Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Traditionally, treatment adherence has been measured in outcome studies by highly trained, independent raters who code audio- or video-taped treatment sessions to understand therapists’ adherence to preestablished treatment session components. Unfortunately, this method of assessing treatment adherence is time-, labor-, and cost-intensive, and does not translate well to community settings. This study compared expert-coded behavior observations, therapist and caregiver report of therapists’ adherence to nine teaching technique items assessed in treatment sessions using Alternatives for Families: A Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (AF-CBT) to determine whether other raters (outside of traditional expert coders) could effectively and accurately measure therapist adherence. A total of 533 therapy sessions were coded across experts ( n = 2), therapists ( n = 20), and caregivers ( n = 42). Outcomes indicated strikingly different ratings across all reporters suggesting that therapist and caregiver reports may be supplement to, but not substitute for, observer ratings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Herschell et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: