Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37790173›Full record

ArticleImplementation research and practice

Pragmatic fidelity measurement in youth service settings.

Lu Wang, Samantha J Stoll, Christopher J Eddy, Sarah Hurley, Jocelyn Sisson, Nicholas Thompson, Jacquelyn N Raftery-Helmer, J Stuart Ablon, Alisha R Pollastri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation research and practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

9 authors.

Lu WangDepartment of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8595-8194
Samantha J StollDepartment of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Christopher J EddyDepartment of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0027-5496
Sarah HurleyResearch Department, Youth Villages, Memphis, TN, USA.
Jocelyn SissonResearch Department, Youth Villages, Memphis, TN, USA.
Nicholas ThompsonResearch Department, Youth Villages, Memphis, TN, USA.
Jacquelyn N Raftery-HelmerDepartment of Psychology, Worcester State University, Worcester, MA, USA.
J Stuart AblonDepartment of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Alisha R PollastriDepartment of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9368-7128

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Fidelity measurement is critical for developing, evaluating, and implementing evidence-based treatments (EBTs). However, traditional fidelity measurement tools are often not feasible for community-based settings. We developed a short fidelity rating form for the Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) approach from an existing manualized coding system that requires extensive training. We examined the reliability and accuracy of this short form when completed by trained observers, untrained observers, and self-reporting providers to evaluate multiple options for reducing barriers to fidelity measurement in community-based settings. Methods: Community-based treatment providers submitted recordings of youth service sessions in which they did, or did not, use CPS. For 60 recordings, we compared short-form fidelity ratings assigned by trained observers and untrained observers to those provided by trained observers on the manualized coding system. For 141 recordings, we compared providers' self-reported fidelity on the short form to ratings provided by trained observers on the manualized coding system and examined providers' accuracy as a function of their global fidelity. Results & Conclusions: The short form was reliable and accurate for trained observers. An assigned global integrity score and a calculated average of component scores on the short form, but not component scores themselves, were reliable and accurate for observers who had CPS expertise but no specific training on rating CPS fidelity. When providers self-reported fidelity on the short form, their global integrity score was a reliable estimate of their CPS integrity; however, providers with better CPS fidelity were most accurate in their self-reports. We discuss the costs and benefits of these more pragmatic fidelity measurement options in community-based settings.

Indexed as

community basedimplementationinterventionmental healthtreatment adherencetreatment fidelity

Identifiers

PMID37790173
PMCPMC10363882

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.