Skip to content

Match the form and content of staff development interventions to clients' assessed Stages of Concern

Principle · All principles
Evidence · 23 claims (14 for, 9 mixed) · 11 studies (3 associational, 2 review, 2 qualitative, 2 design, 2 theoretical), q1–q2 · 1 of 11 report an effect size · 23 claims rest on one study

Conditional relationship

This page owns the diagnose-then-match relationship in adopting an innovation. When adults are expected to take up a new curriculum, program, technology or procedure in their own work (teachers and faculty in a classroom, and by extension staff in adult-workplace settings), they differ in where they stand: what they are concerned about (Stages of Concern: 0 Awareness, 1 Informational, 2 Personal, 3 Management, 4 Consequence, 5 Collaboration, 6 Refocusing) and what they are actually doing with the innovation (Levels of Use: Nonuse, Orientation, Preparation, Mechanical Use, Routine, Refinement, Integration, Renewal). Support whose form and content are chosen for the concerns and level of use each person shows now, and changed as these change, is expected to move people from self concerns (information, "what will this mean for me") through task concerns (managing materials and time) towards impact concerns (effects on students, working with colleagues), and from nonuse through mechanical to routine or refined use, more than a single uniform programme given to everyone. Support aimed at a stage the person is not at, such as student-outcome data for someone still worried about whether they can cope, is expected to leave their concerns where they are or intensify personal concerns. Both sources (Hall & Rutherford 1983; Hall 1978) also hold that contact must continue after use begins, not stop at launch.

The relationship is conditional on an actual reading of where each person stands (a questionnaire, written concern statements, a focused conversation or a Levels of Use interview), on the facilitator having more than one kind of support to offer, on support continuing across months of use, and on the outcome being use and concerns at a horizon of a term or more (term-plus), not attendance or satisfaction.

No claim in this wiki compares matched with unmatched or uniform support. Both sources present the match as a recommendation: Hall (1978) calls the Levels of Use diagnostic and the NDN's effective interventions "the rudimentary beginnings of a diagnostic prescriptive model", and the theory page on the CBAM diagnostic dimensions records that the hypothesised intervention matches had "yet to be put to the 'empirical test.'" What the wiki holds is: one longitudinal study in which teachers' concerns moved from lower to higher stages over a year of use, and a workshop after which nonusers' profiles looked like users'; a reported evaluation finding that follow-up contact by change agents related most strongly to adoption success; a reliability study of the Levels of Use interview; and several findings that qualify the stage sequence (profiles that diverge from the group, progression and retreat, early concerns that persist, people who never reach impact concerns). The default design below is the two sources' guidance, kept as a labelled proposal.

How this page sits beside its neighbours: the Professional Development pattern owns the coached cycle for changing one classroom practice (model, rehearse, enact, feedback, fade); this page owns the earlier and wider decision of which kind of support each person needs at this point in adopting an innovation, and can be used to choose and time that pattern's steps. The Scaffolding and Fading principle owns the general relationship between contingent support and its withdrawal; this page is a case of it for adults adopting an innovation, with concerns as part of what is diagnosed. Systemic understanding holds the view that a change effort must be read against its whole context; the levels-of-intervention point below (policy down to a single conversation) is where the two meet.

Default design, while the relationship is untested

The two sources' guidance, made concrete. Every step is a design proposal; its evidence status is stated beside it.

