Research Article

Cultural Adaptation of Interventionsin Real Practice Settings

Flavio F. Marsiglia1 and Jamie M. Booth2

AbstractThis article provides an overview of some common challenges and opportunities related to cultural adaptation of behavioralinterventions. Cultural adaptation is presented as a necessary action to ponder when considering the adoption of an evidence-basedintervention with ethnic and other minority groups. It proposes a roadmap to choose existing interventions and a specific approachto evaluate prevention and treatment interventions for cultural relevancy. An approach to conducting cultural adaptations isproposed, followed by an outline of a cultural adaptation protocol. A case study is presented, and lessons learned are shared aswell as recommendations for culturally grounded social work practice.

Keywordsevidence-based practice, literature

Culture influences the way in which individuals see themselves

and their environment at every level of the ecological system

(Greene & Lee, 2002). Cultural groups are living organisms

with members exhibiting different levels of identification with

their common culture and are impacted by other intersecting

identities. Because culture is fluid and ever changing, the process

of cultural adaptation is complex and dynamic. Social work and

other helping professions have attempted over time to integrate

culture of origin into the interventions applied with ethnic

minorities and other vulnerable communities in the United

States and globally (Sue, Arredondo, & McDavis, 1992). In

an ever-changing cultural landscape, there is a renewed need

to examine social work education and the interventions social

workers implement with cultural diverse communities.

Culturally competent social work practice is well established

in the profession and it is rooted in core social work practice

principles (i.e., client centered and strengths based). It strives

to work within a client’s cultural context to address risks and

protective factors. Cultural competency is a social work ethical

mandate and has the potential for increasing the effectiveness

of interventions by integrating the clients’ unique cultural assets

(Jani, Ortiz, & Aranda, 2008). Culturally competent or culturally

grounded social work incorporates culturally based values,

norms, and diverse ways of knowing (Kumpfer, Alvarado,

Smith, & Bellamy, 2002; Morano & Bravo, 2002).

Despite the awareness about the importance of implementing

culturally competent approaches, practitioners often struggle

with how to integrate the client’s worldview and the application

of evidence-based practices (EBPs). When selecting and

implementing social work interventions, practitioners often

continue to unconsciously place themselves at the center of

the provider–consumer relationship. Being unaware of their

power in the relationship and undervaluing the clients per-

spective in the selection of EBPs tends to result in a type

of social work practice that is culturally incompetent and

nonefficacious (Kirmayer, 2012). This ineffectiveness can

be experienced and interpreted by practitioners in several

ways. In instances when clients do not conform to the content

and format of existing interventions, they are easily labeled as

being resistant to treatment (Lee, 2010). In other cases, when

clients fail to adapt to a given intervention that does not feel

comfortable to them, the relationship is terminated or the

client simply does not return to services. Thus, terms such

as noncompliance and nonadherence may hide deeper issues

related to cultural mismatch or a lack of cultural competency

in the part of the practitioner.

Culturally grounded social work challenges practitioners to

see themselves as the other and to recognize that the responsi-

bility of cultural adaptation resides not solely on the clients but

involves everyone in the relationship (Marsiglia & Kulis,

2009). In order to do this, practitioners need to have access

to interventions or tools that are consistent with the culturally

grounded approach. A culturally grounded approach starts with

assessing the appropriateness of existing evidence-based inter-

ventions and adapting when necessary, so that they are more

1Southwest Interdisciplinary Research Center (SIRC), School of Social Work,

Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA2 School of Social Work, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jamie M. Booth, School of Social Work, University of Pittsburgh, 2117

Cathedral of Learning, 4200 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Research on Social Work Practice2015, Vol. 25(4) 423-432ª The Author(s) 2014Reprints and permission:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1049731514535989rsw.sagepub.com

relevant and engaging to clients from diverse cultural back-

grounds, without compromising their effectiveness. This process

of assessment, refinement, and adaptation of interventions will

lead to a more equitable and productive helping relationship.

The ecological systems approach provides a structure for

understanding the importance of cultural adaptation in social

work practice. Situated on the outer level (macro level) of

the ecological system, culture frames the norms, values, and

behaviors that operate on every other level: individual beliefs

and behaviors (micro level), family customs and communica-

tion patterns (mezzo level), and how that individual perceives

and interacts with the larger structures (exo level), such as

the school system or local law enforcement (Szapocznik &

Coatsworth, 1999). In this approach, the relationships between

individuals, institutions, and the larger cultural context within

the ecological framework are bidirectional, creating a dynamic

and rapidly evolving system (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Gitterman,

2009). The bidirectional nature of relationships is an important

concept to consider when discussing the cultural adaptation

of social work interventions for two reasons: (1) regardless

of the setting, in social work practice, the clients and the

social workers engage in work partnerships in which both par-

ties must adapt to achieve a point of mutual understanding and

communication and (2) culture is in constant flux, as individ-

uals interact with actors and institutions which either maintain

or shift cultural norms and values over time.

Although culturally tailoring prevention and treatment

approaches to fit every individual may not be feasible, cultu-

rally grounded social work may require the adaptation of

existing interventions when necessary while maintaining the

fidelity or scientific merit of the original evidence-based

intervention (Sanders, 2000). This article discusses the need

for cultural adaptation, presents a model of adaptation from

an ecological perspective, and reviews the adaptations con-

ducted by the Southwest Interdisciplinary Research Center

(SICR) as a case study. The recommendations section con-

nects the premises of this article with the existing literature

on cultural adaptation and identifies some specific unresolved

challenges that need to be addressed in future research.

Empirically Supported Interventions (ESIs) inSocial Work Practice

EBP has become the gold standard in social work practice and

involve the ‘‘conscientious’’ and ‘‘judicious’’ application of

the best research available in practice (Sackett, 1997, p. 2).

