Pragmatic fidelity measurement in youth service settings.

Implementation research and practice Pub Date : 2023-07-19 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1177/26334895231185380
Lu Wang, Samantha J Stoll, Christopher J Eddy, Sarah Hurley, Jocelyn Sisson, Nicholas Thompson, Jacquelyn N Raftery-Helmer, J Stuart Ablon, Alisha R Pollastri
{"title":"Pragmatic fidelity measurement in youth service settings.","authors":"Lu Wang,&nbsp;Samantha J Stoll,&nbsp;Christopher J Eddy,&nbsp;Sarah Hurley,&nbsp;Jocelyn Sisson,&nbsp;Nicholas Thompson,&nbsp;Jacquelyn N Raftery-Helmer,&nbsp;J Stuart Ablon,&nbsp;Alisha R Pollastri","doi":"10.1177/26334895231185380","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Fidelity measurement is critical for developing, evaluating, and implementing evidence-based treatments (EBTs). However, traditional fidelity measurement tools are often not feasible for community-based settings. We developed a short fidelity rating form for the Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) approach from an existing manualized coding system that requires extensive training. We examined the reliability and accuracy of this short form when completed by trained observers, untrained observers, and self-reporting providers to evaluate multiple options for reducing barriers to fidelity measurement in community-based settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Community-based treatment providers submitted recordings of youth service sessions in which they did, or did not, use CPS. For 60 recordings, we compared short-form fidelity ratings assigned by trained observers and untrained observers to those provided by trained observers on the manualized coding system. For 141 recordings, we compared providers' self-reported fidelity on the short form to ratings provided by trained observers on the manualized coding system and examined providers' accuracy as a function of their global fidelity.</p><p><strong>Results & conclusions: </strong>The short form was reliable and accurate for trained observers. An assigned global integrity score and a calculated average of component scores on the short form, but not component scores themselves, were reliable and accurate for observers who had CPS expertise but no specific training on rating CPS fidelity. When providers self-reported fidelity on the short form, their global integrity score was a reliable estimate of their CPS integrity; however, providers with better CPS fidelity were most accurate in their self-reports. We discuss the costs and benefits of these more pragmatic fidelity measurement options in community-based settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":73354,"journal":{"name":"Implementation research and practice","volume":"4 ","pages":"26334895231185380"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/af/d2/10.1177_26334895231185380.PMC10363882.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895231185380","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Fidelity measurement is critical for developing, evaluating, and implementing evidence-based treatments (EBTs). However, traditional fidelity measurement tools are often not feasible for community-based settings. We developed a short fidelity rating form for the Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) approach from an existing manualized coding system that requires extensive training. We examined the reliability and accuracy of this short form when completed by trained observers, untrained observers, and self-reporting providers to evaluate multiple options for reducing barriers to fidelity measurement in community-based settings.

Methods: Community-based treatment providers submitted recordings of youth service sessions in which they did, or did not, use CPS. For 60 recordings, we compared short-form fidelity ratings assigned by trained observers and untrained observers to those provided by trained observers on the manualized coding system. For 141 recordings, we compared providers' self-reported fidelity on the short form to ratings provided by trained observers on the manualized coding system and examined providers' accuracy as a function of their global fidelity.

Results & conclusions: The short form was reliable and accurate for trained observers. An assigned global integrity score and a calculated average of component scores on the short form, but not component scores themselves, were reliable and accurate for observers who had CPS expertise but no specific training on rating CPS fidelity. When providers self-reported fidelity on the short form, their global integrity score was a reliable estimate of their CPS integrity; however, providers with better CPS fidelity were most accurate in their self-reports. We discuss the costs and benefits of these more pragmatic fidelity measurement options in community-based settings.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

青年服务环境中务实的忠诚度测量。
背景:保真度测量对于开发、评估和实施循证治疗(EBT)至关重要。然而,传统的保真度测量工具通常不适用于社区环境。我们根据需要大量培训的现有手动编码系统,为协作问题解决(CPS)方法开发了一个简短的保真度评级表。当由受过训练的观察员、未经训练的观察员和自我报告提供者完成时,我们检查了这份简短表格的可靠性和准确性,以评估在社区环境中减少保真度测量障碍的多种选择。方法:社区治疗提供者提交了他们使用或不使用CPS的青少年服务会议记录。对于60段录音,我们将受过训练的观察者和未受过训练的观察员分配的简短保真度评级与受过训练的观测者在手动编码系统上提供的评级进行了比较。对于141段录音,我们将提供者在简短表格上的自我报告保真度与训练有素的观察者在手动编码系统上提供的评级进行了比较,并将提供者的准确性作为其全球保真度的函数进行了检查。结果与结论:对于受过训练的观察者来说,简短的表格是可靠和准确的。对于那些拥有CPS专业知识但没有接受过CPS保真度评级专门培训的观察者来说,指定的全局完整性得分和简表上组件得分的计算平均值(而不是组件得分本身)是可靠和准确的。当提供者在简短表格上自我报告忠诚度时,他们的全球完整性得分是对其CPS完整性的可靠估计;然而,CPS保真度较高的提供者在自我报告中最准确。我们讨论了在社区环境中这些更实用的保真度测量选项的成本和收益。
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
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
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