ArticleJournal of eating disorders2021
Assessing fidelity to family-based treatment: an exploratory examination of expert, therapist, parent, and peer ratings.
Article in Journal of eating disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing fidelity to Critical Time Intervention (CTI) for homeless-experienced persons.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Implementing Canadian practice guidelines for children and adolescents with eating disorders: a qualitative study on barriers, facilitating factors and implementation strategies.Journal of eating disorders · 2026Article
- Therapist self-report reliability and accuracy in individual vs. conjoint systemic family therapy sessions: implications for clinical monitoring.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Implementation Fidelity in Early Intervention for Eating Disorders-A Multisite Pilot Study.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Youth-Focused Cognitive and Behavioral Therapy Adherence Measure: A Multi-Informant, Transdiagnostic, Trans-Manual, Adherence Monitoring Tool.Administration and policy in mental health · 2025Article
- Advancements in Family-Based Treatment of Adolescent Anorexia Nervosa: A Review of Access Barriers and Telehealth Solutions.Nutrients · 2025Review
- Development and validation of the Overall Fidelity Enactment Scale for Complex Interventions (OFES-CI).BMJ quality & safety · 2024Article
- NoiBene, a Group Intervention for Promoting Mental Health Among University Students: A Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFidelity is an essential component for evaluating the clinical and implementation outcomes related to delivery of evidence-based practices (EBPs). Effective measurement of fidelity requires clinical buy-in, and as such, requires a process that is not burdensome for clinicians and managers. As part of a larger implementation study, we examined fidelity to Family-Based Treatment (FBT) measured by several different raters including an expert, a peer, therapists themselves, and parents, with a goal of determining a pragmatic, reliable and efficient method to capture treatment fidelity to FBT.
methodsEach therapist audio-recorded at least one FBT case and submitted recordings from session 1, 2, and 3 from phase 1, plus one additional session from phase 1, two sessions from phase 2, and one session from phase 3. These submitted files were rated by an expert and a peer rater using a validated FBT fidelity measure. As well, therapists and parents rated fidelity immediately following each session and submitted ratings to the research team. Inter-observer reliability was calculated for each item using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), comparing the expert ratings to ratings from each of the other raters (parents, therapists, and peer). Mean scale scores were compared using repeated measures ANOVA.
resultsIntraclass correlation coefficients revealed that agreement was the best between expert and peer, with excellent, good, or fair agreement in 7 of 13 items from session 1, 2 and 3. There were only four such values when comparing expert to parent agreement, and two such values comparing expert to therapist ratings. The rest of the ICC values indicated poor agreement. Scale level analysis indicated that expert fidelity ratings for phase 1 treatment sessions scores were significantly higher than the peer ratings and, that parent fidelity ratings tended to be significantly higher than the other raters across all three treatment phases. There were no significant differences between expert and therapist mean scores.
conclusionsThere may be challenges inherent in parents rating fidelity accurately. Peer rating or therapist self-rating may be considered pragmatic, efficient, and reliable approaches to fidelity assessment for real-world clinical settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.