A training package for the Collaborative Model for Promoting Competence and Success (COMPASS), a multilevel consultation and coaching intervention for improved educational outcomes of students with autism, was developed and evaluated. Using a Hybrid Type 3 design with emphasis on implementation and a multidimensional approach to evaluating implementation outcomes, we tested the training package with community-based consultant trainees (CTs) unfamiliar with COMPASS and evaluated acceptance, appropriateness, feasibility, and fidelity from multiple sources (trainees, teachers, and parents). Results confirm that COMPASS-naïve CTs can be successfully trained. At least one feedback session was needed to achieve proficiency. Initial fidelity ratings between researchers and CTs were disparate suggesting self-report may not be adequate. Four feedback opportunities were required to achieve proficiency in writing intervention plans, an activity particularly challenging for CTs. Teachers and parents perceived COMPASS as acceptable, appropriate, and feasible. CTs knowledge of evidence-based practices (EBPs) increased significantly following training; however, positive attitudes toward EBPs did not. The implementation outcomes suggest that the training package was effective for training CTs; however, additional practice with writing intervention plans is warranted.

Little is known about differences in dosage or feedback that make teacher coaching effective in relation to teacher and student outcomes. This study builds upon previous research on the Collaborative Model for Promoting Competence and Success (COMPASS) to understand the impact of different types (face-to-face coaching vs. emailed feedback) and dosages (one vs. two or four) of performance feedback compared to receiving no feedback following an initial consultation during which intervention plans were developed. Findings suggest that teacher adherence and student goal-attainment outcomes depend on dosage, not type of coaching. Specifically, having two or four opportunities for performance feedback was significantly better than having none or only one opportunity. Ratings of teacher adherence and student goal attainment delivered via emailed feedback or face-to-face coaching were similar, which may have important implications for cost and efficiency. While preliminary, the results are promising and warrant further research. Implications are also discussed.