It is commonly believed that utilizing EBP simply requires the

practitioner to locate interventions that have been rigorously

tested using scientific methods, implement them, and evaluate

their effect; however, EBP acknowledges the role of individ-

uals and relationships in this process. EBP requires the inte-

gration of evidence and scientific methods with practice

wisdom, the worldview of the practitioner, and the client’s

perspectives and values (Howard, McMillen, & Pollio, 2003;

Regehr, Stern, & Shlonsky, 2007). The clinician’s judgment and

the client’s perspective are not only utilized in the selection of

the EBP intervention; they are also influential in how the inter-

vention is applied within the context of the clinical interaction

(Straus & McAlister, 2000). Achieving a balance between both

the client and the practitioner’s perspective in the application of

ESIs is essential for bridging the gap between research and prac-

tice (Howard et al., 2003). However, the inclusion of the clini-

cian’s judgment and the client’s history potentially muddles

the scientific merit of the intervention being implemented. This

is the fundamental tension and challenge when implementing

EBP and a key reason why the gap between research and prac-

tice exists (Regehr et al., 2007).

The attraction of EBP is clear; locating and potentially

utilizing empirically tested treatment and prevention inter-

ventions allow social workers to feel more confident that they

will achieve the desired outcomes and provide clients with

the best possible treatment, thereby fulfilling their ethical

responsibility (Gilgun, 2005). Despite this clear rationale, the

utilization of EBP is limited (Mullen & Bacon, 2006) and

when it is applied, research-supported interventions may not

be implemented in the manner the authors of the intervention

intended.

This lack of treatment fidelity when implementing EBP

may be due to practitioner’s awareness that the evidence

generated by randomized control trials (RCTs) may not be

applicable to the diverse needs of their clients or adequately

address the complexity of the clients’ life (Webb, 2001;

Witkin, 1998). Practitioners have natural tendency to adapt

interventions to better fit their clients (Kumpfer et al.,

2002). Some adaptations are made consciously, but others are

made quickly during the course of implementation and based

on clinical judgment (Bridge, Massie, & Mills, 2008; Castro,

Barrera, & Martinez, 2004). ESIs, however, can only be

expected to achieve the same results as those observed when

originally tested, if they are implemented with fidelity or

strict adherence to the program structure, content, and dosage

(Dumas, Lynch, Laughlin, Phillips Smith, & Prinz, 2001;

Solomon, Card, & Malow, 2006). Although adaptations are

typically made in response to a perceived need, when they

are not done systematically, based on evidence and with the

core elements of the intervention preserved, the efficacy that

was previously achieved in the more controlled environment

may not be replicated (Kumpfer et al., 2002). Informal adap-

tation has the potential for compromising the integrity of

the original intervention, thus negating the value of the accu-

mulated evidence that supports the intervention’s effective-

ness. This tension between fidelity and fit has generated a

need for strategies to create fit while insuring fidelity.

Cultural Adaptation

The primacy of scientific rigor over cultural congruence may

be a limitation in applying ESIs and a standard that should not

be maintained in culturally competent social work practice.

When working with real communities, both must be satisfied

to the highest degree possible (Regehr et al., 2007). One solu-

tion to tension between using culturally relevant practices and

424 Research on Social Work Practice 25(4)

ESIs is locating interventions that have been designed for and

tested with a given cultural group. However, the limited avail-

ability of culturally specific interventions with strong empiri-

cal support may create barriers to this approach. Despite the

progress that has been made to date, most ESIs are developed

for and tested with middle-class White Americans, with the

assumption that evidence of efficacy with this group can be

transferred to nonmajority cultures, which may or may not

be the case (Kumpfer et al., 2002).

For example, a prevention intervention with Latino parents

found that assimilated, highly educated Latino parents were

responsive to the prevention interventions presented to them,

while immigrant parents with less education were less likely

to benefit (Dumka, Lopez, & Jacobs-Carter, 2002). This high-

lights the differential effects of an intervention based on culture

as well as a clear need for a more culturally relevant interven-

tion for immigrant parents. Despite a clear need for adaptation

in some circumstances, there is a strong risk of compromising

the effectiveness of the ESI when unstructured cultural adapta-

tions are implemented in response to perceived cultural incon-

gruence (Kirk & Reid, 2002; Kumpfer & Kaftarian, 2000;

Miller, Wilbourne, & Hettema, 2003; Solomon et al., 2006).

For that reason, when culturally and contextually specific inter-

ventions exist with strong evidence, it is certainly preferable to

select that intervention; however, in the absence of an ESI

designed and tested for the population being served, adaptation

may be a more viable and cost-effective option for scientifi-

cally merging a client’s cultural perspectives/values and the

ESI (Howard et al., 2003; Steiker et al., 2008). Systematically

adapting an intervention may increase the odds that the treat-

ment will achieve similar results than those found in more

controlled environments by minimizing the amount of sponta-

neous adaptations that the practitioner feels that they must

make to communicate within the client cultural frame

(Ferrer-Wreder, Sundell, & Mansoory, 2012).

Cultural adaptation may not only preserve the ESI’s effi-

cacy but also enhance the results attained in clinical trials

(Kelly et al., 2000). Culturally adapted interventions have the

potential to improve both client engagement in treatment and

outcomes and might be indicated when either rates fall below

what could be expected based on previous evidence (Lau,

2006). In an evaluation of a culturally adapted version of

the Strengthening Families intervention, there was a 40%increase in program retention in the culturally adapted version

of the intervention (Kumpfer et al., 2002). Although outcomes

were not found to be significantly better in the adapted version

of the intervention, the increase in retention is a significant

improvement. Improving retention expands the intervention’s

potential to reach and impact individuals who would not

typically remain in treatment. Despite the lack of difference

in outcomes in the Strengthening Families intervention, some

evidence has emerged that culturally adapted interventions

not only increase retention but are also more effective. In a

recent meta-analysis, culturally adapted treatments had a

greater impact than standard treatments, produced better out-

comes, and were most successful when they were culturally

tailored to a single ethnic minority group (Smith, Domenech

Rodrı́guez, & Bernal, 2010).

