Zac E Imel1, Scott A Baldwin2, John S Baer3, Bryan Hartzler4, Chris Dunn5, David B Rosengren6, David C Atkins5. 1. Department of Educational Psychology, University of Utah. 2. Department of Psychology, Brigham Young University. 3. Department of Psychology, University of Washington. 4. Alcohol Drug Abuse Institute, University of Washington. 5. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington. 6. Prevention Research Institute.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of measuring therapist adherence is to determine whether a therapist can perform a given treatment. Yet, the evaluation of therapist behaviors in most clinical trials is limited. Typically, randomized trials have few therapists and minimize therapist variability through training and supervision. Furthermore, therapist adherence is confounded with uncontrolled differences in patients across therapists. Consequently, the extent to which adherence measures capture differences in actual therapist adherence versus other sources of variance is unclear. METHOD: We estimated intra-class correlations (ICCs) for therapist adherence in sessions with real and standardized patients (RPs and SPs), using ratings from a motivational interviewing (MI) dissemination trial (Baer et al., 2009) in which 189 therapists recorded 826 sessions with both patient types. We also examined the correlations of therapist adherence between SP and RP sessions, and the reliability of therapist level adherence scores with generalizability coefficients (GCs). RESULTS: ICCs for therapist adherence were generally large (average ICC for SPs = .44; average ICC for RPs = .40), meaning that a given therapist's adherence scores were quite similar across sessions. Both ICCs and GCs were larger for SP sessions compared to RPs on global measures of MI adherence, such as Empathy and MI Spirit. Correlations between therapist adherence with real and standardized patients were moderate to large on 3 of 5 adherence measures. CONCLUSION: Differences in therapist-level adherence ratings were substantial, and standardized patients have promise as tools to evaluate therapist behavior. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: The goal of measuring therapist adherence is to determine whether a therapist can perform a given treatment. Yet, the evaluation of therapist behaviors in most clinical trials is limited. Typically, randomized trials have few therapists and minimize therapist variability through training and supervision. Furthermore, therapist adherence is confounded with uncontrolled differences in patients across therapists. Consequently, the extent to which adherence measures capture differences in actual therapist adherence versus other sources of variance is unclear. METHOD: We estimated intra-class correlations (ICCs) for therapist adherence in sessions with real and standardized patients (RPs and SPs), using ratings from a motivational interviewing (MI) dissemination trial (Baer et al., 2009) in which 189 therapists recorded 826 sessions with both patient types. We also examined the correlations of therapist adherence between SP and RP sessions, and the reliability of therapist level adherence scores with generalizability coefficients (GCs). RESULTS: ICCs for therapist adherence were generally large (average ICC for SPs = .44; average ICC for RPs = .40), meaning that a given therapist's adherence scores were quite similar across sessions. Both ICCs and GCs were larger for SP sessions compared to RPs on global measures of MI adherence, such as Empathy and MI Spirit. Correlations between therapist adherence with real and standardized patients were moderate to large on 3 of 5 adherence measures. CONCLUSION: Differences in therapist-level adherence ratings were substantial, and standardized patients have promise as tools to evaluate therapist behavior. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved.
Authors: Paul Crits-Christoph; Mary Beth Connolly Gibbons; Jessica Hamilton; Sarah Ring-Kurtz; Robert Gallop Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2011-06
Authors: Nick Francis; Stephen Rollnick; Jim McCambridge; Chris Butler; Claire Lane; Kerenza Hood Journal: Addiction Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: John S Baer; David B Rosengren; Christopher W Dunn; Elizabeth A Wells; Richard L Ogle; Bryan Hartzler Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2004-01-07 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: James F Boswell; Matthew W Gallagher; Shannon E Sauer-Zavala; Jacqueline Bullis; Jack M Gorman; M Katherine Shear; Scott Woods; David H Barlow Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2013-01-21
Authors: Brittany M Brothers; Kristen M Carpenter; Rebecca A Shelby; Lisa M Thornton; Georita M Frierson; Kyle L Patterson; Barbara L Andersen Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Simon B Goldberg; Scott A Baldwin; Kritzia Merced; Derek D Caperton; Zac E Imel; David C Atkins; Torrey Creed Journal: Behav Ther Date: 2019-05-24
Authors: Mary A Hatch-Maillette; Robin Harwick; John S Baer; Elizabeth A Wells; Tatiana Masters; Audra Robinson; Kasie Cloud; Michelle Peavy; Katharina Wiest; Lynette Wright; Kathleen Dillon; Blair Beadnell Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-04-18 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Doyanne A Darnell; Lea E Parker; Amy W Wagner; Christopher W Dunn; David C Atkins; Shannon Dorsey; Douglas F Zatzick Journal: Cogn Behav Ther Date: 2018-11-30
Authors: Garren Gaut; Mark Steyvers; Zac E Imel; David C Atkins; Padhraic Smyth Journal: IEEE J Biomed Health Inform Date: 2015-11-25 Impact factor: 5.772
Authors: Jacques Gaume; Kevin A Hallgren; Carole Clair; Marianne Schmid Mast; Valérie Carrard; David C Atkins Journal: J Couns Psychol Date: 2019-01-31