of the PATHS curriculum. Development and Psychopathology, 7 (1), 117-136. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400006374 Griffin, M. A., & Neal, A. (2000). Perceptions of safety at work: A framework for linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5 (3), 347-358. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.5.3.347 Haider, S., Fernandez-Ortiz, A., & de Pablos Heredero, C. (2017). Organizational citizenship behavior and implementation of evidence-based practice: Moderating role of senior management’s support. Health Systems, 6, 226-241. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41306-017-0026-7 Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED399291 Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Convention criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6 (1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Keyes, K. M., & Platt, J. M. (2024). Annual research review: Sex, gender, and internalizing conditions among adolescents in the 21 st century—trends, causes, and consequences. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 65 (4), 384-407. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13864 Kirk, M. A., Kelley, C., Yankey, N., Birken, S. A., Abadie, B., & Damschroder, L. (2016). A systemic review of the use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Implementation Science, 11 (72). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0437-z Langley, A. K., Nadeem, E., Hataoka, S. H., Stein, B. D., & Jaycox, L. H. (2010). Evidence-based mental health programs in schools: Barriers and facilitators of successful implementation. School Mental Health, 2, 105-113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-010-9038-1 Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1999). Effective behavior support: A systems approach to proactive schoolwide management. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31 (6), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.17161/foec.v31i6.6767 Li, S. A., Jeffs, L., Barwick, M., & Stevens, B. (2018). Organizational contextual features that influence the implementation of evidence-based practices across healthcare settings: a systematic integrative review. Systematic Reviews, 7 (7). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0734-5 Locke, J., Corbin, C. M., Goosey, R., Collins, V. K., Ehrhart, M. G., Hatch, K., Espeland, C., & Lyon, A. R. (under review). Not getting better but not getting worse: A cluster randomized controlled pilot trial of a leadership implementation strategy. Locke, J., Lee, K., Cook, C. R., Frederick, L., Vázquez-Colón, C., Ehrhart, M. G., Aarons, G. A., Davis, C., & Lyon, A. R. (2019). Understanding the organizational implementation context of schools: A qualitative study of school district administrators, principals, and teachers. School Mental Health, 11, 379-399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-018-9292-1 Locke, J., Wolk, C. B., Harker, C., Olsen, A., Shingledecker, T., Barg, F., Mandell, D., & Beidas, R. (2017). Pebbles, rocks, and boulders: The implementation of a school-based social engagement intervention for children with autism. Autism, 21 (8). 985-994. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361316664474 Lyon, A. R., Cook, C. R., Brown, E. C., Locke, J., Davis, C., Ehrhart, M., & Aarons, G. A. (2018). Assessing the organizational implementation context in the education sector: confirmatory factor analysis of measures of implementation leadership, climate, and citizenship. Implementation Science, 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0705-6 MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1 (2), 130-149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130 Malloy, M., Acock, A., DuBois, D. L., Vuchinich, S., Silverthorn, N., Ji, P., & Flay, B. R. (2015). Teachers’ perceptions of school organizational climates as predictors of dosage and quality of implementation of a social-emotional and character development program. Prevention Science, 16, 1086-1095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-014-0534-7 Meade, A. W., Johnson, E. C., Braddy, P. W. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (3), 568-592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.568 Meza, R. D., Triplett, N. S., Woodard, G. S., Martin, P., Khairuzzaman, A. N., Jamora, G., & Dorsey, S. (2021). The relationship between first-level leadership and inner-context and implementation outcomes in behavioral health: a scoping review. Implementation Science, 16 (69). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01104-4 Moullin, J. C., Dickson, K. S., Stadnick, N. A., Rabin, B., & Aarons, G. A. Systematic review of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework. Implementation Science, 14 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0842-6 Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2017). Mplus user’s guide (8 th ed.). National Center for Education Statistics. Teacher Questionnaire: Schools and Staffing Survey, 2007-08 school year. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/pdf/0708/sass4a.pdf Noltemeyer, A., Palmer, K., James, A. G., & Petrasek, M. (2019). Disciplinary and achievement outcomes associated with School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports Implementation Level. School Psychology Review, 48 (1), 81-87. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-2017-0131.V48-1 Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26 (3), 513-563. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600307 Podsakoff, N. P., Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Maynes, T. D., & Spoelma, T. M. (2014). Consequences of unit-level organizational citizenship behaviors: A review and recommendations for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35 (S1), S87-S119. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1911 Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (1), 122-141. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013079 Pornprasertmanit, S. (2018). A note on effect size for measurement invariance. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/semTools/vignettes/partialInvariance.pdf Powell, B. J., Patel, S. V., Haley, A. D., Haines, E. R., Knocke, K. E., Chandler, S., Katz, C. C., Seifert, H. P., Ake, G., Amaya-Jackson, L., & Aarons, G. A. (2020). Determinants of implementing evidence-based trauma-focused interventions for children and youth: A systematic review. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 47, 705-719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-019-01003-3 Racine, N., McArthur, B. A., Cooke, J. E., Eirich, R., Zhu, J., & Madigan, S. (2021). Global prevalence of depressive and anxiety symptoms in children and adolescents during COVID-19: A meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 175, 1142-1150. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.2482 Rigdon, E. E. (2009). CFI versus RMSEA: A comparison of two fit indexes for structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 3 (4), 369-379. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519609540052 Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Sawyer, B. E. (2004). Primary-grade teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, attitudes toward teaching, and discipline and teaching practice priorities in relation to the “Responsive Classroom” approach. The Elementary School Journal, 104 (4), 321-341. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3202945 Rogers, E. R. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations (3 rd ed.). New York: Free Press. Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., & Chacón-Moscoso, S. (2003). Effect-size indices for dichotomized outcomes in meta-analyses. Psychological Methods, 8 (4), 448-467. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.8.4.448 Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., Mayer, D. M., Saltz, J. L., & Niles-Jolly, K. (2005). Understanding organization-customer links in service settings. The Academy of Management Journal, 48 (6), 1017-1032. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20159727 Skar, A. S., Braathu, N., Peters, N., Bækkelund, H., Endsjø, M., Babaii, A., Borge, R. H., Wentzel-Larsen, T., Ehrhart, M. G., Sklar, M., Brown, C. H., Aarons, G. A., & Egeland, K. M. (2022). A stepped-wedge randomized trial investigating the effect of the Leadership and Organizational Change for Implementation (LOCI) intervention on implementation and transformational leadership, and implementation climate. BMC Health Services Research, 22 (298). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07539-9 Sørlie, M-A., Idsoe, T., Ogden, T., Osleth, A. R., & Torsheim, T. (2018). Behavioral trajectories during middle childhood: Differential effects of the School-wide Positive Behavior Support Model. Prevention Science, 19, 1055-1065. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-018-0938-x Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2018). Using multivariate statistics (7 th ed.). Pearson. Torres, E. M., Seijo, C., Ehrhart, M. G., & Aarons, G. A. (2020). Validation of a pragmatic measure of implementation citizenship behavior in substance use disorder treatment agencies. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 11, 47-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2020.01.002 Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. A. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38 (1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291170 Wang, P., Wang, Z., & Qiu, S. (2024). Universal, school-based transdiagnostic interventions to promote mental health and emotional wellbeing: a systematic review. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 18 (47). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-024-00735-x Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601-617. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305 Williams, N. J., Becker-Haimes, E. M., Schriger, S. H., & Beidas, R. S. (2022). Linking organizational climate for evidence-based practice implementation to observed clinician behavior in patient encounters: a lagged analysis. Implementation Science Communications, 3 (64). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-022-00309-y Williams, N. J., Ehrhart, M. G., Aarons, G. A., Esp, S., Sklar, M., Carandang, K., Vega, N. R., Brookman-Frazee, L., & Marcus, S. C. (2024). Improving measurement-based care implementation in youth mental health through organizational leadership and climate: a mechanistic analysis within a randomized trial. Implementation Science, 19 (29). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01356-w Supplementary Files AdditionalFile1.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 26 May, 2025 Read the published version in Implementation Science Communications → Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 25 Jul, 2024 Reviewers invited by journal 22 Jul, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 07 Jul, 2024 First submitted to journal 06 Jul, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4682900","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":330027317,"identity":"6064ebea-a2b2-4b30-90de-fd2312e60249","order_by":0,"name":"Catherine Corbin","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2674-4425","institution":"University of Florida","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Catherine","middleName":"","lastName":"Corbin","suffix":""},{"id":330027318,"identity":"c8c15f94-4f8b-4347-8a0a-2de842ab01c0","order_by":1,"name":"Mark G Ehrhart","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Central Florida","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mark","middleName":"G","lastName":"Ehrhart","suffix":""},{"id":330027319,"identity":"ce3f4aab-db55-42ab-aea0-5e3c42a429eb","order_by":2,"name":"Eric C Brown","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Miami","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Eric","middleName":"C","lastName":"Brown","suffix":""},{"id":330027320,"identity":"4881f77e-08fa-4e7d-b3ca-3c5df8adce76","order_by":3,"name":"Jill Locke","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Washington","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jill","middleName":"","lastName":"Locke","suffix":""},{"id":330027321,"identity":"045a15f5-3cf9-491e-9163-5b4c0ffa10b2","order_by":4,"name":"Clayton R Cook","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Character Strong","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Clayton","middleName":"R","lastName":"Cook","suffix":""},{"id":330027322,"identity":"d3cba127-a6fd-4d6f-9c99-708f220a856a","order_by":5,"name":"Gregory A Aarons","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of California San Diego","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Gregory","middleName":"A","lastName":"Aarons","suffix":""},{"id":330027323,"identity":"42591b95-d007-4527-85a6-25bb5673aa79","order_by":6,"name":"Aaron R Lyon","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Washington","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Aaron","middleName":"R","lastName":"Lyon","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-07-03 23:42:13","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4682900/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4682900/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-025-00748-3","type":"published","date":"2025-05-26T15:57:49+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":62734447,"identity":"a149472e-f32e-4115-88ff-7b58cbbff19d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-19 00:11:03","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":988263,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInformation Curves for Candidate Taking Initiative Subscale Items.