The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) is a research-based framework for studying the implementation of change or innovation in educational settings (Hall & Hord, 2020). CBAM provides a theoretical framework for how change and innovation occur accompanied by specific research methods for investigating it. Researchers use CBAM to assess how fully and effectively an innovation is being implemented over time. 

CBAM Assumptions 

CBAM is based on several key principles or assumptions about how change or innovation occurs in educational contexts, including the following: 

1. Change is learning. 

2. Change is a process, not an event. 

3. Implementing changes is a whole system effort. 

4. Organizations adopt change, individuals implement change. 

5. The school is the primary organizational unit for change. 

6. District and school-based leadership is essential to long-term success of the change. 

7. Facilitating change is a team effort. 

8. Interventions are key to the success of a change process. 

9. Appropriate interventions can reduce resistance to change. 

10. All-way communication is needed all the time. 

11. Mandates can work. 

12. Sustaining change requires additional time, interventions, and leadership. 

(Hall& Horde, 2020) 

CBAM Research Study Components  

Research Study Component	CBAM Framework
Purpose	Examine how well and how far along a change process or innovation is progressing
Research Question(s)	What is the current state of implementation of the innovation?
Theoretical Frameworks	Implementation Bridge The Concerns Based Adoption Model
Key Constructs	Stages of Concern Levels of Use Innovation Configurations
Unit of Analysis	Schools
Variables/Measures	SoC Questionnaire LoU Interview Protocol Innovation Configuration Map (Observation Protocol)
Participants	School staff implementing an innovation School and district staff serving as Change Facilitators District staff members leading or sponsoring the innovation and implementation study
Data Collection	Survey Administration (SoCQ) to intended innovation users (e.g., teachers) and Change Facilitators Level of Use interviews with intended innovation users (e.g., teachers) Observations of sites in which the innovation is being used (e.g., classrooms) using an IC Map
Data Analysis and Interpretation	SoCQ by Stage Scores and Individual and Aggregate Profiles LoU Rating for intended innovation users (over-all and by component) IC Map Classroom ratings
Results Reporting	Overall state of implementation of the innovation Recommended Interventions

CBAM Theoretical Frameworks 

CBAM implementation studies focus on the gap between the initiation of an innovation or change (through policy change, adoption of a program or curriculum, etc.) and changes in practice that could result in desired student learning outcomes.  They investigate the degree to which users of an innovation have crossed the “implementation bridge”. 

Implementation Bridge 

The Concerns Based Adoption Model includes several key components of systems undergoing a change or implementing an innovation. This includes the following: Resource System, Change Facilitators, User System Culture, External System, Innovation Users, Innovation Nonusers, Stages of Concern, Levels of Use, Innovation Configuration, CF Probing, CF Interventions, and Mushrooms. 

The Concerns Based Adoption Model 

CBAM Diagnostic Dimensions 

CBAM includes three diagnostic dimensions—Stages of Concern, Levels of Use, and Innovation Configuration—each with associated tools and processes for data collection and analysis. Together, data collected across these dimensions offer a comprehensive view of implementation progress. When used in combination, they not only support systematic monitoring of implementation but also help identify specific targets for ongoing implementer support. CBAM implementation studies lead to specific recommendations related to moving users (e.g., teachers) across the implementation bridge (and are geared towards those closest to the users (e.g., teachers) with responsibility for facilitating implementation (e.g., leaders or coaches). These types of studies also identify “mushrooms” that may be growing within the systems in which the innovation is occurring that could become impediments to the change. 

Stages of Concern 

As individuals begin to implement an innovation, their concerns and perceptions evolve in predictable ways. The Stages of Concern, a core dimension of the CBAM framework, describes this progression—from unrelated concerns to a continuum that moves through self, task, and impact stages (George, Hall, & Stiegelbauer, 2006). 

Tools for Assessing Stages of Concern 

Researchers (and change facilitators) can assess individuals’ Stages of Concern (SoC) using three established methods. Each approach offers different levels of detail and formality, depending on the context and purpose of the assessment. 

	Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ)	Open-Ended Concerns Statements (OE-SoC)	One-Legged Interviews (OLI)
Approach	Informal	Semi-Structured	Structured
Data Collection	Brief conversation about concerns	Written description of concerns	35-item survey about concerns
Analysis/ Interpretation	Estimate of SoC Stage	Coding of Response Estimate of SoC Stage	Construct Scoring Profile of SoC Stages Relative Intensity

 
Stages of Concern Questionnaire [link] 

Stages of Concern: A Manual for Assessing Open-Ended Concern Statements [link] 

Stages of Concern Change Facilitator Questionnaire [link] 

Stages of Concern Questionnaire Scoring [link] 

Levels of Use 

Levels of Use (LoU) is one of the core dimensions of the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM). While the Stages of Concern explore how people feel about an innovation, LoU focuses on what people do—how they put the innovation into practice. 

As educators begin working with a new program, strategy, or system, their use evolves over time. LoU captures this progression, from early behaviors like gathering information to later stages where the innovation is fully integrated into their practice and adapted to meet local needs (Hord et al., 2006). 

Researchers can describe an educator’s Level of Use overall, and examine key aspects of how they engage with the innovation, including: 

• Seeking knowledge and learning more about the innovation 

• Sharing information with colleagues 

• Assessing their own use of the innovation 

• Planning and reflecting on how to improve their use 

• Taking action to make it work in real settings 

Levels of Use Interview Protocol [Link] 

Levels of Use Chart [Link] 

Innovation Configurations  

Describing What Implementation Looks Like in Context 

Successful implementation of an innovation depends on clearly defining what the innovation looks like in practice. In real-world settings, educators often use innovations in different ways, some closely aligned with the intended model, and others that vary significantly. The CBAM dimension known as Innovation Configurations (IC) provides a framework for identifying and analyzing these variations (Hall & Hord, 2020). 

Tools for Assessing Innovation Configurations 

At the heart of this approach is the Innovation Configuration Map (IC Map)—a practical tool that outlines different ways an innovation might be enacted, from ideal use to partial or unintended use. Like a roadmap, the IC Map illustrates multiple paths educators may take as they work toward full implementation. The variations captured in an IC Map range from the ideal (the “a” variation) to what an innovation implementer would be doing if they are not implementing the innovation at all (the “e” or “f” variation). IC Maps: 

• Provide clear, specific, and shared descriptions of what a new program or practice should look like. 

• Focus on the key components. 

• Describe variations for each component in terms of the actions and behaviors that are ideal, acceptable, and unacceptable. 

Example IC Map 

Standard-Based Educational Practice (2 components) 

Identify the learning objectives (targets, goals) that apply to their class and explain why they are important.
(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)	(e)
Educator describes the learning objectives that apply to his/her class, clarifies how each relates to standards, and how meeting the learning objective will help the student move on to the next level and/or with their goals in life.	Educator defines which learning objectives are most essential and posts them in the classroom.	Educator posts the learning objectives that are included in a guiding document (e.g., state standards, district curriculum maps).	Educator has guiding documents and posts standards.	Educator organizes activity around general subject matter or where they are in the textbook.
Classify the type of thinking, or cognitive processes, described by each learning objective and address a variety of different cognitive processes.
(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)	(e)
Educator identifies the cognitive processes/type of thinking (e.g., recall, evaluation, analysis) required by each learning objective.  Learning activities are designed using a variety of different cognitive processes and scaffolding is provided for thinking skills.	Educator identifies different cognitive processes (recall, evaluation, analysis) required by learning objectives and includes some different types in classroom activities.	Educator uses a couple of different cognitive processes in the activities in his/her classroom.		Educator focuses one cognitive process in their classroom; most activity is geared towards remembering and recalling knowledge.

IC Map Template [link] 

IC Map Use for Research  

By observing classroom practice through the lens of an IC Map, researchers can gather diagnostic data to: 

• Understand how the innovation is being used. 

• Identify variation across classrooms or sites. 

• Assess the fidelity with which the innovation is being implemented and the progress over time. 

• Identify targets for support to move practice closer to the ideal. 

Innovation Configurations help bridge the gap between vision and reality—offering a structured way to guide and support meaningful, effective use of innovations. 

Key References 

Hall, G. E., Dirksen, D. J., & George, A. A. (2006). Measuring Implementation in Schools: Levels of Use. Austin, TX: SEDL   

Hall, G.E. & Hord, S. M. (2020) Implementing Change: Patterns, Principles and Potholes, Fifth Edition. Boston MA: Pearson.  

George, A. A., Hall, G. E., & Stiegelbauer, S. M. (2006). Measuring Implementation in Schools: The Stages of Concern Questionnaire. Austin, TX: SEDL