Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35959019›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022

Correspondence between practitioners' self-assessment and independent motivational interviewing treatment integrity ratings.

Maria Beckman, Helena Lindqvist, Lina Öhman, Lars Forsberg, Tobias Lundgren, Ata Ghaderi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Maria BeckmanCentre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, and Stockholm Health Care Services, Stockholm, Sweden.
Helena LindqvistCentre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, and Stockholm Health Care Services, Stockholm, Sweden.
Lina ÖhmanCentre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, and Stockholm Health Care Services, Stockholm, Sweden.
Lars ForsbergMIC Lab AB, Stockholm, Sweden.
Tobias LundgrenCentre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, and Stockholm Health Care Services, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ata GhaderiDivision of Psychology, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As evaluation of practitioners' competence is largely based on self-report, accuracy in practitioners' self-assessment is essential for ensuring high quality treatment-delivery. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between independent observers' ratings and practitioners' self-reported treatment integrity ratings of Motivational interviewing (MI). Practitioners (

Indexed as

evidence-based treatmentsmetacognitionMITIMotivational interviewing (MI)self-assessmenttreatment fidelity

Identifiers

PMID35959019
PMCPMC9360749

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.