ArticleBehavior therapy2021
The Development and Validation of the Memory Support Treatment Provider Checklist.
Article in Behavior therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cognitive Therapy-as-Usual versus Cognitive Therapy plus the Memory Support Intervention for adults with depression: 12-month outcomes and opportunities for improved efficacy in a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.Behaviour research and therapy · 2023Trial
- Maximizing benefits from evidence-based psychological treatments: Memory support and habit formation as key strategies.Behaviour research and therapy · 2025Review
- A comparison of scalable routine clinical materials and observer ratings to assess CBT fidelity.Behaviour research and therapy · 2025Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patient memory for the contents of treatment is staggeringly poor, and poor memory for treatment is associated with worse treatment outcome. Accordingly, the Memory Support Intervention was developed to improve patient memory for treatment as an adjunct to treatment as usual. As plans to disseminate the Memory Support Intervention are developed, it is important to have efficient, accurate methods of measuring fidelity to the intervention. However, the existing method of assessing fidelity to the Memory Support Intervention, the Memory Support Rating Scale (MSRS), is burdensome and requires trained independent-raters to spend multiple hours reviewing session recordings, which is not feasible in many routine mental health care settings. Hence, a provider-rated measure of fidelity to the MSI has been developed. The goal of this study is to examine the reliability and validity of scores on this measure-the Memory Support Treatment Provider Checklist. A sample of Memory Support Treatment Provider Checklists (N = 319) were completed by providers (N = 8) treating adults with depression (N = 84). Three metrics of the Memory Support Treatment Provider Checklist were evaluated: (a) the internal consistency and structural validity using confirmatory factor analysis based on prior research on the MSRS and the Memory Support Intervention, (b) construct validity, and (c) predictive validity. Results indicate that the Memory Support Treatment Provider Checklist yields reliable and valid scores of fidelity to the Memory Support Intervention. Overall, this checklist offers a viable, brief method of evaluating fidelity to the Memory Support Intervention.
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.