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4682900/v1/4465a0e9c853f5d15083ad07.png"},{"id":62734445,"identity":"93cb7f0c-45a5-4cc1-a4f6-d5dbd4533c2a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-19 00:11:03","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1078033,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInformation Curves for Candidate Advocacy Subscale Items.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4682900/v1/fd7f10ebdf595b416c3104fc.png"},{"id":62734449,"identity":"2d3fc8bd-3695-408f-b620-ec221f98fae1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-19 00:11:03","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":891772,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFirst-order School Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale Factor Loadings.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4682900/v1/ac516f003b1c3f5ab5abeeaa.png"},{"id":62734446,"identity":"251a58f1-71d2-42dd-aa74-ea9dd1f3b237","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-19 00:11:03","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":872021,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSecond-order School Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale Factor Loadings.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4682900/v1/54c60664860acdf803d107fb.png"},{"id":83782970,"identity":"f6cf79dc-b719-4194-ac8f-d9ec8a69daaa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-06-02 16:09:28","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":5879622,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4682900/v1/8dcce88b-8cce-468f-a839-aac17043a7fd.pdf"},{"id":62734898,"identity":"3faaa8d5-86cd-4f29-b1c8-14b35905ba69","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-19 00:19:03","extension":"docx","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":81402,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AdditionalFile1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4682900/v1/e520abb40d55ff87fc5f13ba.docx"}],"financialInterests":"","formattedTitle":"“Going Above and Beyond” in the Education Sector: Extension and Validation of the School Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale (SICBS)","fulltext":[{"header":"Contributions to the Literature","content":"\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEmployees\u0026rsquo; prosocial behavior that strategically supports evidence-based practice (EBP) implementation (i.e., implementation citizenship behavior), like helping colleagues solve implementation-related challenges, may improve implementation quality across schools, where most children and youth access and receive mental and behavioral health services.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThis study expands the Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale to create and validate the School Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale among educators implementing evidence-based prevention programs to support children\u0026rsquo;s mental and behavioral health.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFindings supported the two original in addition to two new subscales, resulting in the four-factor School Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale, which demonstrated convergent and divergent validity.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e"},{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe adoption, high-fidelity use, and sustainment of evidence-based practices (EBPs) are critical to preventing and addressing growing mental and behavioral health concerns among youth (Durlak \u0026amp; DuPre, 2008; Racine et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2024). A substantial body of work has identified factors likely to impact implementation effectiveness across service settings (Damschroder et al., 2022; Kirk et al., 2016, Moullin et al., 2019), including schools where youth are most likely to access and receive preventive and indicated mental health services (Duong et al., 2022; Langley et al., 2010). Aspects of the organizational context are particularly important determinants (i.e., barriers and facilitators) of implementers\u0026rsquo; routine high-quality use of EBP (Aarons et al., 2023; Li et al., 2018). Although considerable research has focused on the role of leadership and organizational climate (Malloy et al., 2015; Meza et al., 2021; Williams et al., 2022; Williams et al., 2024), fewer studies have addressed the role employees and their peers play in facilitating implementation (Haider et al., 2017). Further, the limited availability of validated assessment instruments of these influences has inhibited implementation research and practice in the school context. The development of the Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale (ICBS; Ehrhart et al., 2015) and its school-adapted version (Lyon et al., 2018) provide an opportunity to uncover how employee behavior might be cultivated to strategically support EBP implementation. This study extends the work of Ehrhart et al. (2015) and Lyon et al. (2018) by validating the School Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale (SICBS)\u0026mdash;adapted to include two new subscales (taking initiative and advocacy)\u0026mdash;among front-line implementers of evidence-based universal school-based prevention programs.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOrganizational Citizenship Behavior and EBP Implementation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOrganizational citizenship behavior (OCB) describes \u0026ldquo;individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the efficient and effective functioning of the organization\u0026rdquo; (Organ et al., 2006, p.3). Simply put, OCB describes activities by employees that go \u0026ldquo;above and beyond\u0026rdquo; their typical assigned duties to advance broader organizational goals. Specific behaviors underlying OCB can be placed into two major categories: OCB directed toward individuals (e.g., helping or courtesy) or OCB directed towards the organization (e.g., voice or civic virtue) (Williams \u0026amp; Anderson, 1991). Predictors of OCB cut across characteristics of individuals (e.g., personality or attitudes), the task (e.g., feedback), the organization (e.g., organizational structure, cohesiveness), and leaders (e.g., reward behaviors, support) (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Moreover, increased OCB among individuals and groups predicts a range of multilevel indicators of organizational effectiveness including employee performance, decreased turnover, team effectiveness, and healthcare outcomes (Podsakoff et al., 2009; Podsakoff et al., 2014).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOne development in the OCB literature is the consideration of strategic forms of OCB, or in other words, employee behaviors that exceed expectations in support of a prioritized goal or initiative. For example, customer-focused OCB is associated positively with customer satisfaction (Schneider et al., 2005), and similar findings have emerged related to safety-focused OCB (Griffin \u0026amp; Neal, 2000). An emerging body of research has extended strategic OCB to include a focus on EBP implementation; implementation citizenship behavior (ICB) describes how employees support effective implementation across an organization (Ehrhart et al., 2015). Implementers demonstrate ICB via prosocial behaviors that support colleagues\u0026rsquo; adoption and high-fidelity use of EBP and by investing personal resources to remain abreast of changes to and organizational communication about EBP (Ehrhart et al., 2015; Lyon et al., 2018).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePragmatic (i.e., comprehensive, brief, useful) measures (Glasgow \u0026amp; Riley, 2013) of implementation-related behaviors are needed to advance understanding of how they might be leveraged to address the research-to-practice gap. The Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale (ICBS; Ehrhart et al., 2015) is one such measure that has been validated for use in mental health clinics in the United States and Norway (Borge et al., 2021; Ehrhart et al., 2015) and has demonstrated positive associations with EBP attitudes, clinicians\u0026rsquo; intentions to implement EBPs, employee- and supervisor-rated performance, and employee tenure (Borge et al., 2021; Ehrhart et al., 2015; Torres et al., 2020). The ICBS also has been adapted and validated for use among school-based mental and behavioral health consultants (Lyon et al., 2018), though not among frontline implementers of universal mental and behavioral prevention programs, such as educators. Moreover, the developers of the school-adapted ICBS suggested that the measure could be expanded to capture additional extra-role behaviors integral to supporting effective EBP implementation in school settings (Lyon et al., 2018).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSchool-Based EBP and Implementation Citizenship Behavior\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSchools provide a continuum of mental and behavioral healthcare to youth, ranging from primary prevention to more intensive tiers of service provision (Arora et al., 2019). Universal prevention programs are critical as they can interrupt and/or reverse maladaptive developmental trajectories at a point when they may be more readily influenced (S\u0026oslash;rlie et al., 2018). The continuous rise in mental health conditions among youth over the past few years (Keyes \u0026amp; Platt, 2024; Racine et al., 2021) clearly underscores the need to identify and develop proximal resources to support effective school-based EBP implementation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIndividual implementer characteristics routinely emerge as integral to successful EBP implementation (Powell et al., 2019). Despite a dearth of research linking ICB to implementation outcomes, related constructs suggest the potential of ICB to positively influence EBP implementation. For example, opinion leaders\u0026mdash;employees who disproportionately influence the attitudes and behaviors of their peers (Rogers, 1995)\u0026mdash;engage in behaviors that overlap with ICB (e.g., share resources, communicate benefits of EBP) and can be instrumental in facilitating high-quality school-based EBP implementation (Atkins et al., 2003). Focus groups with educational stakeholders (e.g., principals, teachers) indicate there may also be additional extra-role implementation-related behaviors educators practice that are specific to the school implementation context (e.g., volunteering to observe or be observed; working with colleagues, families, and community members to promote EBP implementation) (Locke et al., 2019). Two new ICBS subscales are proposed to measure the extent to which teachers (a) take initiative by participating in EBP related activities (e.g., supplemental trainings, being observed by other implementers) that directly support implementation and (b) actively promote (e.g., share positive benefits of EBP) and advocate for EBP use in interactions with peers and other stakeholders (i.e., advocacy). Notably, taking initiative aligns with the individual initiative dimension of OCB (i.e., voluntarily taking on extra responsibilities), whereas advocacy aligns with the organizational loyalty (i.e., externally promoting the organization) dimension (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Given that development of the ICBS was guided by OCB theory and research (Ehrhart et al., 2015), this alignment gives credence for the consideration of taking initiative and advocacy as potential components of ICB.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudy Aims\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs indicated in multiple implementation frameworks (Damschroder et al., 2022; Moullin et al., 2019), identifying and validly measuring characteristics of the organizational context likely to improve EBP implementation is imperative for research and practice. This study expands upon behaviors measured by the original ICBS by adding two new subscales and validating the SICBS among elementary school teachers implementing one of two universal EBPs: Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS; Lewis \u0026amp; Sugai, 1999) and Promoting Alternative THinking Strategies (PATHS; Greenberg et al., 1995). Confirmatory factor analysis was used to establish the measurement structure of the adapted SICBS, followed by item response theory to refine newly added subscales. Convergent and divergent validity were established using data on educators\u0026rsquo; OCB, attitudes toward teaching, and school demographics. Moreover, recent work validating related instruments tested invariance across versions that referenced either a specific EBP or EBP in general (Lyon et al., 2022; Thayer et al., 2022) to determine whether items with more specificity (i.e., specific EBP), which may more strongly predict implementation outcomes, measured the same underlying construct as the more general items. Aligned with these efforts, we also examined the invariance of the SICBS across survey referents. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe hypothesized the following:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 1:\u003c/em\u003e The adapted SICBS with a second-order factor structure will fit the data such that four first order factors (helping others, keeping informed, taking initiative,advocacy) will comprise one higher order School Implementation Citizenship Behavior factor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 2:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eCorrelations between the adapted SICBS and OCB total and subscale scores will be moderate to strong (convergent validity).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 3\u003c/em\u003e: Correlations between the adapted SICBS total and subscale scores, teachers\u0026rsquo; general attitudes toward teaching, and school demographics will be weak and/or nonsignificant (divergent validity).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 4:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eThe SICBS will be invariant across EBP referent type (i.e., general vs. specific).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSetting and participants\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSetting\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSchools were eligible to participate if implementing one of two evidence-based interventions (\u003cem\u003en \u003c/em\u003e= 39 SW-PBIS; \u003cem\u003en \u003c/em\u003e= 13 PATHS). A total of 441 teachers from 52 elementary schools in 6 school districts in Washington, Ohio, and Illinois were recruited. On average, students across schools were 66% non-White (range 21 to 100%) and 57% low-income status (range 4 to 100%). Of the 500 teachers contacted to participate, 88% completed the online survey (see Procedures). \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTeacher-level demographics\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn average of nine teachers per school were invited to complete the survey. Most teachers were female, White, reported an average of 11.6 years of experience, and held a master’s degree (Table 1). The analytic sample was sometimes less than 441 due to missing data (\u0026lt; 5% across all study constructs).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParticipant demographics for School Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale (SICBS) General (N=218), Specific (N=222), and combined (N=440) samples\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"960\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"43.75%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParticipant Information\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.75%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeneral\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFreq (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.75%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpecific\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFreq (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.75%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCombined\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFreq (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"43.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18 to 24 years old\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25 to 34 years old\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35 to 44 years old\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45 to 54 years old\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e55 to 64 years old\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65 to 74 years old\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7 (3.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e65 (30.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58 (26.7)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e55 (25.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31 (14.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (0.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e217 (100.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14 (6.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e64 (29.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e63 (28.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e47 (21.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30 (13.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 (1.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e221 (100.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21 (4.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e129 (29.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e121 (27.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e102 (23.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e61 (13.9)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 (0.9)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e438 (100.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"43.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26 (12.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e190 (87.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (0.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e217 (100.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19 (8.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e201 (91.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0 (0.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e220 (100.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45 (10.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e391 (89.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (0.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e437 (100.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"43.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRace\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAmerican Indian or Alaskan Native\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAsian\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBlack or African American\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNative Hawaiian or Pacific Islander\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhite or Caucasian\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMultiracial\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7 (3.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (0.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14 (6.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0 (0.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e178 (82.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11 (5.1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5 (2.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e216 (100.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (0.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5 (2.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8 (3.7)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (0.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e184 (85.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10 (4.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7 (3.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e216 (100.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8 (1.9)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6 (1.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22 (5.1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (0.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e362 (83.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21 (4.9)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12 (2.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e432 (100.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"43.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEthnicity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLatino/Hispanic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNon-Latino/Hispanic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14 (6.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e203 (93.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e217 (100.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17 (7.7)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e203 (92.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e220 (100.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e31 (7.1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e406 (92.9)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e437 (100.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"43.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHighest Degree Earned\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBachelors\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMasters\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDoctoral\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e72 (33.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e144 (66.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (0.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e217 (100.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e68 (30.9)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e152 (69.1)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0 (0.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e220 (100.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e140 (32.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e296 (67.7)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1 (0.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e437 (100.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"43.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGrade\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eK \u0026ndash; 2\u003csup\u003end\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003csup\u003erd\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026ndash; 5\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e and other\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e91 (41.7)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e127 (58.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e218 (100.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e99 (44.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e123 (55.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e222 (100.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e190 (43.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e250 (56.8)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e440 (100.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"43.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePBIS T1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eN, Mean \u0026plusmn; sd\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePATHS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eN, Mean \u0026plusmn; sd\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCOMBINED\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eN, Mean \u0026plusmn; sd\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"43.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYears in Current Role\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e217, 11.9 \u0026plusmn; 6.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e220, 11.3 \u0026plusmn; 7.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e437, 11.6 \u0026plusmn; 7.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"43.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eYears at Current School\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e217, 7.0 \u0026plusmn; 6.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e220, 6.9 \u0026plusmn; 5.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.75%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e437, 6.9 \u0026plusmn; 6.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eProcedures\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was part of a federally-funded measure adaptation and development project that produced validated assessments of the school organizational implementation context. Feedback from focus groups with educator stakeholder groups (Locke et al., 2019) informed the initial modification of the school-adapted ICBS (Lyon et al., 2018). Changes were made to item wording to ensure construct equivalence for school-based implementers (Hambleton, 1996). The current study further expanded the original two dimensions of the school-adapted ICBS of helping and keeping informed to include items that measure behavioral indicators hypothesized to underlie the extent to which educators supported EBP implementation by (a) taking initiative and engaging in (b) advocacy. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHuman subjects approval was obtained from the University of Washington Institutional Review Board and, when applicable, participating school districts’ research and evaluation departments. Recruitment began with study investigators contacting school district central administrators to discuss the project and secure participation. Participating central administrators then identified eligible schools and helped distribute information about the study, its benefits, and data collection procedures to site-based administrators. The opportunity to participate was presented to educators, typically during staff meetings or via email, resulting in the recruitment of 4-10 teachers from each school. Research staff used contact information from participating teachers for all project communications (e.g., sending survey links). \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData were collected between September and November of 2017. Initial email communication to teachers provided a project description, obtained informed consent, and included a unique link to the web-based survey. Teachers had one-month from receipt of the initial email to complete their survey. Weekly email reminders were sent in an effort to increase survey response rates. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMeasures\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSchool Implementation Citizenship Behavior (SICBS)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe original ICBS (Ehrhart et al., 2015) and initial school-adapted ICBS (Lyon et al., 2018) are six-item instruments designed to measure implementer behaviors strategically directed toward effective EBP implementation. The ICBS is intended to be completed by supervisors and the school version by individual implementers, thus measuring slightly different forms of ICB. All items are scored on a 4-point Likert scale that ranges from 0 (\u003cem\u003enot at all\u003c/em\u003e) to 4 (\u003cem\u003eto a very great extent\u003c/em\u003e). Past research has supported the measurement structure of both instruments as characterized by two correlated latent factors (helping others, keeping informed) defined by three items each (Ehrhart et al., 2015; Lyon et al., 2018). The two newly proposed subscales were developed iteratively across two phases. Educational stakeholders (e.g., teachers, principals) first provided feedback via focus groups that informed novel school-based ICB that were subsequently refined and organized by expert summit participants into taking initiative (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e=4 candidate items) and advocacy (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e=5 candidate items); the initial version of the adapted SICBS included 15 items. Item reduction procedures, reliability, and validity of the adapted SICBS are reported in the Results. Additionally, and consistent with other instruments developed in the context of the broader project (Lyon et al., 2022; Thayer et al., 2022), two versions of the adapted SICBS were created that differed in the referent used. Items in one version referenced EBP generally (e.g., “\u003cem\u003eSchool staff keep informed of changes in EBPs\u003c/em\u003e”), whereas items in the other version referenced a specific EBP (e.g., “\u003cem\u003eSchool staff keep informed of changes in SWPBIS/PATHS\u003c/em\u003e”). Invariance in the underlying factor structure of the EBP-general and EBP-specific versions of the adapted SICBS was tested using multigroup modeling (see Results). \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eOrganizational Citizenship Behavior in Schools (OCBS)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe OCBS (Dipaola \u0026amp; Tschannen-Moran, 2001) is a 12-item scale that measures teachers’ perceptions of general (i.e., not implementation-specific) OCB among colleagues in their school. Teachers rated their agreement with items using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (\u003cem\u003eStrongly disagree\u003c/em\u003e) to 4 (\u003cem\u003eStrongly agree\u003c/em\u003e). The OCBS captures behaviors directed toward individuals (e.g., “\u003cem\u003eTeachers/school staff voluntarily help new teachers\u003c/em\u003e”) and the organization (e.g., “\u003cem\u003eTeachers/school staff committees in this school work productively\u003c/em\u003e”). Evidence supports OCBS as a unitary construct with strong psychometric properties (DiPaola \u0026amp; Mendes da Costa Neves, 2009). Internal consistency was acceptable (α = .75).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePublic School Teacher Questionnaire (PSTQ)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe PSTQ—a long-time staple of the Schools and Staffing Survey conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (2007)—is a measure of teachers’ general attitudes toward teaching. We anticipated teachers’ general attitudes would correlate weakly with a specific type teaching-adjacent behavior (i.e., implementation citizenship) and thus included the PSTQ as a measure of divergent validity. Teachers responded to nine items assessing various attitudes toward the teaching profession (e.g., “\u003cem\u003eThe teaching profession is something that I enjoy and feel competent doing\u003c/em\u003e”) using 4-point Likert scale ranging from \u003cem\u003estrongly disagree\u003c/em\u003e to \u003cem\u003estrongly agree\u003c/em\u003e. The PTSQ is a psychometrically validated scale (Rimm-Kaufman \u0026amp; Sawyer, 2004) and demonstrated acceptable internal consistency in this sample (α = .81).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData analytic approach\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSICBS subscale ICCs indicated a substantial amount (18-22%) of between-school variance. Therefore, CFAs were tested in \u003cem\u003eMplus \u003c/em\u003ev8 (Muthén \u0026amp; Muthén, 1998-2017) specifying robust standard errors and using type=complex to account for the nested structure of the data and weighted least squares means and variances (WLSMV) estimation with delta parameterization given the ordered-categorical response scale. Model fit was assessed using the following indices and associated thresholds as evidence of a model well fit to the data: chi-square test statistic, Comparative Fit Index (CFI ≤ .95; Hu \u0026amp; Bentler, 1999), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI ≤ .95; Tucker \u0026amp; Lewis, 1973), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA ≤ .05; Bollen \u0026amp; Long, 1993; Rigdon, 1996). Standardized factor loadings (\u003cem\u003eβ\u003c/em\u003e) less than .55 were considered low and required further examination (Tabachnick \u0026amp; Fidell, 2018). The minimum sample size to detect close to exact model fit based on RMSEA with 80% power is \u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 221 (MacCallum et al., 1996).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTwo measurement models were examined and compared. The first included four correlated latent factors representing the hypothesized SICBS subscales. The second model specified a second-order latent factor in which the four first-order factors loaded onto the higher-order Implementation Citizenship factor. Each of these models was tested once prior to and once post item reduction. Guided by theory and aligned with the goal of developing a comprehensive and pragmatic measure of school ICB, the decision was made to prioritize the second-order factor model if the four first-order latent factors demonstrated appreciable factor loadings. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo ensure the development of a pragmatic measure, we used item response theory analysis to retain the three items that best represented each of the two newly added subscales (de Ayala, 2013). Item characteristic curves were examined by the study team and decisions regarding item reduction were made to maximize item coverage and limit redundancy of information. After reducing items, we again tested both CFA models. Next, the invariance of the underlying factor structure of the EBP-general and EBP-specific versions of the adapted SICBS was tested using multigroup modeling. Two statistics were used in favor of the chi-square test statistic, which is heavily influenced by sample size (Meade et al., 2008). The \u003cem\u003eq \u003c/em\u003eeffect size was used to estimate the difference in magnitude between factor loadings across survey type, where values that cluster around zero indicate no substantive difference and values of .10, .30, and .50 indicate a small, medium, and large effect size, respectively (Pornprasertmanit, 2014). Additionally, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eCox\u003c/sub\u003e, which ranges from 0 to 1 (Sánchez-Meca et al., 2003), was used to estimate the between-group differences in thresholds. In the absence of agreed upon cut points for \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eCox\u003c/sub\u003e, we used a decision rule informed by similar effect sizes (Cohen, 1988) such that values above .50 indicated moderate differences and would be flagged for further investigation. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConvergent and divergent validity were assessed by examining correlations among SICBS total and subscale mean scores and those of measures that were hypothesized to yield moderate to strong (convergent) or weak to no (divergent) association. The SICBS is hypothesized to be a unitary construct and moderate-to-strong correlations among subscales were therefore anticipated. The OCBS—a general form of citizenship behavior—was expected to demonstrate moderate-to-large correlations with the SICBS (convergent validity). We hypothesized that educators’ attitudes toward teaching would be weakly positively related to SICBS, and less so than global OCB (divergent validity). Finally, teachers’ experience implementing EBP may be influenced by certain school-level demographics. As such, null-to-weak correlations between SICBS total and subscale mean scores and school-level demographics were hypothesized. \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePreliminary confirmatory factor analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe first-order (CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.98, TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.98, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.11) and the second-order factor models (CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.98, TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.97, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.12) demonstrated acceptable fit to the data. First-order factor loadings were all greater than .55 (λs\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.79-.94) and correlations among the four latent factors were high (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003es\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.82-.91). Second-order factor loadings were appreciable (λs\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.91-.95).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eItem reduction\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigures \u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e present the item characteristic curves for the candidate items of the two new subscales: taking initiative (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4; items 7\u0026ndash;10) and advocacy (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5; items 11\u0026ndash;14). There was overlap of information provided by all taking initiative candidate items. Though the eighth item captures a small amount of unique information on the lower end of the taking initiative latent continuum (i.e., the curve is shifted to the left on the x-axis), the item was less behavioral than the other subscale candidate items. Therefore, Item 8 was dropped from the taking initiative subscale. Information provided across advocacy candidate items was more variable. Item 11 provided very little information (i.e., a consistently low peak across the x-axis). Items 12 and 14 provided a similar amount, but unique, information (i.e., peaks did not overlap). Conversely, Items 13 and 14 provided near identical information. Item 13 provided more information than Items 14 and the team preferred the wording and content of Item 13. For these reasons, Items 11 and 14 were dropped from the advocacy subscale. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e presents summary statistics reliabilities for each SICBS subscale and Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e presents individual item response frequencies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSummary Statistics for School Implementation Citizenship Behavior (SICBS) Subscales\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eICBS Subscale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCronbach\u0026rsquo;s α\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHelping Others\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e440, 2.20\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.94\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.91\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKeeping Informed\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e440, 2.08\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.99\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.92\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTaking Initiative\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e440, 2.16\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.96\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.88\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdvocacy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\"\u0026plusmn;\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e440, 2.40\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.96\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.92\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eResponse Frequencies for School Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale (SICBS) Items\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSICBS Subscale\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNot at All\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e, %\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSlight Extent\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e,%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate Extent\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e,%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGreat Extent\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e,%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVery Great Extent\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e,%\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHelping Others\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers/school staff assist others to make sure they implement EBP properly.