Using Adherence and Competence Measures Based on Practice Elements to Evaluate Treatment Fidelity for Two CBT Programs for Youth Anxiety

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Stephanie Violante, Bryce D. McLeod, Michael A. Southam-Gerow, Bruce F. Chorpita, John R. Weisz
{"title":"Using Adherence and Competence Measures Based on Practice Elements to Evaluate Treatment Fidelity for Two CBT Programs for Youth Anxiety","authors":"Stephanie Violante,&nbsp;Bryce D. McLeod,&nbsp;Michael A. Southam-Gerow,&nbsp;Bruce F. Chorpita,&nbsp;John R. Weisz","doi":"10.1016/j.beth.2023.09.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Measures designed to assess the quantity and quality of practices found across treatment programs for specific youth emotional or behavioral problems may be a good fit for evaluating treatment fidelity in effectiveness and implementation research. Treatment fidelity measures must demonstrate certain reliability and validity characteristics to realize this potential. This study examines the extent to which two observational measures, the Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment for Anxiety in Youth Adherence Scale (CBAY-A) and the CBAY Competence Scale (CBAY-C), can assess the quantity (the degree to which prescribed therapeutic techniques are delivered as intended) or quality (the competence with which prescribed techniques are delivered) of practices found in two distinct treatment programs for youth anxiety. Treatment sessions (<em>N</em> = 796) from 55 youth participants (<em>M</em> age = 9.89 years, <em>SD</em> = 1.71; 46% female; 55% White) with primary anxiety problems who participated in an effectiveness study were independently coded by raters who coded quantity, quality, and the youth–clinician alliance. Youth received one of three treatments: (a) standard (i.e., cognitive-behavioral therapy program), (b) modular (i.e., a cognitive-behavioral and parent-training program), and (c) usual clinical care. Interrater reliability for the CBAY-A items was good across the standard and modular conditions but mixed for the CBAY-C items. Across the standard and modular conditions, the CBAY-A Model subscale scores demonstrated evidence of construct validity, but the CBAY-C Model subscale scores showed mixed evidence. The results provide preliminary evidence that the CBAY-A can be used across different treatment programs but raise concerns about the generalizability of the CBAY-C.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48359,"journal":{"name":"Behavior Therapy","volume":"55 3","pages":"Pages 605-620"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavior Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005789423001181","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Measures designed to assess the quantity and quality of practices found across treatment programs for specific youth emotional or behavioral problems may be a good fit for evaluating treatment fidelity in effectiveness and implementation research. Treatment fidelity measures must demonstrate certain reliability and validity characteristics to realize this potential. This study examines the extent to which two observational measures, the Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment for Anxiety in Youth Adherence Scale (CBAY-A) and the CBAY Competence Scale (CBAY-C), can assess the quantity (the degree to which prescribed therapeutic techniques are delivered as intended) or quality (the competence with which prescribed techniques are delivered) of practices found in two distinct treatment programs for youth anxiety. Treatment sessions (N = 796) from 55 youth participants (M age = 9.89 years, SD = 1.71; 46% female; 55% White) with primary anxiety problems who participated in an effectiveness study were independently coded by raters who coded quantity, quality, and the youth–clinician alliance. Youth received one of three treatments: (a) standard (i.e., cognitive-behavioral therapy program), (b) modular (i.e., a cognitive-behavioral and parent-training program), and (c) usual clinical care. Interrater reliability for the CBAY-A items was good across the standard and modular conditions but mixed for the CBAY-C items. Across the standard and modular conditions, the CBAY-A Model subscale scores demonstrated evidence of construct validity, but the CBAY-C Model subscale scores showed mixed evidence. The results provide preliminary evidence that the CBAY-A can be used across different treatment programs but raise concerns about the generalizability of the CBAY-C.

使用基于实践要素的依从性和能力测量方法评估两种针对青少年焦虑症的 CBT 项目的治疗忠实性
为评估针对特定青少年情绪或行为问题的治疗项目的实践数量和质量而设计的措施,可能非常适合在有效性和实施研究中评估治疗的忠实性。治疗忠实性测量方法必须表现出一定的可靠性和有效性特征,才能发挥其潜力。本研究探讨了青少年焦虑症认知行为治疗依从性量表(CBAY-A)和认知行为治疗能力量表(CBAY-C)这两种观察性量表在多大程度上可以评估两个不同的青少年焦虑症治疗项目中的治疗方法的数量(规定的治疗方法按计划实施的程度)或质量(规定的治疗方法实施的能力)。55 名有原发性焦虑问题的青少年(中位年龄 = 9.89 岁,标准差 = 1.71;46% 为女性;55% 为白人)参加了一项有效性研究,他们的治疗疗程(N = 796)由对数量、质量和青少年-医生联盟进行编码的评分员独立编码。青少年接受了三种治疗方法中的一种:(a) 标准疗法(即认知行为疗法项目),(b) 模块疗法(即认知行为疗法和家长培训项目),以及 (c) 常规临床护理。在标准条件和模块条件下,CBAY-A 项目的互测可靠性良好,但 CBAY-C 项目的互测可靠性则参差不齐。在标准和模块化条件下,CBAY-A 模型的子量表得分显示出建构效度,但 CBAY-C 模型的子量表得分显示出混合效度。这些结果提供了初步证据,证明 CBAY-A 可用于不同的治疗项目,但对 CBAY-C 的通用性提出了担忧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Behavior Therapy
Behavior Therapy Multiple-
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
2.70%
发文量
113
审稿时长
121 days
期刊介绍: Behavior Therapy is a quarterly international journal devoted to the application of the behavioral and cognitive sciences to the conceptualization, assessment, and treatment of psychopathology and related clinical problems. It is intended for mental health professionals and students from all related disciplines who wish to remain current in these areas and provides a vehicle for scientist-practitioners and clinical scientists to report the results of their original empirical research. Although the major emphasis is placed upon empirical research, methodological and theoretical papers as well as evaluative reviews of the literature will also be published. Controlled single-case designs and clinical replication series are welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信