Bryan Hartzler, Linda Peng, Alexis Cooke, Lynn Kunkel, Erin Stack, Judith Leahy, Ryan Cook, Christi Hildebran, Kim Hoffman, Jennifer Verbeck, Mandi Nugent, Gillian Leichtling, Kelsey Smith Payne, John W McIlveen, Phillip Todd Korthuis
{"title":"扩大应急管理队伍的理由:成瘾专业人员和同伴专家的指导标准结果。","authors":"Bryan Hartzler, Linda Peng, Alexis Cooke, Lynn Kunkel, Erin Stack, Judith Leahy, Ryan Cook, Christi Hildebran, Kim Hoffman, Jennifer Verbeck, Mandi Nugent, Gillian Leichtling, Kelsey Smith Payne, John W McIlveen, Phillip Todd Korthuis","doi":"10.1177/29767342251363007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Given well-established efficacy of contingency management (CM), demand grows for effective implementation support. Coaching-to-criterion is a strategy for assuring workforce capability to deliver CM programming with fidelity. To what extent this preparative strategy is comparably useful for addiction professionals and peer specialists is unknown.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two ongoing endeavors-state opioid response-funded implementation support for 7 sites implementing CM programming and an National Institute of Health-funded hybrid type 1 effectiveness/implementation trial testing peer-delivered CM at 9 sites-share a coaching-to-criterion process as common methodology. For workforce members, participation in serial group coaching sessions eventuated in completion of an observed standardized patient encounter with Likert-rating of 6 CM Competence Scale domains (1 = very poor, 7 = excellent). A coach provides immediate, performance-based feedback, and if an a priori benchmark (\"adequate\" ratings of 4) is not initially reached, a skill-specific replay opportunity is undertaken. Non-inferiority analysis tested scale score equivalence of addiction professionals (n = 51) and peer specialists (n = 64), relative to a 0.25 standard deviation (SD) margin. Comparative resourcing of coaching efforts, scale psychometrics, and patterns of CM skillfulness were also examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>As intended, all workforce members (N = 115) met the criterion, and the mean scale score (<i>M</i> = 29.74, SD = 3.67) exceeded the benchmark by +1.56 SDs. Independent-samples <i>t</i>-test confirmed absence of between-group difference, with effect magnitude (Cohen's <i>d</i> = 0.13) well within the non-inferiority margin. Similar resourcing of coaching efforts was evident, with a majority (61%-66%) of addiction professionals and peer specialists achieving the criterion on initial attempt. Psychometric analyses confirmed robust item-scale correlations (<i>r</i> = 0.58-0.66), and no consistent pattern was found in domain-specific skills.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>As demand grows for CM implementation, so too will the diversity of workforce needed to capably deliver it. This report documents that a coaching-to-criterion process sufficiently prepared both addiction professionals and peer specialists to deliver CM and that resulting skill among these groups did not appreciably differ nor did the required coaching efforts.</p>","PeriodicalId":516535,"journal":{"name":"Substance use & addiction journal","volume":" ","pages":"29767342251363007"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reason to Expand the Contingency Management Workforce: Coaching-to-Criterion Results for Addiction Professionals and Peer Specialists.\",\"authors\":\"Bryan Hartzler, Linda Peng, Alexis Cooke, Lynn Kunkel, Erin Stack, Judith Leahy, Ryan Cook, Christi Hildebran, Kim Hoffman, Jennifer Verbeck, Mandi Nugent, Gillian Leichtling, Kelsey Smith Payne, John W McIlveen, Phillip Todd Korthuis\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/29767342251363007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Given well-established efficacy of contingency management (CM), demand grows for effective implementation support. Coaching-to-criterion is a strategy for assuring workforce capability to deliver CM programming with fidelity. To what extent this preparative strategy is comparably useful for addiction professionals and peer specialists is unknown.