What is the Status of Multi-Informant Treatment Fidelity Research?

Using Adherence and Competence Measures Based on Practice Elements to Evaluate Treatment Fidelity for Two CBT Programs for Youth Anxiety

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.

Implementation Science and Practice-Oriented Research: Convergence and Complementarity

Implementation science is the scientific study of methods to promote the uptake of research findings and other evidence-based practices in routine care, with the goal of improving the quality and effectiveness of health services (Bauer et al., 2015). In addition to this common goal, practice-oriented psychotherapy research (and researchers) and implementation science (and scientists) share a common focus on the people and the places where treatment happens. Thus, there exists strong potential for combining these two approaches. In this article, we provide a primer on implementation science for psychotherapy researchers and highlight important areas and examples of convergence and complementarity between implementation science and practice-oriented psychotherapy research. Specifically, we (a) define and describe the core features of implementation science; (b) discuss similarities and areas of complementarity between implementation science and practice-oriented psychotherapy research; (c) discuss a case example that exemplifies the integration of implementation science and practice-oriented research; and (d) propose directions for future research and collaborations that leverage both implementation science and practice-oriented research.

Provider Use of, Attitudes Towards, and Self-efficacy with Key Measurement-based Care Practices in Youth Mental Health Treatment: A Multi-site Examination

Measurement-based care (MBC) is an underutilized evidence-based practice, and current implementation efforts demonstrate limited success in increasing MBC use. A better understanding of MBC implementation determinants is needed to improve these efforts, particularly from studies examining the full range of MBC practices and that span multiple samples of diverse providers using different MBC systems. This study addressed these limitations by conducting a multi-site survey examining MBC predictors and use in youth treatment. Participants were 159 clinicians and care coordinators working in youth mental health care settings across the United States. Participants were drawn from three program evaluations of MBC implementation. Providers completed measures assessing use of five MBC practices (administering measures, viewing feedback, reviewing feedback in supervision, sharing feedback with clients in session, and using feedback to plan treatment), MBC self-efficacy, and MBC attitudes. Despite expectations that MBC should be standard care for all clients, providers reported only administering measures to 40-60% of clients on average, with practices related to the use of feedback falling in the 1-39% range. Higher MBC self-efficacy and more positive views of MBC practicality predicted higher MBC use, although other attitude measures were not significant predictors. Effects of predictors were not moderated by site, suggesting consistent predictors across implementation settings. Implications of study findings for future research and for the implementation of MBC are discussed.

Introduction to the Special Issue. A Dozen Years of Demonstrating That Informant Discrepancies are More Than Measurement Error: Toward Guidelines for Integrating Data from Multi-Informant Assessments of Youth Mental Health

Validly characterizing youth mental health phenomena requires evidence-based approaches to assessment. An evidence-based assessment cannot rely on a "gold standard" instrument but rather, batteries of instruments. These batteries include multiple modalities of instrumentation (e.g., surveys, interviews, performance-based tasks, physiological readings, structured clinical observations). Among these instruments are those that require soliciting reports from multiple informants: People who provide psychometrically sound data about youth mental health (e.g., parents, teachers, youth themselves). The January 2011 issue of the Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology (JCCAP) included a Special Section devoted to the most common outcome of multi-informant assessments of youth mental health, namely discrepancies across informants' reports (i.e., informant discrepancies). The 2011 JCCAP Special Section revolved around a critical question: Might informant discrepancies contain data relevant to understanding youth mental health (i.e., domain-relevant information)? This Special Issue is a "sequel" to the 2011 Special Section. Since 2011, an accumulating body of work indicates that informant discrepancies often contain domain-relevant information. Ultimately, we designed this Special Issue to lay the conceptual, methodological, and empirical foundations of guidelines for integrating multi-informant data when informant discrepancies contain domain-relevant information. In this introduction to the Special Issue, we briefly review the last 12 years of research and theory on informant discrepancies. This review highlights limitations inherent to the most commonly used strategies for integrating multi-informant data in youth mental health. We also describe contributions to the Special Issue, including articles about informant discrepancies that traverse multiple content areas (e.g., autism, implementation science, measurement validation, suicide).