Advancing the Science of Integrity Measurement in School Mental Health 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.

The state of evidence for social and emotional learning: A contemporary meta-analysis of universal school-based SEL interventions

This article provides a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current evidence for universal school-based (USB) social and emotional learning (SEL) interventions for students in kindergarten through 12th grade available from 2008 through 2020. The sample includes 424 studies from 53 countries, reflecting 252 discrete USB SEL interventions, involving 575,361 students. Results endorsed that, compared to control conditions, students who participate in USB SEL interventions experienced significantly improved skills, attitudes, behaviors, school climate and safety, peer relationships, school functioning, and academic achievement. Significant heterogeneity in USB SEL content, intervention features, context, and implementation quality moderated student experiences and outcomes. Strengths and limitations of this evidence and implications for future USB SEL research, policy, and practice are discussed.

Concordance of multiple informant assessment of school-based social skills intervention and association with child outcomes: Results from a randomized trial

Background

Fidelity, or the degree to which an intervention is implemented as designed, is essential for effective implementation. There has been a growing emphasis on assessing fidelity of evidence-based practices for autistic children in schools. Fidelity measurement should be multidimensional and focus on core intervention components and assess their link with program outcomes. This study evaluated the relation between intervention fidelity ratings from multiple sources, tested the relation between fidelity ratings and child outcomes, and determined the relations between core intervention components and child outcomes in a study of an evidence-based psychosocial intervention designed to promote inclusion of autistic children at school, Remaking Recess.

Method

This study extends from a larger randomized controlled trial examining the effect of implementation support on Remaking Recess fidelity and child outcomes. Schools were randomized to receive the intervention or the intervention plus implementation support. Observers, intervention coaches, and school personnel completed fidelity measures to rate completion and quality of intervention delivery. A measure of peer engagement served as the child outcome. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to determine concordance between raters. Two sets of hierarchical linear models were conducted using fidelity indices as predictors of peer engagement.

Results

Coach- and self-rated completion and quality scores, observer- and self-rated quality scores, and observer- and coach-rated quality fidelity scores were significantly correlated. Higher observer-rated completion and quality fidelity scores were predictors of higher peer engagement scores. No single intervention component emerged as a significant predictor of peer engagement.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates the importance of using a multidimensional approach for measuring fidelity, testing the link between fidelity and child outcomes, and examining how core intervention components may be associated with child outcomes. Future research should clarify how to improve multi-informant reports to provide “good enough” ratings of fidelity that provide meaningful information about outcomes in community settings.

Plain Language Summary

Fidelity is defined as how closely an intervention is administered in the way the creators intended. Fidelity is important because it allows researchers to determine what exactly is leading to changes. In recent years, there has been an interest in examining fidelity of interventions for autistic children who receive services in school. This study looked at the relationship between fidelity ratings from multiple individuals, the relationship between fidelity and child outcomes, and the relationship between individual intervention component and child changes in a study of Remaking Recess, an intervention for autistic children at school. Schools were randomly selected to receive the intervention only or the intervention plus implementation support from the research team. Observers, intervention coaches, and individuals delivering the intervention themselves completed fidelity measures. Child engagement with peers was measured before and after the intervention. Several measures of self-, coach-, and observer-report fidelity were associated with each other. Higher observer-reported fidelity was associated with higher child peer engagement scores. No single intervention step was linked to child peer engagement and both treatment groups had similar outcomes in terms of fidelity. This study shows the importance of having multiple raters assess different parts of intervention fidelity, looking at the link between fidelity and child outcomes, and seeing how individual intervention steps may be related to outcomes. Future research should aim to find out which types of fidelity ratings are “good enough” to lead to positive changes following treatment so that those aspects can be used and targeted in the future.

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

OBJECTIVE

The precise measurement of treatment fidelity (quantity and quality in the delivery of treatment strategies in an intervention) is essential for intervention development, evaluation, and implementation. Various informants are used in fidelity assessment (e.g., observers, practitioners [clinicians, teachers], clients), but these informants often do not agree on ratings. This scoping review aims to ascertain the state of science around multi-informant assessment of treatment fidelity.

METHOD

A literature search of articles published through December 2021 identified 673 articles. Screening reduced the number of articles to 44, and the final study set included 35 articles.

RESULTS

There was substantial variability across studies regarding study design, how fidelity was operationalized, and how reliability was defined and assessed. Most studies evaluated the agreement between independent observers and practitioner-report, though several other informant pairs were assessed. Overall, findings suggest that concordance across fidelity informants was low to moderate, with a few key exceptions.

CONCLUSIONS

It is difficult to draw clear conclusions about the degree to which single versus multiple informant assessment is needed to produce an accurate and complete picture of treatment fidelity. The field needs to take steps to determine how to leverage multi-informant assessment to accurately assess treatment fidelity.