Table 2 Summary of Durlak and DuPre’s Framework for Effective Implementation dimensions and their indicators and relevant results within the Making a HIIT study
From: Was it a HIIT? A process evaluation of a school-based high-intensity interval training intervention
Dimension | Definition | Indicator | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
Program Reach | The rate of involvement and representativeness of participants | Number of schools contacted to recruit three | 10 |
Number of consenting students | 308 / 388 (79%) | ||
Dosage | The amount of the intervention that was delivered | Number of sessions provided by teachers (Theory and practical lessons combined) | School one: 14 ± 3; School two: 9 ± 2; School three: 8 ± 1 |
The amount of the intervention that was received | Number of sessions attended by students (Theory and practical lessons combined) | School one: 12 ± 3; School two: 6 ± 2; School three: 6 ± 2 | |
Fidelity | The extent to which the intervention was completed as intended | Average heart rate | 161 ± 16 bpm (79% ± 8% of HRmax) |
Peak heart rate | 188 ± 13 bpm (92% ± 6% of HRmax) | ||
Percent of time above 80% of HRmax | 55% (IQR: 29%—76%) | ||
Percent of students with average heart rate above 80% of HRmax | 51% (IQR: 31%—67%) | ||
Average RPE | In practical sessions: 6 ± 2 In theory sessions: 4 ± 2 | ||
Monitoring of control group | Describing the nature and the amount of high-intensity exercise received by this group | Percent of time above 80% of HRmax | Intervention group during lessons: 32% (IQR: 12%—54%) Control group during lessons: 28% (IQR: 13%—46%) |
Average heart rate | Intervention group during lessons: 75% ± 8% of HRmax Control group during lessons: 73% ± 8% of HRmax | ||
Quality | How well different intervention components were conducted | Average workout heart rate | In practical sessions: 78% ± 4% of HRmax |
Average workout RPE | In practical sessions: 6 ± 2 In theory sessions: 4 ± 0.5a | ||
Implementation of workouts | Three themes identified: 1) scheduling and time implications of the workouts; 2) facilitation of the workouts; and 3) use of the HIIT workouts within the classroom | ||
Responsiveness | The degree to which the intervention stimulates the interest or holds the attention of participants | Student enjoyment | 3.3 ± 1.1 out of 5 (Neutral rating) |
Student affect | Positive affect: 3.0 (IQR: 2.2 – 3.6) Negative affect: 1.5 (IQR: 1.0 – 2.0) | ||
Student engagement | Two themes identified: 1) engagement over time and 2) elements affecting engagement | ||
Teacher intent to continue using HIIT | Two themes identified: 1) how they might implement HIIT in the future and 2) curriculum integration | ||
Differentiation | The extent to which an intervention’s theories and practices can be distinguished from other interventions | Uniqueness of the study | Engagement of end-users Integration of the study within the school curriculum |
Adaption | Changes made in the original intervention during implementation | Intervention modifications by teachers | Sessions missed due to schedule changes (assemblies, assessments, holidays) |
Workout modifications by teachers | Changes due to availability and quality of space for workouts Equipment removed due to time required to set up (skipping ropes, soccer balls) Simplification of workouts (group exercises removed due to time required to form teams; short intervals combined) |