Adapting interventions in partnership with communities also

enhances the community’s commitment to the implementation

and the chances that the program will be sustained overtime

(Castro et al., 2004). For example, efforts to adapt HIV pre-

vention programs by modifying the messages and protocols

in order for them to sound and feel natural or familiar intellec-

tually and emotionally to individuals, families, groups, and

communities have improved the communities’ receptiveness,

retention, outcomes, and overall satisfaction, in addition to

retaining high levels of fidelity (Kirby, 2002; Raj, Amaro,

& Reed, 2001; Wilson & Miller, 2003).

Finally, cultural adaptation is advantageous because it

allows the social worker to address culturally specific risk

factors and build on identified protective factors. In the case

of Latino families, differential rates of acculturation between

parents and youth appear to be a risk factor for substance use

and delinquency among youth, indicating that family-based

interventions may be the most culturally relevant intervention

(Martinez, 2006). In addition to a source of risk, cultural

norms that place a high value on family loyalty are protective

factors against a variety of negative outcomes (German,

Gonzales, & Dumka, 2009; Marsiglia, Nagoshi, Parsai, &

Castro, 2012). Identifying risk and protective factors unique

to a community and addressing these within an intervention

have the potential to increase the efficacy of the intervention.

The importance of EBP and culturally competent practice

has created tension in the field of social work. Evidence

has landed support to both claims: (1) interventions are more

effective when implemented with fidelity (Durlak & DuPre,

2008) and (2) interventions are more effective when they are

culturally adapted because they ensure a good fit (Jani et al.,

2008). These different perspectives highlight the tension in

the field between implementing manualized interventions

exactly as they were written versus to adjusting them to fit the

targeted population or community (Norcross, Beutler, &

Levant, 2006). Although this debate is far from resolved, the-

ories of adaptation have been developed that allow the

researcher/practitioner to adjust the fit without compromising

the integrity of the intervention (Ferrer-Wreder et al., 2012).

If the cultural adaptation is done systematically, it has the

potential for maximizing the benefit of the fit, as well as the

benefit of the ESI, thus providing a strategy that addresses

many of the concerns surrounding EBP’s applicability in

social work practice (Castro et al., 2004).

An Emerging Roadmap for Cultural Adaptation

Cultural adaptation is an emerging science that aims at

addressing these challenges and opportunities to enhance the

effectiveness of interventions by grounding them in the lived

experience of the participants. Strategies and processes to sys-

tematically adapt interventions while insuring a more optimal

cultural fit without compromising the integrity of scientific

merit have been proposed and are beginning to be tested

Marsiglia and Booth 425

(La Roche & Christopher, 2009). The first step in all adaptation

models is determining that the cultural adaptation of an interven-

tion should be perused. Adaptation of an ESI is indicated when

(1) a client’s engagement in services falls below what is

expected, (2) expected outcomes are not achieved, and (3) iden-

tified culturally specific risks and/or protective factors need to

be incorporated into the intervention (Barrera & Castro, 2006).

Once the determination is made to conduct an adaptation,

there are a variety of models that one could follow all of which

fall into two categories: content and process (Ferrer-Wreder

et al., 2012). Although most current adaptation models have

merged the discussions regarding the content that should be

modified and process by which this modification takes place,

it is useful to consider them separately.

Content models identify an array of domains that may be

crucial to address when conducting an adaptation. The ecolo-

gical validity model, for example, focuses on eight dimensions

of culture: language, persons, metaphors, content, concepts,

goals, methods, and social context (Bernal, Jiménez-Chafey,

& Domenech Rodrı́guez, 2009). The cultural sensitivity model,

also a content model, identifies two distinct content areas: deep

culture, which includes aspects of culture such as thought pat-

terns, value systems, and norms, and surface culture, which refers

to elements, such as language, food, and customs (Resnicow,

Soler, Braithwaite, Ahluwailia, & Butler, 2000). Proponents of

the cultural sensitivity model argue that both aspects of culture

should be assessed and potentially addressed if areas of conflict

or incongruence between the culture and the intervention are

identified (Resnicow et al., 2000). Surface adaptations allow the

participants to identify with the messages, potentially enhancing

engagement; while, deep culture adaptations ensure that the

outcomes are impacted (Resnicow et al., 2000).

Castro, Barrera, and Martinez (2004) and Castro, Barrera,

and Steiker, 2010 have proposed a content model that identifies

a set of specific dimensions—at the surface and deep levels—

that are essential to consider in the adaptation process: cogni-

tive, affective, and environmental. Cognitive adaptations are

considered when participants cannot understand the content

that is being presented due to language barriers or the use of

information that is not relevant in an individual’s cultural

frame. Vignettes given by the original intervention, for exam-

ple, may not be relevant to the participants or may be offensive

due to spiritual or religious taboos. The content may create a

negative reaction from the participants which in turn may block

their ability to hear and integrate the message. It is that content

that needs to be modified while the core elements of the inter-

vention are respected. Affective-motivational adaptations are

indicated when program messages are contrary to cultural

norms and values, creating a resistance to change within the

individual (Castro, Rawson, & Obert, 2001). Environmental

factors (later referred to as relevance) make sure that the con-

tents and structure are applicable to the participants in their

daily lived experience (Castro et al., 2010).

