ArticlePrevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research2026
Validation of the Observational Assessment Tool for Tailoring (OATT).
Article in Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Individually tailored interventions can address the myriad multi-level determinants of chronic health conditions. Limited measurement modalities to quantify tailoring disallow examining "active ingredient" effects on outcomes and implementation fidelity. The objective of this study is to develop and validate the Observational Assessment Tool for Tailoring (OATT) for behavioral prevention interventions. We developed the OATT and coded n = 172 videorecorded sessions from two trials of the Family Check-Up® 4 Health (FCU4Health), an individually tailored prevention and management program for behavioral health and obesogenic behaviors with English and Spanish-speaking participants. The sample was culturally diverse (> 65% Hispanic/Latino). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) tested the two-factor model. McDonald's Omega estimated internal consistency. Discriminant and predictive validity tests were conducted with FCU4Health fidelity, engagement, and health behavior outcomes, informed by the Implementation Cascade Model. CFA confirmed a two-factor structure for both trials (i.e., RMSEA ≤ 0.06, CFI and TLI of ≥ 0.95, SRMR < 0.08 chi-square p ≥ 0.05). Reliability and inter-rater reliability were good (ICC > 0.77) for both trials and English and Spanish videos. The OATT was not correlated (p > 0.05) with discriminant validity variables. Path analysis for predictive validity indicated that fidelity to the Individualized Treatment Planning factor directly predicts improvements in participant engagement (B = 0.16, p = 0.01, 95% CI [0.03-0.29]), which directly predicts improvements in parent health behaviors 12 months post-baseline (B = 0.18, p = 0.01, 95% CI [0.02-0.34]). The development of the OATT is a critical step to measure and guide tailored intervention development, implementation, and evaluation. Future studies are needed to replicate predictive validity findings and test the OATT factor structure with larger samples and different prevention initiatives.
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.