5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Assessing fidelity to family-based treatment: an exploratory examination of expert, therapist, parent, and peer ratings

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Fidelity is an essential component for evaluating the clinical and implementation outcomes related to delivery of evidence-based practices (EBPs). Effective measurement of fidelity requires clinical buy-in, and as such, requires a process that is not burdensome for clinicians and managers. As part of a larger implementation study, we examined fidelity to Family-Based Treatment (FBT) measured by several different raters including an expert, a peer, therapists themselves, and parents, with a goal of determining a pragmatic, reliable and efficient method to capture treatment fidelity to FBT.

          Methods

          Each therapist audio-recorded at least one FBT case and submitted recordings from session 1, 2, and 3 from phase 1, plus one additional session from phase 1, two sessions from phase 2, and one session from phase 3. These submitted files were rated by an expert and a peer rater using a validated FBT fidelity measure. As well, therapists and parents rated fidelity immediately following each session and submitted ratings to the research team. Inter-observer reliability was calculated for each item using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), comparing the expert ratings to ratings from each of the other raters (parents, therapists, and peer). Mean scale scores were compared using repeated measures ANOVA.

          Results

          Intraclass correlation coefficients revealed that agreement was the best between expert and peer, with excellent, good, or fair agreement in 7 of 13 items from session 1, 2 and 3. There were only four such values when comparing expert to parent agreement, and two such values comparing expert to therapist ratings. The rest of the ICC values indicated poor agreement. Scale level analysis indicated that expert fidelity ratings for phase 1 treatment sessions scores were significantly higher than the peer ratings and, that parent fidelity ratings tended to be significantly higher than the other raters across all three treatment phases. There were no significant differences between expert and therapist mean scores.

          Conclusions

          There may be challenges inherent in parents rating fidelity accurately. Peer rating or therapist self-rating may be considered pragmatic, efficient, and reliable approaches to fidelity assessment for real-world clinical settings.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Outcomes for Implementation Research: Conceptual Distinctions, Measurement Challenges, and Research Agenda

          An unresolved issue in the field of implementation research is how to conceptualize and evaluate successful implementation. This paper advances the concept of “implementation outcomes” distinct from service system and clinical treatment outcomes. This paper proposes a heuristic, working “taxonomy” of eight conceptually distinct implementation outcomes—acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, implementation cost, penetration, and sustainability—along with their nominal definitions. We propose a two-pronged agenda for research on implementation outcomes. Conceptualizing and measuring implementation outcomes will advance understanding of implementation processes, enhance efficiency in implementation research, and pave the way for studies of the comparative effectiveness of implementation strategies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability.

              Reliability coefficients often take the form of intraclass correlation coefficients. In this article, guidelines are given for choosing among six different forms of the intraclass correlation for reliability studies in which n target are rated by k judges. Relevant to the choice of the coefficient are the appropriate statistical model for the reliability and the application to be made of the reliability results. Confidence intervals for each of the forms are reviewed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                coutur@mcmaster.ca
                Journal
                J Eat Disord
                J Eat Disord
                Journal of Eating Disorders
                BioMed Central (London )
                2050-2974
                14 January 2021
                14 January 2021
                2021
                : 9
                : 12
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.25073.33, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8227, Department of Psychiatry & Behavioural Neurosciences, , McMaster University, ; Hamilton, Canada
                [2 ]GRID grid.25073.33, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8227, Offord Centre for Child Studies, , McMaster University, ; Hamilton, Canada
                [3 ]GRID grid.42327.30, ISNI 0000 0004 0473 9646, Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, ; Toronto, Canada
                [4 ]GRID grid.417184.f, ISNI 0000 0001 0661 1177, Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network, ; Toronto, Canada
                [5 ]GRID grid.25073.33, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8227, Department of Pediatrics, , McMaster University, ; Hamilton, Canada
                [6 ]GRID grid.168010.e, ISNI 0000000419368956, Department of Psychiatry & Neurosciences, , Stanford University, ; Stanford, USA
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3218-0168
                Article
                366
                10.1186/s40337-020-00366-5
                7809847
                33446271
                5effc18a-17c2-41d6-a57b-7c151e1af2e3
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 29 July 2020
                : 29 December 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000024, Canadian Institutes of Health Research;
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2021

                fidelity,family-based therapy,anorexia nervosa,adherence,adolescent

                Comments

                Comment on this article