  1. Diagnose before planning, person by person. Before the first session, find each person's concerns and use. For concerns, use one of three ways: the 35-item Stages of Concern Questionnaire (most accurate; gives a profile with high and low stages; allow about 15 minutes, an estimate), a written prompt ("When you think about [the innovation], what are you concerned about?", at least three full sentences, sorted against the seven stages), or a focused conversation by someone who knows the stages and has a non-threatening relationship with staff (three ways to assess concerns). For use, a short focused Levels of Use interview (about 20 minutes, rated against the LoU chart), or a few questions on what the person is doing with the innovation now. Evidence status: the interview can be rated reliably (the LoU Interview shows high interrater reliability [+M]); diagnosing first is the sources' recommendation, untested as a design choice.
  2. Read individual profiles, not only the group average. Plan from the group profile for whole-group sessions, but flag every person whose profile differs from it, and plan for them separately. Evidence status: individual teachers' profiles vary widely and can diverge from group trends [+W] (two case profiles from one study).
  3. Match the content of support to the highest stages, as untested proposals:
  4. Awareness (0) and Informational (1) high: short, clear descriptions of what the innovation is and how it differs from current practice; visits to someone already using it; materials to look at; do not open with detail on schedules or student data.
  5. Personal (2) high: one-to-one or small-group contact; acknowledge that the concerns are legitimate; say what will be expected and what support there will be; connect the person with a colleague who has worked through the same worries; avoid public performance early.
  6. Management (3) high: practical how-to help on materials, timing, organisation and logistics; a model of the first lessons; quick answers to small problems.
  7. Consequence (4) high: ways to see and collect evidence of effects on their students; help in adjusting the innovation for particular learners.
  8. Collaboration (5) high: time and structure to work with colleagues using the innovation, and chances to help others.
  9. Refocusing (6) high: room to try their own modifications or alternatives, with a way to report what they find.
  10. Match the form as well as the content, at every level of intervention. One-off incidents (a conversation in a corridor, a note in a pigeonhole), tactics (a series of visits), strategies (a workshop sequence), the overall game plan and the policies that bound it all carry a stage-matched message; do not rely on orientations and one-day workshops alone. Evidence status: untested; the sources' recommendation, and the six-level intervention taxonomy is a framework from a prototype with initial testing.
  11. Keep contact going after use begins. During the first term of use, plan a follow-up contact for each person at least every two to three weeks (a visit, a call, a short meeting), most of it encouragement and help with whatever has come up. Evidence status: follow-up or post-implementation contact related most strongly to adoption success [+M] (an evaluation of the National Diffusion Network, reported second-hand; no effect size); the interval is an untested proposal.
  12. Use a launch event to move people out of nonuser concerns, then follow it with use-stage support. A launch workshop of a few days, close to the start of use, can be expected to lower informational and personal concerns and raise later ones; plan management help for the first weeks of actual use, when management concerns may appear. Evidence status: after a two-week workshop, participants' concerns shifted from nonuser towards user profiles [+M] (one curriculum, before-and-after, no comparison group); concerns moved from lower to higher stages over a year of use [+M] (30 teachers, five assessments, associational).
  13. Re-diagnose on a schedule, and move people on by what the new reading shows. Repeat the concerns reading about every eight to ten weeks during the first year (the one longitudinal study here assessed teachers five times in a year), and after any major change. Shift a person's support when the peak of their profile moves (for example, from management help to student-effect help once management concerns fall and consequence concerns rise), and when their use moves from mechanical (day-to-day, short-term) to routine (stable). Evidence status: untested; the schedule and the switching rule are proposals.
  14. Expect retreat, persistence and some who never reach impact. If a person's earlier concerns return, go back to support for those concerns; if early concerns persist while later ones rise, give both kinds of support at once; do not push a person towards impact concerns their colleagues show. Evidence status: progression and retreat rather than linear stage movement [~M]; early concerns maintained alongside later ones [~M]; not all educators develop impact concerns, and concern change cannot be forced by an outside agent [~W].

Dose and progression across a year, as a labelled default. Weeks 0–2: diagnosis (15–20 minutes per person) and individual planning. Launch: one to several days, mainly for informational and personal concerns. First 6–8 weeks of use: frequent short contacts (every two to three weeks, 15–30 minutes) about management. Weeks 8–20: a second reading; for those whose management concerns have fallen, shift to student-effect and colleague work (a monthly meeting of about an hour), and keep individual management help for those still mechanical. Second term onward: readings each term; colleagues and the person's own modifications take over from the facilitator, who keeps monthly contact. A person "moves on" when the new reading shows the peak has moved and their use is routine or beyond. All quantities are untested proposals.

When a condition is not met: if no diagnostic can be run, ask each person the one open question in step 1 at the first meeting and sort the answers by hand; if there is only one kind of support available (a single workshop), at least split it by the stages shown, and arrange one follow-up contact per person after use begins.

Fitting the design to a situation

The three facts that most change the decision:

