Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37715525›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of language & communication disorders

Ensuring treatment fidelity in intervention studies: Developing a checklist and scoring system within a behaviour change paradigm.

Jo Baker, Helen Stringer, Cristina McKean

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of language & communication disorders. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jo BakerNewcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8425-1955
Helen StringerNewcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7470-2166
Cristina McKeanNewcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9058-9813
Newcastle University · GB

Funding

Heather van der Lely Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTreatment fidelity refers to the degree to which an intervention is implemented as intended. Promoting treatment fidelity is important to achieve a valid comparison in intervention research. However, it is often underreported: few studies detail the use and development of fidelity measures. This study aims to promote the treatment fidelity of a modified version of the Derbyshire Language Scheme (M-DLS), a manualised intervention for children with language difficulties, by exploring participants' opinions on training and intervention delivery. Results inform development of a checklist and scoring system to monitor and promote treatment fidelity in a comparison trial.

methodTen student speech and language therapists (SLTs) and two research assistants (RAs) participated in the study. All received training on the M-DLS, and 10 were video-recorded completing role-plays of an M-DLS session in small groups. Feedback was gathered after training and role-plays in focus groups and interviews. Feedback was interpreted using the constructs of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). A treatment fidelity checklist was then developed using the feedback. The first author and two RAs rated role-play videos using the checklist to trial it to inform amendments and to promote interrater reliability. Interrater agreement was calculated using Spearman's test of correlation.

resultsParticipants discussed the importance of having clear materials and time to practise sessions. They suggested amendments to the materials and training to promote treatment fidelity. The checklist and scoring system accounted for participants' suggestions, with amendments detailed in a log. Spearman's correlation results suggested agreement between the raters was strong.

conclusionsResults emphasise the importance of training quality, practice and reflective opportunities and clear materials to promote treatment fidelity. The construction of the checklist and scoring system was described in detail, informing the development of future checklists. After further trialling, the checklist can be used to ensure the M-DLS is delivered with high treatment fidelity in the comparison trial. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject Treatment fidelity is an essential component of intervention effectiveness and efficacy studies, ensuring the intervention is delivered as intended. It is also an essential component of evidence-based clinical practice. However, few research studies report the treatment fidelity process or publish the checklists used, depriving clinicians of useful information for implementation. What this study adds This study describes in detail the iterative process of treatment fidelity checklist development, engaging those implementing the intervention in development. This ensured clarity and interrater reliability of the checklist. Furthermore, a novel scoring system was developed so that accuracy of implementation can be easily compared across users and across practice attempts. What are the clinical implications of this work? The importance of treatment fidelity when implementing effective and efficacious interventions cannot be overstated. The treatment fidelity checklist developed for research can be easily adopted to support accurate implementation in clinical practice through an audit process.

Indexed as

ChecklistCommunication DisordersAllied Health PersonnelChildHumansReproducibility of ResultschecklistDerbyshire Language Schemefidelityintervention researchlanguage disordertreatment fidelitytreatment integrity

Identifiers

PMID37715525
PMCPMC13504697
OpenAlexW4386796135

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.