While content models of adaptation tell adaptors where to

look for cultural mismatch, process models provide a frame-

work for making systematic assessments of cultural match,

adjustments to the original intervention, and tests of the adap-

tations effectiveness. At a minimum adaption process, models

follow two systematic steps: (1) identifying mismatches

between the original intervention and the client’s culture and

(2) testing/evaluating changes that have been made to rectify

these disparities (Ferrer-Wreder et al., 2012).

Most process models of adaptation begin with building a

partnership or coalition with members of targeted community

(Castro et al., 2010; Harris et al., 2001; Wingood & DiCle-

mente, 2008). Sometimes the ESI that will be adapted is

selected at this stage; however, more information is often gath-

ered about the targeted population before selecting the inter-

vention that would provide the best fit (Kumpfer, Pinyuchon,

Teixeriade de Melo, & Whiteside, 2008; Mckleroy et al.,

2006; Wingood & DiClemente, 2008). Whether the interven-

tion has yet to be selected, extensive formative research is con-

ducted to assess the etiology of the social problem that is the

target of the intervention, possible population-specific risks

and protective factors, and measurement equivalence to insure

and accurate evaluation of intervention outcomes (Harris et al.,

2001). Some information about the target community may be

gained by reviewing relevant literature; however, interviews,

focus groups, and surveys are also used to collect primary data

about the social and cultural context that may impact the out-

come of the intervention or conflict with the program’s mes-

sages/implementation strategies.

At this point in the process, some adaptation models recom-

mend making changes based on the formative research

(Domenech-Rodriguez & Wieling, 2004; Harris et al., 2001), while

others suggest implementing the intervention with minimal

changes and assessing the need for further adaption. In an innova-

tive approach, the Planned Intervention Adaptation model suggests

making significant changes to one version of the intervention

while making minimal changes to another and implementing them

both simultaneously to test the differential effects (Castro et al.,

2010; Ferrer-Wreder et al., 2012; Kumpfer et al., 2008).

Regardless of the level of adaptation, the modified inter-

vention is pilot tested and based on the outcomes subsequent

adaptations are made (Ferrer-Wreder et al., 2012). Once a

final adaptation has been made, further testing takes place

in effectiveness trials. Across all theories of adaptation, the

process is iterative with refinements made to the intervention

at every stage based on the evidence generated in the prior

stage (Domenech-Rodriguez & Wieling, 2004). Regardless

of the depth of changes made, the adapted intervention must

be rigorously tested to ensure that the effects of the original

ESI are preserved after changes have been made.

Case Study: Adaptations of Keepin’it REAL(KiR), the Southwest InterdisciplinaryResearch Center (SIRC) Approach

Over the past 10 years of health disparities research, the SIRC

has developed a process of cultural adaptation that includes

most of the elements outlined previously. The specific

426 Research on Social Work Practice 25(4)

adaptation model utilized at SIRC is an expanded version

of the Barrera and Castro (2006) model as illustrated by

Figure 1.

KiR is the flagship empirically supported treatment SIRC

(Marsiglia & Hecht, 2005). KiR is a manualized school-

based substance abuse prevention program for middle school

students. It was designed to (a) increase drug resistance skills

among middle school students, (b) promote antisubstance use

norms and attitudes, and (c) develop effective drug resistance

and communication skills (Gosin, Dustman, Drapeau, &

Harthun, 2003). It was created and evaluated in Arizona

through many years of community-based research funded by

the National Institutes on Drug Abuse of the National Insti-

tutes of Health. It is a model program listed under Substance

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s National

Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices. There is

strong evidence about the efficacy of the intervention with

middle school Mexican American students (Marsiglia, Kulis,

Wagstaff, Elek, & Dran, 2005), however the community-

identified need to reach out to younger students and to stu-

dents of other ethnic groups generated a set of adaptation

efforts summarized in Figure 2.

As Figure 2 illustrates, KiR was adapted for fifth-grade stu-

dents (Harthun, Dustman, Reeves, Marsiglia, & Hecht, 2009)

following the SIRC adaptation model and an RCT was con-

ducted to test whether the effects of the intervention increased

by intervening earlier (fifth grade vs. seventh grade). Students

who received the intervention in both the fifth and seventh

grade were no different in their self-reported use of alcohol

and other drugs than students who received the intervention

only on the seventh grade (Marsiglia, Kulis, Yabiku, Nieri,

& Coleman, 2011). This effort did no yield the expected

results but provided evidence from a developmental perspec-

tive that starting earlier was not cost effective.

The second adaptation presented in Figure 2 was also

community-generated and supported from the evidence gath-

ered during the initial RCT of KiR. Urban American Indian

(AI) youth were not benefiting from KiR as much as other

children (Dixon et al., 2007). Following the principles of

community-based participatory research, a steering group,

including leaders from the local urban AI community and

school district personnel in charge of AI programs, was

formed to guide the adaptation process. In addition to enga-

ging community members and setting up a structure to ensure

a collaborative partnership, before beginning the adaptation

process, formative information was collected by consulting

the literature to identify culturally specific risks and protec-

tive factors and focus groups. Focus groups were conducted

with both Native American adults and youth to explore cultu-

rally specific drug resistance strategies that were frequently

applied by urban Native American youth (Kulis & Brown,

2011; Kulis, Dustman, Brown, & Martinez, 2013).