  • Where each person stands now, in concerns and in use. A group of nonusers with high informational and personal concerns needs different support from experienced users whose concerns are about student effects. If unstated, ask: have they used the innovation yet, and when they think about it, what are they concerned about?
  • How much facilitator contact there is after launch. The guidance depends on continued, adaptable contact; a one-day event with nothing after it cannot be matched to anyone over time. If unstated, ask: who will be in touch with each person once they start using it, how often, and for how long?
  • Whether taking up the innovation is voluntary, and what is at stake for the person. Mandated change linked to evaluation is likely, though untested here, to raise personal concerns and make honest reports of concerns less likely. If unstated, ask: can they choose, and will what they say about their concerns, or their use, be seen by anyone who evaluates them?
If the brief says… Then change… Basis
Most people have not used the innovation yet (novice for this innovation) Lead with clear information, visits and examples of the innovation in use, and individual reassurance; hold back detailed logistics and student-outcome data until use begins concerns shifted from nonuser towards user profiles after a two-week workshop [+M] (one science curriculum, elementary teachers, no comparison group)
People are experienced users (advanced in this innovation), or already show impact concerns Drop introductory sessions; give time to look at student work and effects, to collaborate and to try modifications; keep a short check for leftover management problems concerns moved from lower to higher stages over a year of use [+M] (associational, one curriculum); the matching move is untested
A whole staff or department is adopting at once, and the group profile has one clear peak Plan whole-group sessions for the peak, then read individual profiles and arrange separate contact for those who differ individual profiles diverge from group trends [+W] (two case profiles)
One facilitator for many staff, or scarce facilitator time (a busy term, a part-time coach) Use the written open-ended question instead of interviews; group people by peak stage and give each group one short contact every two to three weeks; let colleagues at later stages handle early-stage questions; keep the facilitator's own time for those with high personal concerns follow-up contact related most strongly to adoption success [+M] (NDN evaluation, reported second-hand) for keeping contact at all; the triage is an untested proposal
Only a single session is possible Use the first 10 minutes to collect written concern statements, then spend the session on the commonest peak; give one practical next step for use, and name who will follow up and when; do not claim the session changed use untested proposal
Some staff join remotely while others are in the room, or contact is by phone or video only Collect concern statements by a short online form before the session; hold one-to-one follow-ups by call or video, cameras optional for those with personal concerns; share examples of the innovation in use as short videos untested proposal
People are anxious, have low confidence with the innovation, or have high personal concerns Keep early contact private and one-to-one; start with what will be expected and what help exists; pair them with a colleague who has been through it; avoid observed demonstrations until they ask untested proposal; from the sources' description of personal concerns
New teachers with an assigned mentor, or a mentoring scheme is the main support Have the mentor read the newcomer's concerns rather than assume them; check whether the mentoring is holding the person at task concerns, and widen their contacts if so unmentored teachers reached impact concerns more often than mentored ones [~M] (four volunteer groups, 39 teachers, association only); untested as a design rule
Adults in a non-school workplace adopting a new procedure or system (adult-workplace, e.g. clinical or office staff) Use the same diagnosis and stage-matched support, with the questions worded for their work; record whether the stages read the same way untested; every claim here is from teachers, carried by analogy
The change is mandated, or reports of use feed into performance evaluation Keep concerns data confidential and separate from evaluation (report group profiles only); say so when collecting it; expect higher personal concerns and plan more individual contact untested proposal
The brief names its own routine for checking in (its own survey, staff meeting slot or coaching log) Keep it; add one concerns question ("When you think about it, what are you concerned about?") and one use question ("What are you doing with it now?"), and change only the content of the follow-up by what they show untested proposal
The brief supplies its own categories, rubric or implementation checklist Use its categories for describing use (in place of the LoU chart) and map them to the stages; do not substitute this page's labels untested proposal
Concerns or reflections are private (a personal journal, confidential statements to a counsellor) The person decides who sees them; the facilitator works from what the person chooses to share or from anonymous group profiles untested proposal
A fixed short time budget (for example two hours of PD per month) Split it: about 10 minutes of check-in on concerns, about 80 minutes of stage-grouped work, and short individual follow-ups by message between sessions; give minutes, not topics, to each group untested proposal
The goal is full use of the innovation in real classrooms or work (a whole-task performance), not knowledge of it Judge progress by observed or reported use at the next level, not by session attendance or concern scores alone; keep support attached to real use with real students the LoU interview can be rated reliably [+M] (as a way to read use); untested as an outcome rule
A launch workshop is planned and then nothing Add follow-up contacts across the first term of use and a second concerns reading at about week 8 follow-up contact related most strongly to adoption success [+M]
The innovation is a single change foreign to the rest of the school's system Pair person-level matching with changes at the game-plan and policy levels (time, materials, assessment) that make the innovation fit an innovation foreign to its system tends to be rejected [~M] (two narrative reviews, one author)

Seven of the seventeen rows cite a claim; none of those claims tests stage-matched support against other support, and all are from teachers (the workplace row says so). The rest are untested proposals.

Observation, state and explanation

What can be observed: concern statements in a person's own words, a questionnaire profile, answers in a use interview, what they are seen or report doing with the innovation, the questions they ask, and who they go to for help. "Is at the management stage" and "is resisting" are inferred states. A profile shows concerns at the time it was taken; it does not show readiness, competence or commitment.

