BACKGROUND: Contingency management (CM) is a widely recognized empirically-supported addiction treatment; however, dissemination and adoption of CM into routine clinical practice has been slow. Assessment of beliefs about CM may highlight key barriers and facilitators of adoption and inform dissemination efforts. In the present study, we developed a 35-item questionnaire (contingency management beliefs questionnaire; CMBQ) assessing CM beliefs and examined the relation of these beliefs to clinician characteristics and clinical practices. METHODS: The web-based study was completed by 617 substance abuse treatment providers. We examined the factor structure using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in a randomly selected half-sample (n=318) and evaluated the generalizability of the solution using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in the second half-sample (n=299). RESULTS: EFA results suggested a 3-factor solution with 32 items retained; factors represented general barriers, training-related barriers, and pro-CM items. CFA results supported the solution, and reliability was good within each half-sample (α=0.88 and 0.90). Therapeutic approach, years experience in addictions field, perception of CM's research support, prior CM training, and CM adoption interest were significantly associated with the factors. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants viewed CM favorably yet endorsed barriers, indicating a need for more extensive and targeted response to the most common misperceptions in dissemination efforts. Copyright Â
BACKGROUND: Contingency management (CM) is a widely recognized empirically-supported addiction treatment; however, dissemination and adoption of CM into routine clinical practice has been slow. Assessment of beliefs about CM may highlight key barriers and facilitators of adoption and inform dissemination efforts. In the present study, we developed a 35-item questionnaire (contingency management beliefs questionnaire; CMBQ) assessing CM beliefs and examined the relation of these beliefs to clinician characteristics and clinical practices. METHODS: The web-based study was completed by 617 substance abuse treatment providers. We examined the factor structure using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in a randomly selected half-sample (n=318) and evaluated the generalizability of the solution using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in the second half-sample (n=299). RESULTS:EFA results suggested a 3-factor solution with 32 items retained; factors represented general barriers, training-related barriers, and pro-CM items. CFA results supported the solution, and reliability was good within each half-sample (α=0.88 and 0.90). Therapeutic approach, years experience in addictions field, perception of CM's research support, prior CM training, and CM adoption interest were significantly associated with the factors. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants viewed CM favorably yet endorsed barriers, indicating a need for more extensive and targeted response to the most common misperceptions in dissemination efforts. Copyright Â
Authors: Nancy M Petry; Jessica M Peirce; Maxine L Stitzer; Jack Blaine; John M Roll; Allan Cohen; Jeanne Obert; Therese Killeen; Michael E Saladin; Mark Cowell; Kimberly C Kirby; Robert Sterling; Charlotte Royer-Malvestuto; John Hamilton; Robert E Booth; Marilyn Macdonald; Marc Liebert; Linda Rader; Raynetta Burns; Joan DiMaria; Marc Copersino; Patricia Quinn Stabile; Ken Kolodner; Rui Li Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2005-10