An assessment method comparison study of clinician adherence to cognitive processing therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is variability in the extent to which clinicians providing evidence-based psychotherapies (EBPs) adhere to key elements in the interventions. A number of studies indicate that clinician fidelity (i.e., adherence to, and competence in, delivering prescribed interventions) to EBPs is associated with better patient outcomes, and is considered critical to successful disseminationvefforts. Assessing fidelity traditionally involves trained expert observers who rate recordedvtherapy sessions, but the high cost and time intensive nature of this rigorous method is a majorvbarrier to knowledge translation, and is not feasible in routine clinical settings. An alternative method of fidelity assessment may be clinicians’ self-reported fidelity, but the validity of thismethod is lacking in the literature more generally, and specifically with regard to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The current study examined two methods of assessing clinician adherence to Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT) for PTSD, and their association to patient-reported PTSD symptomatology in a randomized controlled hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial. It also sought to identify key components of fidelity by elucidating elements of adherence to CPT. A total of 647 expert-assessed ratings and 371 clinician self-reported ratings of therapy sessions delivered by community clinicians (n = 53) to patients with PTSD (n = 195) were included. Results indicated that relative to expert raters, clinicians were able to accurately evaluate their own adherence to CPT. Higher adherence in both measures were independently associated with reductions in patient-reported PTSD symptoms over the course of treatment. Current findings suggested that clinician-reported fidelity may be an alternative or supplement to traditional observer-reported methods of fidelity assessment, especially in community settings. Keywords: treatment adherence, fidelity to treatment, rater agreement, self-reported fidelity, evidence-based treatment, Cognitive Processing Therapy, posttraumatic stress disorder
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.037 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".