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e23, 5.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e78, 17.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e171, 38.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e125, 28.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e43, 9.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers/school staff help teach EBP implementation procedures to new staff.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27, 6.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e88, 20.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e151, 34.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e132, 30.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e42, 9.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers/school staff help others with responsibilities related to the implementation of EBP.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24, 5.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e75, 17.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e163, 37.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e136, 30.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e42, 9.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKeeping Informed\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers/school staff keep informed of changes in EBP policies and procedures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e36, 8.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e87, 19.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e156, 35.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e124, 28.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e37, 8.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers/school staff keep up with the latest news regarding EBP.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e43, 9.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e111, 25.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e152, 34.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e103, 23.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e31, 7.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers/school staff keep up with school communication (e.g., memos, announcements, etc.) related to EBP.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e32, 7.3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e69, 15.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e157, 35.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e134, 30.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e48, 10.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTaking Initiative\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers/school staff take initiative surrounding the implementation of EBP.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22, 5.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e71, 16.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e150, 34.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e149, 33.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e48, 10.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers/school staff participate in voluntary activities (e.g., extra meetings) involving the implementation of EBP.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e42, 9.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e101, 23.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e153, 34.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e105, 24.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e37, 8.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers/school staff willingly take on additional responsibilities related to the implementation of EBP.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30, 6.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e83, 18.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e153, 34.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e124, 28.2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e50, 11.4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdvocacy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers/school staff advocate for EBP implementation in their interactions with other staff.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e22, 5.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e82, 18.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e159, 36.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e131, 29.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e46, 10.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers/school staff work to ensure that staff see the positive benefits of EBP implementation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18, 4.1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e65, 14.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e130, 29.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e158, 35.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e69, 15.7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTeachers/school staff here are proponents of EBP.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13, 3.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e57, 13.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e123, 28.0\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e170, 38.6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e77, 17.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eConfirmatory factor analysis post-item reduction\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe first- (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e) and second-order factor models (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e) were re-assessed using the reduced version of the SICBS. Both models again demonstrated identical and acceptable fit to the data (CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.99, TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.99, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.11), though the RMSEA was above the desired threshold of .05. First-order factor loadings were high (λs\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.85-.96) and correlations among the first-order latent factors were high, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003es\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.87-.92. Second-order factor loadings were well above the .55 threshold (λs\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.93-.95). Aligned with our goal of producing a pragmatic measure and aligned with theory and psychometric results, the second-order factor structure was retained.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMeasurement invariance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTwo models (freely estimated, parameters constrained to equality) were examined and compared to assess the invariance of SICBS across EBP general and specific EBP referents. Results indicated that the constrained model fit significantly worse than the freely estimated model, \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{\\chi\\:}^{2}\\left(60\\right)=84.3,\\:p\u0026lt;\\:.05\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. Conversely, other fit indices less sensitive to sample size improved from the freely estimated to fully constrained model (∆TLI = .01, ∆CFI = .01, ∆RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.05). We examined the \u003cem\u003eq\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eCox\u003c/sub\u003e statistics to further probe the potential lack of invariance. The \u003cem\u003eq\u003c/em\u003e statistic value for all factor loadings clustered around zero (range = -0.05-0.02). The \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003eCox\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e statistics were below the .50 cutoff for all thresholds (range = .00 \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.30). Despite the significant \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{\\chi\\:}^{2}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e difference test, the preponderance of evidence (i.e., improvement in CFI, TLI, and RSMEA; low \u003cem\u003eq\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eCox\u003c/sub\u003e statistics) indicate that the SICBS is invariant across general and specific EBP referents.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eConvergent and divergent validity\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e presents bivariate correlations between the adapted SICBS total and scale scores and measures of convergent (top of the table) and divergent (bottom of the table) validity. Aligned with CFA results, correlations among SICBS subscales (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003es\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.78-.83) and the total score (all \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003es\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.92) were high. Associations between global OCB and SICBS subscale and total scores (convergent validity) were moderate (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003es\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.43-.49) and higher than those for PTSQ (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003es\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.31-.38; divergent validity), which were weak. Moreover, SICBS total and subscale scores were unassociated with most school-level demographics but were somewhat positively related to attendance rates and negatively related to the percentage of non-White students in the school.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCorrelations Among Theoretically Related and Unrelated Variables.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSICBS\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"7\" rowspan=\"8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eConvergent\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSICBS\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eD\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eA. Helping Others\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eB. Keeping Informed\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.828\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eC. Taking Initiative\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.781\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.783\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eD. Advocacy\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.787\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.789\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.819\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eE. Total\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.921\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.924\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.918\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.921\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.00\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOCBS\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e2\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.429\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.430\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.466\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.480\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.490\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"8\" rowspan=\"9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDivergent\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePSTQ\u003c/b\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cb\u003e3\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.314\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.367\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.349\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.380\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.383\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSchool Demographics\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSchool Size\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.040\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.087\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.114\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.163\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.110\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e% White\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.064\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.097\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.072\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.096\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.090\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e% Non-White\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.115\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.148\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.148\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.175\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.160\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e% Transitional Bilingual\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.052\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.080\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.021\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.065\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.060\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e% Special Education\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.011\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.071\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.048\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.048\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.049\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e% Attendance Rates\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.102\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.146\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.094\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.133\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.130\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e 1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;School Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale; 2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale; 3\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Public School Teacher Questionnaire\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003e\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003eCorrelation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003e\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003eCorrelation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examined the psychometric properties of the School Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale (SICBS) among general educators implementing universal school-based prevention programs. Three key findings emerged. First, taking initiative and advocacy were confirmed as new subscales related to, yet statistically distinct from, the two original ICBS subscales (helping others, keeping informed). Second, results supported the structural, convergent, and divergent validity of the instrument. Third, the SICBS was found to be invariant across versions of the survey with EBP-specific or EBP-general referents. The ability to robustly measure ICB presents an opportunity to both leverage and track implementer behaviors likely to enrich the overall quality of EBP implementation within an organization.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe two new SICBS subscales reflect the idea that different behavioral approaches may be needed to overcome the unique collection of implementation barriers that characterize specific service settings (Locke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Schools that lack implementation support staff often struggle to successfully implement schoolwide prevention programs like SWPBIS (Fox et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Teachers who take initiative (e.g., voluntarily take on additional implementation-related responsibilities) may be bridging existing resource gaps to facilitate EBP implementation in their school. Moreover, teachers who are vocal about the benefits of EBP (i.e., advocacy) may be setting and maintaining social norms and expectations that help foster enthusiasm around EBP implementation. These types of social norms may be especially important in schools given the effectiveness of universal prevention programming depends largely on high-fidelity implementation across all implementing educators (Noltemeyer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe invariance of the SICBS across EBP referent type is consistent with the School Implementation Leadership (Lyon et al., 2022) and Climate (Thayer et al., 2022) Scales, which are instruments developed alongside SICBS as part of the larger study. Schools commonly implement a multitude of EBPs simultaneously, making instruments that reliably measure ICB irrespective of the EBP referent critical to progressing our understanding of how ICB manifests and exerts influence in schools. The moderate levels of helping others and keeping informed (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) were slightly higher than those reported by school-based mental and behavioral health consultants (Lyon et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), though more aligned with those reported by mental and behavioral health service providers and their supervisors (Ehrhart et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Torres et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Although this might simply be a function of differences across regions and school districts, it also could reflect the strong orientation toward teaming and professional development that tends to characterize many educators.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eImplications for improving implementation citizenship behavior in schools\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEBP implementation is a socially-mediated process that involved working with and through others to create the conditions for initiating, improving, and sustaining behavior change. ICB appears to be an important facilitator of EBP implementation (Borge et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Ehrhart et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Torres et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) and may prove critical to supporting implementation success in schools. Identifying approaches that enhance ICB in schools, where implementation quality continues to vary substantially (Noltemeyer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), may be warranted. Leadership and Organizational Change for Implementation (LOCI; Aarons et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) is an evidence-based implementation intervention that develops strategic implementation leadership and climate (Aarons et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Skar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Williams et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), ultimately improving educators ICB (Corbin et al., under review). Similarly, Helping Educational Leadership Mobilize evidence (HELM)\u0026mdash;a recent adaptation of LOCI to promote implementation of universal school-based programs (Collins et al., 2024; Locke et al., 2024)\u0026mdash;increased implementation climate and educators\u0026rsquo; ICB (Locke et al., under review). HELM encourages school leaders to establish and use distributed leadership teams such that responsibility for organizational change to promote EBP implementation is shared among key school personnel (Diamond \u0026amp; Spillane, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Successfully enacting change, however, hinges on identifying appropriate team members\u0026mdash;a task for which the pragmatic and psychometrically sound SICBS may be particularly well suited.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations and Future Directions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study provides evidence of the strong psychometric functioning of the SICBS. However, these findings are contextualized by several limitations that can inform future research. First, data were collected from schools implementing one of two universal prevention programs. Applying the SICBS in the context of other school-based program implementation (e.g., Tier 2) is an important next step for continued measure development and validation. Second, the ICBS was validated previously using leader reports of employees\u0026rsquo; (Borge et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Ehrhart et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Torres et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) and school-based mental health consultants\u0026rsquo; self-reported implementation citizenship behavior (Lyon et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Studies that examine and compare SICBS across reporters may illuminate under which conditions each version of the instrument is most applicable. Third, a critical next step is to empirically examine the potential antecedents (e.g., implementation leadership and climate, implementer characteristics) and outcomes (e.g., program fidelity) of ICB (Aarons et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Fourth, future work should focus on the relative influence of employees\u0026rsquo; ICB within organizations and investigate if the SICBS can be used to identify and leverage teachers who are ready and willing to support EBP implementation in any way they can (e.g., as implementation team members) (Locke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Finally, this work should be replicated among more broadly diverse implementers to confirm the strong psychometric functioning of the SICBS.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study extended a measure of implementation citizenship behavior to include additional extra-role behaviors thought to substantively influence school-based EBP implementation. Evidence supports the structural, convergent, and divergent validity of the resulting four subscales of the School Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale (SICBS) in a sample of educators implementing one of two widely used universal school-based prevention programs. As a pragmatic measure, the SICBS can be used to capitalize on and/or track implementer behaviors likely to enhance the implementation and thus the overall impact of universal prevention programs on students' mental and behavioral health outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003eCFA: Confirmatory factor analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCFI: Comparative fit index\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEBP: Evidence-based practice\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHELM: Helping Educational Leaders Mobilize evidence\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eICB: Implementation citizenship behavior\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eICBS: Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eICC: Intraclass correlation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLOCI: Leadership and Organizational Change for Implementation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOCB: Organizational citizenship behavior\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOCBS: Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePATHS: Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePSTQ: Public School Teacher Questionnaire\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRMSEA: Root mean square error of approximation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSICBS: School Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSWPBIS: Schoolwide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTLI: Tucker-Lewis index\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWLSMV: Weighted least squares means and variances.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eAll procedures were approved by the University of Washington IRB (Study No. 52311).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and material.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe data sets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeclaration of competing interests.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eAll authors declare they have no competing interests.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding.\u003c/strong\u003e This publication was funded by the Institute of Education Sciences (R305A160114; R305A200023). GAA was supported by NIDA grant R01DA04989, NCI grant U01CA275118, and NIMH grant P50MH126231. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Institute of Education Sciences, which had no decision-making authority or input surrounding this manuscript.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eARL and CRC developed the project\u0026rsquo;s overarching scientific aims and design. CMC and ECB conducted the data analyses, and ARL, ECB, MGE, and JL iteratively revised and finalized the instrument based on analyses. CMC drafted all sections of the manuscript. MGE drafted portions of the introduction. All authors (CMC, MGE, ECB, JL, CRC, GAA, and ARL) reviewed and refined the manuscript and approved the final manuscript.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements.\u003c/strong\u003e We would like to thank our school and district partners for this work. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAarons, G. A., Ehrhart, M. G., Farahnak, L. R., \u0026amp; Hurlburt, M. S. (2015). Leadership and organizational change for implementation (LOCI): a randomized mixed method pilot study of a leadership and organization development intervention for evidence-based practice implementation. \u003cem\u003eImplementation Science, 10\u003c/em\u003e(11). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-014-0192-y \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAarons, G. A., Ehrhart, M. G., Lengnick-Hall, R., \u0026amp; Moullin, J. C. (2023). The role of organizational processes in dissemination and implementation research. In R. C. Brownson, G. A. Colditz, \u0026amp; E. K. Proctor (Eds.), Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating science to practice (3rd ed., pp. 192-211). Oxford University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAarons, G. A., Ehrhart, M. G., Moullin, J. C., Torres, E. M., \u0026amp; Green, A. E. (2017). Testing the leadership and organizational change for implementation (LOCI) intervention in substance abuse treatment: a cluster randomized trial study protocol. \u003cem\u003eImplementation Science, 12\u003c/em\u003e(29). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0562-3 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArora, P. G., Collins, T. A., Dart, E. H., Hern\u0026aacute;ndez, S., Fetterman, H., \u0026amp; Doll, B. (2019). Multi-tiered systems of support for school-based mental health: A systematic review of depression interventions. \u003cem\u003eSchool Mental Health, 11, \u003c/em\u003e240-264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-019-09314-4 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAtkins, M. S., Graczyk, P. A., Frazier, S. L., \u0026amp; Abdul-Adil, J. (2003). Toward a new model for promoting urban children\u0026rsquo;s mental health: Accessible, effective, and sustainable school-based mental health services. \u003cem\u003eSchool Psychology Review, 32\u003c/em\u003e(4), 503-514. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2003.12086214 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBollen, K. A., \u0026amp; Long, J. S. (Eds.). (1993). \u003cem\u003eTesting structural equation models\u003c/em\u003e. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBorge, R. H., Skar, A., S., Endsj\u0026oslash;, M., \u0026amp; Egeland, K. M. (2021). Good soldiers for implementation: validation of the Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale and its relation to implementation leadership and intentions to use evidence-based practices. \u003cem\u003eImplementation Science Communications, 2\u003c/em\u003e(136). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-021-00240-8 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCohen, J. (1988). \u003cem\u003eStatistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences \u003c/em\u003e(2nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCorbin, C. M., Zhang, Y., Ehrhart, M. G., Locke, J., \u0026amp; Lyon, A. R. (under review). Testing an organizational implementation process model related to teachers\u0026rsquo; implementation-related attitudes and behaviors: A multilevel mediation analysis. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDamschroder, L. J., Reardon, C. M., Widerquist, M. A. O., \u0026amp; Lowrey, J. (2022). The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. \u003cem\u003eImplementation Science, 17\u003c/em\u003e(75). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01245-0 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ede Ayala, R. J. (2013). \u003cem\u003eThe theory and practice of item response theory \u003c/em\u003e(7\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDiamond, J. B., \u0026amp; Spillane, J. P. (2016). School leadership and management from a distributed perspective: A 2016 retrospective and prospective. \u003cem\u003eManagement in Education, 30\u003c/em\u003e(4), 147-154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020616665938 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDiPaola, M. F., \u0026amp; Mendes da Costa Neves, P. M. (2009). Organizational citizenship behaviors in American and Portuguese public schools: Measuring the construct across cultures. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Educational Administration, 40\u003c/em\u003e(4), 490-507. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230910967464 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDiPaola, M., \u0026amp; Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Organizational citizenship behavior in schools and its relationship to school climate. \u003cem\u003eJournal of School Leadership, 11\u003c/em\u003e(5), 424-447. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460101100503 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuong, M. T., Bruns, E. J., Lee, K., Cox, S., Coifman, J., Maywork, A., \u0026amp; Lyon, A. R. (2021). Rates of mental health service utilization by children and adolescence in schools and other common service settings: A systemic review and meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eAdministration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 48, \u003c/em\u003e420-439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-020-01080-9 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDurlak, J. A., \u0026amp; Dupre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327-350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEhrhart, M. G., Aarons, G. A., \u0026amp; Farahnak, L. R. (2015). Going above and beyond for implementation: The development and validity testing of the Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale (ICBS). Implementation Science, 10, 65. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0255-8 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFox, R. A., Leif, E. S., Moore, D. W., FUrlonger, B., Anderson, A., \u0026amp; Sharma, U. (2022). A systematic review of the facilitators and barriers to the sustained implementation of School-wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports. \u003cem\u003eEducation and the Treatment of Children, 45, \u003c/em\u003e105-126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43494-021-00056-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGlasgow, R. E., \u0026amp; Riley, W. T. (2013). Pragmatic measures: What they are and why we need them. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Preventive Medicine, 45\u003c/em\u003e(2), 237-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2013.03.010 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreenberg, M. T., Kusche, C. A., Cook, E. T., \u0026amp; Quamma, J. P. (2009). Promoting emotional competence in school-aged children: The effects of the PATHS curriculum. \u003cem\u003eDevelopment and Psychopathology, 7\u003c/em\u003e(1), 117-136. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400006374 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGriffin, M. A., \u0026amp; Neal, A. (2000). Perceptions of safety at work: A framework for linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5\u003c/em\u003e(3), 347-358. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.5.3.347 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHaider, S., Fernandez-Ortiz, A., \u0026amp; de Pablos Heredero, C. (2017). Organizational citizenship behavior and implementation of evidence-based practice: Moderating role of senior management\u0026rsquo;s support. \u003cem\u003eHealth Systems, 6, \u003c/em\u003e226-241. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41306-017-0026-7 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHambleton, R. K. (1996). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED399291 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHu, L., \u0026amp; Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Convention criteria versus new alternatives. \u003cem\u003eStructural Equation Modeling, 6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKeyes, K. M., \u0026amp; Platt, J. M. (2024). Annual research review: Sex, gender, and internalizing conditions among adolescents in the 21\u003csup\u003est\u003c/sup\u003e century\u0026mdash;trends, causes, and consequences. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 65\u003c/em\u003e(4), 384-407. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13864 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKirk, M. A., Kelley, C., Yankey, N., Birken, S. A., Abadie, B., \u0026amp; Damschroder, L. (2016). A systemic review of the use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. \u003cem\u003eImplementation Science, 11\u003c/em\u003e(72). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0437-z \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLangley, A. K., Nadeem, E., Hataoka, S. H., Stein, B. D., \u0026amp; Jaycox, L. H. (2010). Evidence-based mental health programs in schools: Barriers and facilitators of successful implementation. \u003cem\u003eSchool Mental Health, 2, \u003c/em\u003e105-113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-010-9038-1 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLewis, T. J., \u0026amp; Sugai, G. (1999). Effective behavior support: A systems approach to proactive schoolwide management. \u003cem\u003eFocus on Exceptional Children, 31\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.17161/foec.v31i6.6767 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLi, S. A., Jeffs, L., Barwick, M., \u0026amp; Stevens, B. (2018). Organizational contextual features that influence the implementation of evidence-based practices across healthcare settings: a systematic integrative review. \u003cem\u003eSystematic Reviews, 7\u003c/em\u003e(7). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0734-5 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLocke, J., Corbin, C. M., Goosey, R., Collins, V. K., Ehrhart, M. G., Hatch, K., Espeland, C., \u0026amp; Lyon, A. R. (under review). Not getting better but not getting worse: A cluster randomized controlled pilot trial of a leadership implementation strategy. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLocke, J., Lee, K., Cook, C. R., Frederick, L., V\u0026aacute;zquez-Col\u0026oacute;n, C., Ehrhart, M. G., Aarons, G. A., Davis, C., \u0026amp; Lyon, A. R. (2019). Understanding the organizational implementation context of schools: A qualitative study of school district administrators, principals, and teachers. \u003cem\u003eSchool Mental Health, 11, \u003c/em\u003e379-399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-018-9292-1 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLocke, J., Wolk, C. B., Harker, C., Olsen, A., Shingledecker, T., Barg, F., Mandell, D., \u0026amp; Beidas, R. (2017). Pebbles, rocks, and boulders: The implementation of a school-based social engagement intervention for children with autism. \u003cem\u003eAutism, 21\u003c/em\u003e(8). 985-994. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361316664474 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLyon, A. R., Cook, C. R., Brown, E. C., Locke, J., Davis, C., Ehrhart, M., \u0026amp; Aarons, G. A. (2018). Assessing the organizational implementation context in the education sector: confirmatory factor analysis of measures of implementation leadership, climate, and citizenship. Implementation Science, 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0705-6 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Methods, 1\u003c/em\u003e(2), 130-149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMalloy, M., Acock, A., DuBois, D. L., Vuchinich, S., Silverthorn, N., Ji, P., \u0026amp; Flay, B. R. (2015). Teachers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of school organizational climates as predictors of dosage and quality of implementation of a social-emotional and character development program. \u003cem\u003ePrevention Science, 16, \u003c/em\u003e1086-1095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-014-0534-7 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeade, A. W., Johnson, E. C., Braddy, P. W. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology, 93\u003c/em\u003e(3), 568-592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.568 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeza, R. D., Triplett, N. S., Woodard, G. S., Martin, P., Khairuzzaman, A. N., Jamora, G., \u0026amp; Dorsey, S. (2021). The relationship between first-level leadership and inner-context and implementation outcomes in behavioral health: a scoping review. \u003cem\u003eImplementation Science, 16\u003c/em\u003e(69). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01104-4 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoullin, J. C., Dickson, K. S., Stadnick, N. A., Rabin, B., \u0026amp; Aarons, G. A. Systematic review of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework. \u003cem\u003eImplementation Science, 14\u003c/em\u003e(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-018-0842-6 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMuth\u0026eacute;n, L. K., \u0026amp; Muth\u0026eacute;n, B. O. (1998-2017). \u003cem\u003eMplus user\u0026rsquo;s guide \u003c/em\u003e(8\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e ed.). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNational Center for Education Statistics. \u003cem\u003eTeacher Questionnaire: Schools and Staffing Survey, 2007-08 school year. \u003c/em\u003eWashington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/pdf/0708/sass4a.pdf \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNoltemeyer, A., Palmer, K., James, A. G., \u0026amp; Petrasek, M. (2019). Disciplinary and achievement outcomes associated with School-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports Implementation Level. \u003cem\u003eSchool Psychology Review, 48\u003c/em\u003e(1), 81-87. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-2017-0131.V48-1 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOrgan, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., \u0026amp; MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). \u003cem\u003eOrganizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. \u003c/em\u003eThousand Oaks, CA: Sage. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePodsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., \u0026amp; Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management, 26\u003c/em\u003e(3), 513-563. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600307 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePodsakoff, N. P., Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Maynes, T. D., \u0026amp; Spoelma, T. M. (2014). Consequences of unit-level organizational citizenship behaviors: A review and recommendations for future research. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Organizational Behavior, 35\u003c/em\u003e(S1), S87-S119. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1911 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePodsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., \u0026amp; Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Psychology, 94\u003c/em\u003e(1), 122-141. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013079 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePornprasertmanit, S. (2018). A note on effect size for measurement invariance. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/semTools/vignettes/partialInvariance.pdf \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePowell, B. J., Patel, S. V., Haley, A. D., Haines, E. R., Knocke, K. E., Chandler, S., Katz, C. C., Seifert, H. P., Ake, G., Amaya-Jackson, L., \u0026amp; Aarons, G. A. (2020). Determinants of implementing evidence-based trauma-focused interventions for children and youth: A systematic review. \u003cem\u003eAdministration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 47, \u003c/em\u003e705-719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-019-01003-3 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRacine, N., McArthur, B. A., Cooke, J. E., Eirich, R., Zhu, J., \u0026amp; Madigan, S. (2021). Global prevalence of depressive and anxiety symptoms in children and adolescents during COVID-19: A meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 175, 1142-1150. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.2482\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRigdon, E. E. (2009). CFI versus RMSEA: A comparison of two fit indexes for structural equation modeling. \u003cem\u003eStructural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 3\u003c/em\u003e(4), 369-379. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519609540052 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRimm-Kaufman, S. E., \u0026amp; Sawyer, B. E. (2004). Primary-grade teachers\u0026rsquo; self-efficacy beliefs, attitudes toward teaching, and discipline and teaching practice priorities in relation to the \u0026ldquo;Responsive Classroom\u0026rdquo; approach. \u003cem\u003eThe Elementary School Journal, 104\u003c/em\u003e(4), 321-341. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3202945 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRogers, E. R. (1983). \u003cem\u003eDiffusion of Innovations (3\u003csup\u003erd\u003c/sup\u003e ed.). \u003c/em\u003eNew York: Free Press. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS\u0026aacute;nchez-Meca, J., Mar\u0026iacute;n-Mart\u0026iacute;nez, F., \u0026amp; Chac\u0026oacute;n-Moscoso, S. (2003). Effect-size indices for dichotomized outcomes in meta-analyses. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Methods, 8\u003c/em\u003e(4), 448-467. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.8.4.448 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., Mayer, D. M., Saltz, J. L., \u0026amp; Niles-Jolly, K. (2005). Understanding organization-customer links in service settings. \u003cem\u003eThe Academy of Management Journal, 48\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1017-1032. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20159727 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSkar, A. S., Braathu, N., Peters, N., B\u0026aelig;kkelund, H., Endsj\u0026oslash;, M., Babaii, A., Borge, R. H., Wentzel-Larsen, T., Ehrhart, M. G., Sklar, M., Brown, C. H., Aarons, G. A., \u0026amp; Egeland, K. M. (2022). A stepped-wedge randomized trial investigating the effect of the Leadership and Organizational Change for Implementation (LOCI) intervention on implementation and transformational leadership, and implementation climate. \u003cem\u003eBMC Health Services Research, 22\u003c/em\u003e(298). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07539-9 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS\u0026oslash;rlie, M-A., Idsoe, T., Ogden, T., Osleth, A. R., \u0026amp; Torsheim, T. (2018). Behavioral trajectories during middle childhood: Differential effects of the School-wide Positive Behavior Support Model. \u003cem\u003ePrevention Science, 19, \u003c/em\u003e1055-1065. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-018-0938-x \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTabachnick, B. G., \u0026amp; Fidell, L. S. (2018). \u003cem\u003eUsing multivariate statistics \u003c/em\u003e(7\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e ed.). Pearson. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTorres, E. M., Seijo, C., Ehrhart, M. G., \u0026amp; Aarons, G. A. (2020). Validation of a pragmatic measure of implementation citizenship behavior in substance use disorder treatment agencies. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 11, \u003c/em\u003e47-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2020.01.002 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTucker, L. R., \u0026amp; Lewis, C. A. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. \u003cem\u003ePsychometrika, 38\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291170 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang, P., Wang, Z., \u0026amp; Qiu, S. (2024). Universal, school-based transdiagnostic interventions to promote mental health and emotional wellbeing: a systematic review. \u003cem\u003eChild and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 18\u003c/em\u003e(47). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-024-00735-x \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilliams, L. J., \u0026amp; Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management, 17,\u003c/em\u003e 601-617. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilliams, N. J., Becker-Haimes, E. M., Schriger, S. H., \u0026amp; Beidas, R. S. (2022). Linking organizational climate for evidence-based practice implementation to observed clinician behavior in patient encounters: a lagged analysis. \u003cem\u003eImplementation Science Communications, 3\u003c/em\u003e(64). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-022-00309-y \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilliams, N. J., Ehrhart, M. G., Aarons, G. A., Esp, S., Sklar, M., Carandang, K., Vega, N. R., Brookman-Frazee, L., \u0026amp; Marcus, S. C. (2024). Improving measurement-based care implementation in youth mental health through organizational leadership and climate: a mechanistic analysis within a randomized trial. \u003cem\u003eImplementation Science, 19\u003c/em\u003e(29). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01356-w\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":true,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"implementation-science-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"iscm","sideBox":"Learn more about [Implementation Science Communications](https://implementationsciencecomms.biomedcentral.com)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/ISCM/default.aspx","title":"Implementation Science Communications","twitterHandle":"@ImplementSci","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Implementation citizenship behavior, Measurement, Education, Prevention, Mental Health","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4682900/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4682900/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground: \u003c/strong\u003eEmployee behaviors that strategically support implementation (i.e., implementation citizenship behavior) are hypothesized to promote the successful adoption and high-fidelity use of evidence-based practices (EBPs). Implementation citizenship behaviors may vary across contexts, including schools where children and youth are most likely to access and receive mental and behavioral health services. Extension and validation of pragmatic measures are needed to advance nascent research on—and ultimately inform how to leverage best—school-based implementation citizenship behavior. The current study expanded the Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale (ICBS) to create and validate the School Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale (SICBS) in a sample of elementary school personnel implementing one of two widely used and evidence-based prevention programs to support children’s mental and behavioral health.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods: \u003c/strong\u003eA sample of 441 public school teachers from 52 elementary schools in the Midwest and Western United States of America completed a survey that included the SICBS, expanded to include two new subscales (taking initiative, advocacy), and additional measures to assess convergent and divergent validity. SICBS was refined and validated via (1) examination of item characteristics curves to reduce items and develop a pragmatic instrument, (2) confirmatory factor analyses to evaluate the hypothesized measurement structure, and (3) assessment of convergent and divergent validity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults: \u003c/strong\u003eThe original two ICBS subscales (helping others, keeping informed) were retained, and two new three-item subscales resulted from item reduction analyses (taking initiative, advocacy). The hypothesized second-order factor model was well fit to the data (CFI = .99, TLI = .99, RMSEA = .11), all first- (λs = .85-.96) and second-order factor loadings (λs = .93-.95) were high. All four SICBS subscales demonstrated acceptable reliability (αs = .88-.92). \u0026nbsp;Convergent validity was evidenced by moderate correlations with organizational citizenship behavior items (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003es\u003cem\u003e \u003c/em\u003e= .42-.49). Divergent validity was demonstrated by weak correlations with teachers’ beliefs about teaching (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003es = .31-.38) and null correlations with most school demographics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusion: \u003c/strong\u003eResults support the structural, convergent, and divergent validity of the 12-item, 4-factor SICBS. The SICBS provides a deeper understanding of individual implementer actions that may serve as implementation mechanisms or outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"“Going Above and Beyond” in the Education Sector: Extension and Validation of the School Implementation Citizenship Behavior Scale (SICBS)","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-08-19 00:10:58","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4682900/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"","date":"2024-07-25T12:01:48+00:00","index":0,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2024-07-22T08:06:23+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-07-08T02:04:48+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Implementation Science Communications","date":"2024-07-06T18:41:24+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"implementation-science-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"iscm","sideBox":"Learn more about [Implementation Science Communications](https://implementationsciencecomms.biomedcentral.com)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/ISCM/default.aspx","title":"Implementation Science Communications","twitterHandle":"@ImplementSci","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"9c66f520-fa51-4a92-b48f-35de9f754ea6","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 19th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-06-02T16:03:06+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-4682900","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-025-00748-3","journal":{"identity":"implementation-science-communications","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Implementation Science Communications"},"publishedOn":"2025-05-26 15:57:49","publishedOnDateReadable":"May 26th, 2025"},"versionCreatedAt":"2024-08-19 00:10:58","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s43058-025-00748-3","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-025-00748-3","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4682900","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4682900","identity":"rs-4682900","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}