Response Plausible explanations Observation that could change the interpretation
High personal concerns months into use The support has stayed on information or logistics; the innovation is tied to evaluation; something outside the innovation (a new class, a reorganisation) is the worry; a retreat after a setback Ask what, specifically, worries them; ask whether the concern is about the innovation or about being judged; compare with their use level.
Concerns fall at every stage and use stays at nonuse They are not using it at all (someone else teaches it, or it was never timetabled); concerns are low because the innovation does not touch them Check who actually uses it in their class; ask the open question again with "in your own classroom".
Management concerns never rise A launch workshop dealt with them; use has not started; the materials are easy to manage Check use level; ask about the first weeks of use specifically.
Group profile shows impact concerns, one person shows none They have not reached use at that level; they value other aims; impact concerns may never develop for this person Read their individual profile and use level; ask what they want from the innovation, without pressing them towards the group.
Early concerns return after progress A setback, new materials or a harder application; a change in role or class Ask what changed; offer support for the returned concern rather than continuing at the later stage.
Reports high use; observation shows mechanical or partial use Self-report reads intention as use; the person's version of the innovation differs from the designers' Use a focused use interview or an observation with the same checklist; compare the configuration they run with the intended one.

These rows are untested proposals. A concerns reading is itself an intervention (being asked about concerns can raise them), so record each reading and its date, and keep more than one explanation open until an observation separates them.

Evidence and qualifications

No claim in this wiki compares support matched to Stages of Concern or Levels of Use with uniform or mismatched support. The claims below bear on parts of the relationship.

What limits the model:

Learners, innovations and decades differ across these claims (elementary science in the 1970s, new and returning teachers in the 1980s, classroom technology in the 1990s), all are teachers, and none reports an effect size for a concerns outcome. Do not rank them.

The evidence by question

Further evidence, not yet read against this model

Claims this page cited before it was rewritten, and others on the same studies. None tests matching; each label says how far it bears on this page.

Objective and learner-valued goal

The facilitator's objective is usually sustained, faithful or productively adapted use of the innovation at a stated level, by a stated date, with effects on students. Each adopter's own goal may be different: to keep their workload manageable, to look competent in front of colleagues, to protect something that already works in their class, or to see whether this helps a particular group of students. Ask, and record both. A Stage 2 profile is often the person's own goal speaking ("what does this mean for me"); treating it as an obstacle rather than information loses the best guide to what support will be used. Where the two diverge (the person wants to keep a practice the innovation replaces), say so openly and agree what use is expected, rather than reading their concerns as resistance.

For example, a district wants every grade-4 teacher running a new science kit by spring; one teacher's concern statements are about the noise and mess of group work in a small room. The district's objective is kit use; the teacher's valued goal is a class they can manage. One visit to a colleague who runs the kit in a similar room, and help with storage and grouping, serves both; a session on student achievement data serves neither yet.

What would revise this model?

The expectation should weaken if studies comparing stage-matched support with uniform support, for comparable adopters and the same innovation, find no difference in use level or concerns at a term or more, or if a uniform, well-resourced programme with good follow-up does as well as matching. If concern profiles turn out not to predict which support people take up or benefit from, the diagnosis is a description, not a guide to design. If progression-and-retreat or persistent early concerns are the common pattern, the stage labels should give way to tracking several concerns at once. If concern readings, once taken, change what they measure enough to mislead, use observation of use instead. Do not protect the model by calling every failure a mismatch after the fact.

Changes in concerns, changes in use, fidelity of use and effects on students are separate outcomes; the claims here speak mostly to the first, a little to the second, and not at all to the last.

Claims

Examples

Key Sources

  • Hall, Gene E.; Rutherford, William L. (1983). Client Concerns: A Guide to Facilitating Institutional Change. Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, The University of Texas at Austin. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED251728
  • Hall, Gene E. (1978). Implications for Planned Dissemination, Implementation, and Evaluation Revealed in the SRI/NDN Evaluation and Levels of Use of the Innovation Studies. Procedures for Adopting Educational Innovations Project. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED190626
  • Dietzel, C. S.; Abeles, Norman. (1974). Client-Therapist Complementarity and Therapeutic Outcome. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED091646. doi:10.1037/h0076731
  • Orr, D., & Mrazek, R. (2009). Developing the level of adoption survey to inform collaborative discussion regarding educational innovation. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, V35(2). https://www.cjlt.ca
Page metadata
Field Value
type principle
id match-interventions-to-stages-of-concern
aliases diagnostic-prescriptive-change-facilitation, stage-matched-therapist-complementarity, supportive-community-before-collaborative-self-report
title Match the form and content of staff development interventions to clients' assessed Stages of Concern
description For adults adopting an innovation in their work, support whose form and content are matched to each person's assessed Stages of Concern and Levels of Use, and kept up after use begins, is expected to move concerns and use forward more than uniform support, though no claim in this wiki tests matched against unmatched support.
status review
canonical True
generated by claude/unspecified on 2026-10-07
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 4 — hall-1983, hall-1978, dietzel-1974, orr-2009

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.