ArticlePrevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research2025
Stability Amidst Change in the Measurement of Implementation Fidelity Over Time.
Article in Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 2025. 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.
- A general framework for fidelity assessment.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Children's mental health disorders are rising, underscoring the need to implement behavioral parent training (BPT) programs. However, wide variability in BPT effectiveness often reflects inconsistencies in implementation fidelity. This study examines test-retest reliability of the GenerationPMTO model's Fidelity of Implementation Rating System (FIMP) over a 17-year period. Seven coders provided ratings of 34 video segments from families participating in the Marriage and Parenting in Stepfamilies (MAPS) intervention, coded at two time points (2004, 2021) using first and third iterations of the FIMP manual. Variance decomposition analyses determined how much variability in scores was attributable to the interventionist, the observational coder, the session, and the year the data were coded. Test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) examined reliability across FIMP domains (knowledge, structure, teaching, process, and overall). Therapist differences accounted for the largest variance (38.1%), followed by coders (14.1%) and session (10.7%). Year did not significantly contribute, indicating that FIMP revisions have not undermined earlier fidelity metrics. Reliability analyses showed acceptable-to-excellent ICCs (range = 0.73-0.92), supporting the comparability of historical and current ratings. These findings indicate that GenerationPMTO's FIMP refinements maintain core fidelity metrics. By demonstrating stable fidelity data over time, the study bolsters confidence in both historical results and current coding practices. These outcomes reinforce the utility of long-standing training materials and support the use of stable fidelity tools in ongoing implementation and training contexts. Such synergy between fidelity measurement and adaptation fosters sustained program effectiveness across service contexts, allowing providers to align newer fidelity protocols with established best practices.
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.