Based on this information, collected in conjunction with

four Native American curriculum development experts, KiR

was adapted, and while maintaining its core elements, the

content and structure were changed to be more culturally rel-

evant to Native American youth (Kulis et al., 2013). Changes

to the curriculum included (1) new drug resistant strategies

that were identified by the AI youth as being more culturally

relevant to them, (2) lesson plans designed to teach strategies

in a more culturally relevant way, (3) more comprehensive

content focusing on ethnic identity (a protective factor identi-

fied in the literature), and (5) a narrative approach in teaching

content (Kulis et al., 2013). In the initial pilot test of the

intervention, results showed an increase in the use of REAL

strategies indicating a promising effect. Based on pilot test

feedback, the intervention has been further adapted and

implemented on a larger scale through an RCT. The research

team at SIRC is currently in the process of developing a

Identification of EBP with community. Preliminary adaptation

Pilot-testing of the

adpated version

Integration of the results.

Further adaptation if

needed

RCT of the final

adaptedversion

Community Engegament

& Needs Assessment

Figure 1. The SIRC adaptation model (Barrera & Castro, 2006).Note. SIRC ¼ Southwest Interdisciplinary Research Centre.

keepin't REALPhoenix efficacy

trial: EBPN = 6,035

(1997-2002)

Adapted with Jalisco-Mexico middle schools

N = 431(2011-2013)

Adapted with Phoenix urban American Indian middle schools

N = 247(2007-2012)

Adapted with Phoenix 5th gradersN = 3,038

(2003-2008)

Figure 2. The SIRC family of adapted interventions.Note. SIRC ¼ Southwest Interdisciplinary Research Centre.

Marsiglia and Booth 427

parenting component to this intervention using the processes

that were established in the development of the youth version.

Implementing and adapting KiR for the Mexican context is

the most recent adaptations done at SIRC. Collaborators in

Jalisco-Mexico identified Keepin’ it as an ESI suitable for

Mexico. The initial review of the intervention resulted in a

‘‘surface’’ adaptation consisting mostly of translating the

manuals from English to Spanish and changing some of the

vignettes that were not appropriate for Mexico. The Jalisco

team recruited two middle schools to participate in a pilot

study of the initial adapted version of KiR. The schools were

randomized to control and experimental conditions. Imple-

menters (teachers) and student participants participated in

the regular classroom-based intervention for 10 weeks and

were also a part of a simultaneous intensive review process

of the intervention through focus groups. The overall level

of comfort and satisfaction with the intervention was high and

the pre- and posttest survey results were also favorable. The

main concern for teachers and students was the videos that

illustrate the REAL resistance strategies. The original videos

were dubbed into Spanish, but the story lines, the music, and

even the clothing felt foreign to the youth in Jalisco. As a

result, new scripts and new videos were produced by and for

youth in Jalisco. This method of adaptation did not change the

core elements of the original intervention but did address

aspects of deep culture (Steiker et al., 2008). Because the

youth wrote and acted in the videos, they were able to con-

struct scenarios that accurately reflected their cultural norms

and values.

The results of the pilot also provided additional feedback to

edit the content and format of the manuals. See Figure 3 for

the pilot results on alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use.

The results of the pilot were very promising and identified

female students at a greater risk. Females in the control group

(not receiving the intervention) reported the greatest increase in

substance use between the pre- and posttest. The pilot results

illustrate the need for the cyclical and continuous adaptation

process. This case study highlights the need to conduct a gender

adaptation in addition to an ethnic or nation of origin adapta-

tion. With the adapted manual and the new videos, the bina-

tional team of researchers is applying for funding to conduct

an RCT in Mexico of the revised intervention now called

‘‘Mantente REAL.’’

Adaptation in Social Work Practice

The previously discussed models, including the SIRC model,

are based on collaborations between practitioners and research-

ers, where researchers take the lead in the formative assess-

ments, adaptations, and evaluations of effectiveness. In many

social work practice settings, this process might look different,

although it is recommended that regardless of the setting, a

partnership with the intervention designers is developed if

significant modifications are going to be made to the original

intervention. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC) has devised a set of practical guidelines for practitioners

adopting an ESI and strongly discourages adaptors to change

the deep structures of the intervention (McKleroy et al., 2006).

In the CDC model, as in the SIRC model, the adaptation

process starts with the selection of an ESI that best matches the

population and context (Solomon et al., 2006). The selection of

an intervention is based on an initial assessment of the targeted

population and an exploration of possible intervention varia-

tions (Ferrer-Wreder et al., 2012). Assessments of the pop-

ulation can be made through a review of the literature and by

conducting interviews with key informants or focus groups

with potential participants. The initial assessment of the popu-

lation should go beyond potential participants’ ethnicities to

include multiple and intersecting identities. Cultural adaptation

frequently starts and stops with the identification of race, with-

out examining how age, gender, sexual orientation, religion,

acculturation, and geography shape culture. The lack of such

identification information could potentially impact the partici-

pants’ experience with the intervention (Wilson & Miller,

2003). A thorough assessment includes consideration for both

deep and surface culture, as well as population-specific risks

and protective factors (Solomon et al., 2006). During this initial

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

Wave 1 Wave 2

Wave 1 Wave 2

Wave 1 Wave 2

Alcohol Frequency

Male (E)Male (C)Female (E)Female (C)

00.050.1

0.150.2

0.250.3

0.350.4

0.45

Cigarette Frequency

Male (E)Male (C)Female (E)Female (C)

00.050.1

0.150.2

0.250.3

0.350.4

0.45

Cigarette Amount

Male (E)Male (C)Female (E)Female (C)

Figure 3. Pilot results of ‘‘Mantente REAL.’’

428 Research on Social Work Practice 25(4)

phase, social workers strive to find the best possible fit because

the fewer modifications they make, the less likely the fidelity of

the intervention will be compromised in the adaptation process.

