Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40979866›Full record

ArticleImplementation research and practice

Testing Three Alternate Methods to Direct Observation in Measuring Use of Discrete Youth Cognitive Behavioral Techniques: A Secondary Analysis.

Simone H Schriger, Steven C Marcus, Emily M Becker-Haimes, Shannon Dorsey, David S Mandell, Bryce D McLeod, Sonja K Schoenwald, Rinad S Beidas

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Simone H SchrigerDepartment of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0662-5867
Steven C MarcusSchool of Social Policy & Practice, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Emily M Becker-HaimesDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9922-8667
Shannon DorseyDepartment of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6240-0294
David S MandellDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Bryce D McLeodDepartment of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0996-0492
Sonja K SchoenwaldOregon Social Learning Center, Eugene, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0560-8440
Rinad S BeidasDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6056-6071

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

Background: Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), an umbrella term for therapeutic techniques guided by cognitive behavioral theory, is an evidence-based approach for many psychiatric conditions in youth. A stronger dose of CBT delivery is thought to improve youth clinical outcomes. While a critical indicator of care quality, measuring the use of CBT techniques feasibly and affordably is challenging. Certain CBT techniques (e.g., more concrete and observable) may be easier to measure than others using low-cost methods, such as clinician self-report; however, this has not been studied. Method: To assess the concordance of three methods of measuring CBT technique use with direct observation (DO), clinicians from 27 community agencies ( Results: Results of three-level mixed effects regression models indicated that BR scores did not differ significantly from DO for any techniques, and for nine techniques, neither did CSR (all Conclusions: Unlike previous findings using an aggregate score, we found that both BR and CSR did not differ significantly from DO for most techniques tested. These findings have implications within implementation research and usual care settings; they support multiple viable measurement methods that are less resource-intensive than DO.

Indexed as

implementationmeasurement methodsmental health servicespsychotherapyquality assurance

Identifiers

PMID40979866
PMCPMC12444060

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.