ArticleBehavior therapy2024
Using Adherence and Competence Measures Based on Practice Elements to Evaluate Treatment Fidelity for Two CBT Programs for Youth Anxiety.
Article in Behavior therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A quantitative process evaluation of a feasibility randomised controlled trial of a co-designed cognitive behavioural therapy intervention for people with type 1 diabetes and disordered eating (steady trial): Auditing treatment integrity and delivery.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Measures designed to assess the quantity and quality of practices found across treatment programs for specific youth emotional or behavioral problems may be a good fit for evaluating treatment fidelity in effectiveness and implementation research. Treatment fidelity measures must demonstrate certain reliability and validity characteristics to realize this potential. This study examines the extent to which two observational measures, the Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment for Anxiety in Youth Adherence Scale (CBAY-A) and the CBAY Competence Scale (CBAY-C), can assess the quantity (the degree to which prescribed therapeutic techniques are delivered as intended) or quality (the competence with which prescribed techniques are delivered) of practices found in two distinct treatment programs for youth anxiety. Treatment sessions (N = 796) from 55 youth participants (M age = 9.89 years, SD = 1.71; 46% female; 55% White) with primary anxiety problems who participated in an effectiveness study were independently coded by raters who coded quantity, quality, and the youth-clinician alliance. Youth received one of three treatments: (a) standard (i.e., cognitive-behavioral therapy program), (b) modular (i.e., a cognitive-behavioral and parent-training program), and (c) usual clinical care. Interrater reliability for the CBAY-A items was good across the standard and modular conditions but mixed for the CBAY-C items. Across the standard and modular conditions, the CBAY-A Model subscale scores demonstrated evidence of construct validity, but the CBAY-C Model subscale scores showed mixed evidence. The results provide preliminary evidence that the CBAY-A can be used across different treatment programs but raise concerns about the generalizability of the CBAY-C.
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.