After the intervention is selected, the practitioner thoroughly

evaluates the theoretical underpinnings of the intervention and

assesses the intervention in light of the cultural norms and values

of the clients being served (Green & Glasgow, 2006). The

practitioner then systematically works to reconcile any mis-

matches between the intervention and the participants’ lived

experiences without altering the core components of the inter-

vention or features of the intervention that are responsible for

the intervention’s effectiveness (Green & Glasgow, 2006;

Kelly et al., 2000; Solomon et al., 2006). When it is deter-

mined that elements of deep culture need to be changed and

these changes have the potential of altering core elements of

the curriculum, the evidence previously found for effective-

ness may be negated indicating the need to retest the interven-

tion in an RCT (see Figure 4 ).

Although some interventionists have explicitly identified

core components that must be preserved to ensure effective-

ness, others have not. In the case when they are not explicitly

stated, it becomes the implementer’s responsibility to uncover

aspects of the intervention that cannot be changed or removed.

Identifying the theory of change (i.e., cognitive behavioral

theory, reasoned action, and communication competency) is

the most practical way of identifying core elements, although

contacting the authors and conducting experiments are also

possibilities (Solomon et al., 2006).

After the intervention has been adapted to reconcile any

conflicting mismatches, a pilot test is recommended of the

adapted intervention with a small group of participants (at

least N ¼ 10) using pre- or postsurveys and focus groups(McKleroy et al., 2006). Any information gleaned from this

data will be used to further incorporate any adaptations into

the intervention.

The extent of adaptation must be determined by the level of

mismatch between the intervention and the population being

served (Barrera & Castro, 2006). Frequently, cultural adapta-

tions only address surface aspects of culture while neglecting

the deeper messages being communicated in the intervention.

This is not necessarily bad practice. It is possible that chang-

ing the language, photographs, and the scenarios in an inter-

vention is all that is needed to make it culturally relevant.

There are, however, situations in which this is not sufficient

(Resnicow et al., 2000). As mentioned previously, surface

adaptation allows participants in the program to identify

themselves with the intervention, but it could fail to address

the larger cultural norms that may be impacting the target

behaviors or decision-making process. If it is determined that

significant and/or deep changes are needed, the developers of

the intervention need to be contacted and asked to assist the

social worker in the process. It should be remembered that any

changes have the potential to compromise the intervention’s

effectiveness and need to be implemented with extreme cau-

tion. Social workers adapting interventions should document

all changes made to the original intervention and systemati-

cally evaluate the outcomes in order to ensure that the desired

results are being achieved.

Recommendations

Social work ethics clearly instruct social workers to provide

culturally competent practice and to implement interventions

with the best possible evidence of efficacy. Due to the vast

diversity in the human family, these imperatives can be in con-

flict. This conflict highlights many of the questions that still

linger in the discussion of the value of implementing social

work interventions with fidelity versus adapting them to better

achieve a cultural fit. It has been suggested that one way to rec-

tify this tension is to adapt interventions in a systematic manner

based on scientifically validated methods. Despite the apparent

clarity of this task, the adaptation process can be challenging.

The theories of adaptation that have emerged in several differ-

ent fields put forward similar processes of adaptation. These

may require an extensive assessment of the etiology of social

problems, an understanding of the deep theoretical structure

of the original intervention, and rigorous evaluation that may

be beyond the capacity of individual practitioners. To this end,

more work needs to be done to build the capacities of social

workers and social work agencies for utilizing and conducting

Figure 4. The continuum of adaptation: Balancing the fidelity and fit.

Marsiglia and Booth 429

rigorous research that would enable them to reliably adapt

social work research theories and practices. In the absence of

needed resources, social workers are encouraged to build

relationships with research institution that can help them sys-

tematically assess and adapt interventions, so that they can

provide the most culturally competent services. When adapta-

tions cannot be reliably implemented, efforts need to be made

to identify interventions that have been previously adapted

and tested with a given population, such as those in the SIRC

model, and implement them with fidelity. With the ever

expanding number of rigorously tested, culturally specific,

and culturally grounded interventions, it may seem feasible

at some point to have an ESI for every population in every

context; however, the dynamic nature of culture and the vast

diversity among humans ensure that cultural adaptation will

continue to be a likely necessity in the future.

Authors’ Note

This article was previously presented at the conference on Bridging

the Research and Practice gap: A Symposium on Critical Considera-

tions, Successes and Emerging Ideas, sponsored by the University of

Houston Graduate College of Social Work, Houston, TX, April 5–6,

2013. This article was invited and accepted by the Guest Editor of this

special issue, Danielle E. Parrish, PhD The content of this article is

solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily repre-

sent the official views of NIMHD or the NIH.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to

the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the

research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research

was supported by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health

Disparities (NIMHD) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH Grant

P20MD002316-05, to Flavio F. Marsiglia, principal investigator).

References

Barrera, M., & Castro, F. G. (2006). A heuristic framework for the

cultural adaptation of interventions. Clinical Psychology: Science

and Practice, 13, 311–316.

Bernal, G., Jiménez-Chafey, M. I., & Domenech Rodrı́guez, M. M.

(2009). Cultural adaptation of treatments: A resource for consider-

ing culture in evidence-based practice. Professional Psychology:

Research and Practice, 40, 361–368.

Bridge, T. J., Massie, E. G., & Mills, C. S. (2008). Prioritizing cultural

competence in the implementation of an evidence-based practice

model. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 1111–1118.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an environmental ecology of

human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513–531.

Castro, F. G., Barrera, M., & Martinez, C. R. (2004). The cultural

adaptation of prevention interventions: Resolving tensions between

fidelity and fit. Prevention Science, 5, 41–45.

Castro, F. G., Barrera, M., Jr., & Steiker, L. K. H. (2010). Issues and

challenges in the design of culturally adapted evidence-based inter-

ventions. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 213–239.

