Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36229116›Full record

Trial reportBehavior therapy2022

A Randomized Trial to Identify Accurate Measurement Methods for Adherence to Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy.

Emily M Becker-Haimes, Steven C Marcus, Melanie R Klein, Sonja K Schoenwald, Perrin B Fugo, Bryce D McLeod, Shannon Dorsey, Nathaniel J Williams, David S Mandell, Rinad S Beidas

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Behavior therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Characterizing Fidelity Monitoring Practices in Community Behavioral Health Care.The journal of behavioral health services & research · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Emily M Becker-HaimesUniversity of Pennsylvania; Hall Mercer Community Mental Health, University of Pennsylvania Health System. Electronic address: emily.haimes@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.
Steven C MarcusUniversity of Pennsylvania.
Melanie R KleinUniversity of Pennsylvania.
Sonja K SchoenwaldOregon Social Learning Center.
Perrin B FugoUniversity of Pennsylvania.
Bryce D McLeodVirginia Commonwealth University.
Shannon DorseyUniversity of Washington.
Nathaniel J WilliamsBoise State University.
David S MandellUniversity of Pennsylvania.
Rinad S BeidasUniversity of Pennsylvania.
California University of Pennsylvania · USBoise State University · USOregon Social Learning Center · USUniversity of Washington · USVirginia Commonwealth University · US

Funding

Increasing accuracy and efficiency of fidelity measurement in CBTR01MH108551 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI BEIDAS, RINAD SARY · 2016 to 2020
$3.0M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH108551
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinician fidelity to cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is an important mechanism by which desired clinical outcomes are achieved and is an indicator of care quality. Despite its importance, there are few fidelity measurement methods that are efficient and have demonstrated reliability and validity. Using a randomized trial design, we compared three methods of assessing CBT adherence-a core component of fidelity-to direct observation, the gold standard. Clinicians recruited from 27 community mental health agencies (n = 126; M age = 37.69 years, SD = 12.84; 75.7% female) were randomized 1:1:1 to one of three fidelity conditions: self-report (n = 41), chart-stimulated recall (semistructured interviews with the chart available; n = 42), or behavioral rehearsal (simulated role-plays; n = 43). All participating clinicians completed fidelity assessments for up to three sessions with three different clients that were recruited from clinicians' caseloads (n = 288; M age = 13.39 years SD = 3.89; 41.7% female); sessions were also audio-recorded and coded for comparison to determine the most accurate method. All fidelity measures had parallel scales that yielded an adherence maximum score (i.e., the highest-rated intervention in a session), a mean of techniques observed, and a count total of observed techniques. Results of three-level mixed effects regression models indicated that behavioral rehearsal produced comparable scores to observation for all adherence scores (all ps > .01), indicating no difference between behavioral rehearsal and observation. Self-report and chart-stimulated recall overestimated adherence compared to observation (ps < .01). Overall, findings suggested that behavioral rehearsal indexed CBT adherence comparably to direct observation, the gold-standard, in pediatric populations. Behavioral rehearsal may at times be able to replace the need for resource-intensive direct observation in implementation research and practice.

Indexed as

Cognitive Behavioral TherapyAdolescentAdultChildFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignSelf Reportadherencecognitive-behavioral therapyfidelityyouth mental health

Identifiers

PMID36229116
PMCPMC9680992
OpenAlexW4281778037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.