Abstract
Developing therapist-report fidelity tools to support quality delivery of evidence-based practices in usual care is a top priority for implementation science. This study tested the reliability and accuracy of two groups of community therapists who reported on their use of family therapy (FT) and motivational interviewing/cognitive-behavioral therapy (MI/CBT) interventions during routine treatment of inner-city adolescents with conduct and substance use problems. Study cases (n = 45) were randomized into two conditions: (a) Routine Family Therapy (RFT), consisting of a single site that featured family therapy as its standard of care for behavioral treatment; or (b) Treatment As Usual (TAU), consisting of five sites that featured non-family approaches. Therapists and trained observational raters provided FT and MI/CBT adherence ratings on 157 sessions (104 RFT, 53 TAU). Overall therapist reliability was adequate for averaged FT ratings (ICC = .66) but almost non-existent for MI/CBT (ICC = .06); moreover, both RFT and TAU therapists were more reliable in reporting on FT than on MI/CBT. Both groups of therapists overestimated the extent to which they implemented FT and MI/CBT interventions. Results offer support for the feasibility of using existing therapist-report methods to anchor quality assurance procedures for FT interventions in real-world settings, though not for MI/CBT.
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2015 Mar. doi: 10.1007/s10488-014-0548-2.
Aaron Hogue, Ph.D.
Senior Vice President, Research and Clinical Science / Family and Adolescent Clinical Technology and Science (FACTS)
Sarah Dauber, Ph.D.
Vice President, Research and Evaluation
Emily Lichvar
Molly Bobek, L.C.S.W.
Vice President, Family and Adolescent Clinical Technology and Science (FACTS)
Craig E. Henderson
Last Updated
November 2023