Castro, F. G., Rawson, R., & Obert, J. (2001, December 6–7). Cultural

and treatment issues in the adaptation of the Matrix model for

implementation in Mexico. Paper presented at the Centros de Inte-

gracion Juvenil Conference on Drug Abuse Treatment, Mexico

City, Mexico.

Dixon, A. L., Yabiku, S. T., Okamoto, S. K., Tann, S. S., Marsiglia, F.

F., Kulis, S., & Burke, A. M. (2007). The efficacy of a multicul-

tural prevention intervention among urban American Indian youth

in the southwest US. Journal of Primary Prevention, 28, 547–568.

Domenech-Rodriguez, M., & Wieling, E. (2004). Developing cultu-

rally appropriate, evidence-based treatments for interventions with

ethnic minority populations. In M. Rastogi & E. Wieling (Eds.),

Voices of color: First person accounts of ethnic minority therapists

(pp. 313–333). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dumas, J. E., Lynch, A. M., Laughlin, J. E., Phillips Smith, E., &

Prinz, R. J. (2001). Promoting intervention fidelity: Conceptual

issues, methods, and preliminary results from the EARLY ALLI-

ANCE prevention trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,

20, 38–47.

Dumka, L. E., Lopez, V. A., & Jacobs-Carter, S. (2002). Parenting

interventions adapted for Latino families: Progress and prospects.

In J. M. Contreas, K. A. Kerns, & A. M. Neal- Barnett (Eds.),

Latino children and families in the United States: Current research

and future directions (pp. 203–231). Westport, CN: Praeger.

Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review

of research on the influence of implementation on program out-

comes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal

of Community Psychology, 41, 327–350.

Ferrer-Wreder, L., Sundell, K., & Mansoory, S. (2012). Tinkering

with perfection: Theory development in the intervention cultural

adaptation field. Child and Youth Care Forum, 41, 149–171.

German, M., Gonzales, N. A., & Dumka, L. (2009). Familism values

as a protective factor for Mexican-origin adolescents exposed to

deviant peers. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 29, 16–42.

Gilgun, J. F. (2005). The four cornerstones of evidence-based practice

in social work. Research on Social Work Practice, 15, 52–61.

Gitterman, A. (2009). The life model. In A. R. Roberts (Ed.), Social

worker’s desk reference (pp. 231–235). New York, NY: Oxford

Press.

Gosin, M. N., Dustman, P. A., Drapeau, A. E., & Harthun, M. L.

(2003). Participatory action research: Creating an effective preven-

tion curriculum for adolescents in the Southwestern US. Health

Education Research, 18, 363–379.

Green, L. W., & Glasgow, R. E. (2006). Evaluating the relevance,

generalization, and applicability of research issues in external

validation and translation methodology. Evaluation & the Health

Professions, 29, 126–153.

Greene, G. J., & Lee, M. Y. (2002). The social construction of

empowerment. In M. O’Melia & K. Milesy (Eds.), Pathways to

empowerment in social work practice (pp. 175–201). Boston,

MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Harris, K. J., Ahluwalia, J. S., Okuyemi, K. S., Turner, J. R., Woods, M.

N., Backinger, C. L., & Resnicow, K. (2001). Addressing cultural

sensitivity in a smoking cessation intervention: Development of the

kick it at Swope project. Journal of Community Psychology, 29,

447–458.

430 Research on Social Work Practice 25(4)

Harthun, M. L., Dustman, P. A., Reeves, L. J., Marsiglia, F. F., &

Hecht, M. L. (2009). Using community-based participatory

research to adapt keepin’it REAL: Creating a socially, develop-

mentally, and academically appropriate prevention curriculum for

5th graders. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 53, 12–38.

Howard, M. O., McMillen, C. J., & Pollio, D. E. (2003). Teaching

evidence-based practice: Toward a new paradigm for social work

education. Research on Social Work Practice, 13, 234–259.

Jani, J. S., Ortiz, L., & Aranda, M. P. (2008). Latino outcome studies

in social work: A review of the literature. Research on Social

Work Practice, 19, 179–194.

Kelly, J. A., Heckman, T. G., Stevenson, L. Y., Williams, P. N., Ertl, T.,

Hays, R. B., . . . Neumann, M. S. (2000). Transfer of research-

based HIV prevention interventions to community service provi-

ders: Fidelity and adaptation. AIDS Education and Prevention,

12, 87–98.

Kirby, D. (2002). Effective approaches to reducing adolescent unpro-

tected sex, pregnancy, and childbearing. Journal of Sex Research,

39, 51–57.

Kirk, S. A., & Reid, W. J. (2002). Science and social work: A critical

appraisal. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Kirmayer, L. J. (2012). Cultural competence and evidence-based

practice in mental health: Epistemic communities and the politics

of pluralism. Social Science & Medicine, 75, 249–256.

Kulis, S., & Brown, E. F. (2011). Preferred drug resistance strategies

of urban American Indian youth of the Southwest. Journal of Drug

Education, 41, 203–234.

Kulis, S., Dustman, P., Brown, E., & Martinez, M. (2013). Expand-

ing urban American Indian youths repertoire of drug resistance

skills: Pilot Results from a culturally adapted prevention pro-

gram. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health

Research, 20, 35–54.

Kumpfer, K. L., Alvarado, R., Smith, P., & Bellamy, N. (2002).

Cultural sensitivity and adaptation in family-based prevention

interventions. Prevention Science, 3, 241–246.

Kumpfer, K. L., & Kaftarian, S. J. (2000). Bridging the gap between

family-focused research and substance abuse prevention practice:

Preface. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 21, 169–184.

Kumpfer, K. L., Pinyuchon, M., Teixeriade de Melo, A., & Whiteside,

H. O. (2008). Cultural adaptation process for international dissemi-

nation of the Strengthening Families program. Evaluation & the

Health Professions, 31, 226–239.