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two ongoing endeavors-state opioid response-funded implementation support for 7 sites implementing CM programming and an National Institute of Health-funded hybrid type 1 effectiveness/implementation trial testing peer-delivered CM at 9 sites-share a coaching-to-criterion process as common methodology. For workforce members, participation in serial group coaching sessions eventuated in completion of an observed standardized patient encounter with Likert-rating of 6 CM Competence Scale domains (1 = very poor, 7 = excellent). A coach provides immediate, performance-based feedback, and if an a priori benchmark (\\\"adequate\\\" ratings of 4) is not initially reached, a skill-specific replay opportunity is undertaken. Non-inferiority analysis tested scale score equivalence of addiction professionals (n = 51) and peer specialists (n = 64), relative to a 0.25 standard deviation (SD) margin. Comparative resourcing of coaching efforts, scale psychometrics, and patterns of CM skillfulness were also examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>As intended, all workforce members (N = 115) met the criterion, and the mean scale score (<i>M</i> = 29.74, SD = 3.67) exceeded the benchmark by +1.56 SDs. Independent-samples <i>t</i>-test confirmed absence of between-group difference, with effect magnitude (Cohen's <i>d</i> = 0.13) well within the non-inferiority margin. Similar resourcing of coaching efforts was evident, with a majority (61%-66%) of addiction professionals and peer specialists achieving the criterion on initial attempt. Psychometric analyses confirmed robust item-scale correlations (<i>r</i> = 0.58-0.66), and no consistent pattern was found in domain-specific skills.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>As demand grows for CM implementation, so too will the diversity of workforce needed to capably deliver it. This report documents that a coaching-to-criterion process sufficiently prepared both addiction professionals and peer specialists to deliver CM and that resulting skill among these groups did not appreciably differ nor did the required coaching efforts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":516535,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Substance use & addiction journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"29767342251363007\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Substance use & addiction journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/29767342251363007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Substance use & addiction journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/29767342251363007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Reason to Expand the Contingency Management Workforce: Coaching-to-Criterion Results for Addiction Professionals and Peer Specialists.
Background: Given well-established efficacy of contingency management (CM), demand grows for effective implementation support. Coaching-to-criterion is a strategy for assuring workforce capability to deliver CM programming with fidelity. To what extent this preparative strategy is comparably useful for addiction professionals and peer specialists is unknown.
Methods: Two ongoing endeavors-state opioid response-funded implementation support for 7 sites implementing CM programming and an National Institute of Health-funded hybrid type 1 effectiveness/implementation trial testing peer-delivered CM at 9 sites-share a coaching-to-criterion process as common methodology. For workforce members, participation in serial group coaching sessions eventuated in completion of an observed standardized patient encounter with Likert-rating of 6 CM Competence Scale domains (1 = very poor, 7 = excellent). A coach provides immediate, performance-based feedback, and if an a priori benchmark ("adequate" ratings of 4) is not initially reached, a skill-specific replay opportunity is undertaken. Non-inferiority analysis tested scale score equivalence of addiction professionals (n = 51) and peer specialists (n = 64), relative to a 0.25 standard deviation (SD) margin. Comparative resourcing of coaching efforts, scale psychometrics, and patterns of CM skillfulness were also examined.
Results: As intended, all workforce members (N = 115) met the criterion, and the mean scale score (M = 29.74, SD = 3.67) exceeded the benchmark by +1.56 SDs. Independent-samples t-test confirmed absence of between-group difference, with effect magnitude (Cohen's d = 0.13) well within the non-inferiority margin. Similar resourcing of coaching efforts was evident, with a majority (61%-66%) of addiction professionals and peer specialists achieving the criterion on initial attempt. Psychometric analyses confirmed robust item-scale correlations (r = 0.58-0.66), and no consistent pattern was found in domain-specific skills.
Conclusions: As demand grows for CM implementation, so too will the diversity of workforce needed to capably deliver it. This report documents that a coaching-to-criterion process sufficiently prepared both addiction professionals and peer specialists to deliver CM and that resulting skill among these groups did not appreciably differ nor did the required coaching efforts.