La Roche, M. J., & Christopher, M. S. (2009). Changing paradigms from

empirically supported treatment to evidence-based practice: A cul-

tural perspective. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice;

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 396–402.

Lau, A. S. (2006). Making the case for selective and directed cultural

adaptations of evidence-based treatments: Examples from parent

training. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 13, 295–310.

Lee, E. (2010). Revisioning cultural competence in clinical social

work practice. Families in Society, 91, 272–279.

Marsiglia, F. F., & Hecht, M. L. (2005). Keepin’it REAL: An evidence-

based program. Santa Cruz, CA: ETR Associates.

Marsiglia, F. F., & Kulis, S. S. (2009). Diversity, oppression, and

change: Culturally grounded social work. Chicago, IL: Lyceum

Books.

Marsiglia, F. F., Kulis, S., Wagstaff, D. A., Elek, E., & Dran, D.

(2005). Acculturation status and substance use prevention with

Mexican and Mexican-American youth. Journal of Social Work

Practice in the Addictions, 5, 85–111.

Marsiglia, F. F., Kulis, S., Yabiku, S., Nieri, T., & Coleman, E. (2011).

When to intervene: Elementary school, middle school or both?

Effects of keepin’it REAL on substance abuse trajectories of

Mexican heritage youth. Prevention Science, 12, 48–62.

Marsiglia, F. F., Nagoshi, J. L., Parsai, M., & Castro, F. G. (2012).

The influence of linguistic acculturation and parental monitoring

on the substance use of Mexican-heritage adolescents in predomi-

nantly Mexican enclaves of the Southwest US. Journal of ethni-

city in substance abuse, 11, 226–241.

Martinez, C. R. (2006). Effects of differential family acculturation on

Latino adolescent substance use. Family Relations, 55, 306–317.

McKleroy, V., Galbraith, J., Cummings, B., Jones, P., Gelaude, D., &

Carey, J. (2006). Adapting evidence based behavioral interventions

for new settings and target populations. AIDS Education Preven-

tion, 18, 59–73.

Miller, W. R., Wilbourne, P. L., & Hettema, J. E. (2003). What works?

A summary of alcohol treatment outcome research. Handbook of

Alcoholism Treatment Approaches, 3, 13–63.

Morano, C. L., & Bravo, M. (2002). A psychoeducational model for

Hispanic Alzheimer’s disease caregivers. The Gerontologist, 42,

122–126.

Mullen, E. J., & Bacon, W. (2006). Implementation of practice guide-

lines and evidence-based treatment. In A. R. Roberts & K. R. Yea-

ger (Eds.), Foundations of evidence-based social work practice,

(pp. 81–92).New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Norcross, J. C., Beutler, L. E., & Levant, R. F. (2006). Evidence-

based practice in mental health: Debate and dialogue on the fun-

damental questions. Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Raj, A., Amaro, H., & Reed, E. (2001). Culturally tailoring HIV/AIDS

prevention programs: Why, when, and how. In S. Kazarian &

D. Evans (Eds.), Handbook of cultural health psychology

(pp. 195–239). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Regehr, C., Stern, S., & Shlonsky, A. (2007). Operationalizing

evidence-based practice the development of an institute for

evidence-based social work. Research on Social Work Practice,

17, 408–416.

Resnicow, K., Soler, R., Braithwaite, R. L., Ahluwalia, J. S., &

Butler, J. (2000). Cultural sensitivity in substance use preven-

tion. Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 271–290.

Sackett, D. L. (1997). Evidence-based medicine. Seminars in Peri-

natology, 21, 3–5.

Sanders, M. R. (2000). Community-based parenting and family sup-

port interventions and the prevention of drug abuse. Addictive

Behaviors, 25, 929–942.

Smith, T., Domenech, Rodrı́guez, M. M., & Bernal, G. (2010). Cul-

ture. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67, 166–175.

Solomon, J., Card, J. J., & Malow, R. M. (2006). Adapting efficacious

interventions advancing translational research in HIV prevention.

Evaluation & the Health Professions, 29, 162–194.

Steiker, L. K. H., Castro, F. G., Kumpfer, K., Marsiglia, F. F., Coard,

S., & Hopson, L. M. (2008). A dialogue regarding cultural

Marsiglia and Booth 431

adaptation of interventions. Journal of Social Work Practice in the

Addictions, 8, 154–162.

Straus, S. E., & McAlister, F. A. (2000). Evidence-based medicine:

A commentary on common criticisms. Canadian Medical Asso-

ciation Journal, 163, 837–841.

Sue, D. W., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. J. (1992). Multicultural

counseling competencies and standards: A call to the profession.

Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 20, 64–68.

Szapocznik, J., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1999). An ecodevelopmental frame-

work for organizing the influences on drug abuse: A developmental

model of risk and protection. In M. D. Glantz & C. R. Hartel (Ed.),

Drug abuse: Origins & interventions (pp. 331–366). Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association.

Webb, S. A. (2001). Some considerations on the validity of evidence-

based practice in social work. British Journal of Social Work, 31,

57–79.

Wilson, B. D. M., & Miller, R. L. (2003). Examining strategies for

culturally grounded HIV prevention: A review. AIDS Education

and Prevention, 15, 184–202.

Wingood, G. M., & DiClemente, R. J. (2008). The ADAPT-ITT

model: A model for adapting evidence-based HIV interven-

tions. Journal of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome, 47,

S40–S46.

Witkin, S. L. (1998). The right to effective treatment and the effective

treatment of rights: Rhetorical empiricism and the politics of

research. Social Work, 43, 75–80.

432 Research on Social Work Practice 25(4)