Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure of the Current Assessment Practice Evaluation-Revised (CAPER) in a National Sample
Measurement-based care (MBC) is an increasingly popular, evidence-based practice, but there are no tools with established psychometrics to evaluate clinician use of MBC practices in mental health service delivery. The current study evaluated the reliability, validity, and factor structure of scores generated from a brief, standardized tool to measure MBC practices, the Current Assessment Practice Evaluation-Revised (CAPER). Survey data from a national sample of 479 mental health clinicians were used to conduct exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, as well as reliability and validity analyses (e.g., relationships between CAPER subscales and clinician MBC attitudes). Analyses revealed competing two- and three-factor models. Regardless of the model used, scores from CAPER subscales demonstrated good reliability and convergent and divergent validity with MBC attitudes in the expected directions. The CAPER appears to be a psychometrically sound tool for assessing clinician MBC practices. Future directions for development and application of the tool are discussed.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.
- 1.Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS): International Center for Clinical Excellence.Google Scholar
- 11.Hatfield DR, Ogles BM. The use of outcome measures by psychologists in clinical practice. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice. 2004;35(5):485–491.Google Scholar
- 12.Ionita G, Fitzpatrick M. Bringing science to clinical practice: A Canadian survey of psychological practice and usage of progress monitoring measures. Canadian Psychology. 2014;55(3):187.Google Scholar
- 14.Garland AF, Kruse M, Aarons GA. Clinicians and outcome measurement: What’s the use? Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research. 2003;30(4):393–405.Google Scholar
- 15.Jensen-Doss A, Smith AM, Becker-Haimes EM, et al. Individualized progress measures are more acceptable to clinicians than standardized measures: Results of a national survey. under review.Google Scholar
- 16.Jensen-Doss A, Haimes EMB, Smith AM, et al. Monitoring treatment progress and providing feedback is viewed favorably but rarely used in practice. Administration & Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research. 2016:1–14.Google Scholar
- 18.Lyon AR, Pullmann MD, Whitaker K, et al. A digital feedback system to support implementation of measurement-based care by school-based mental health clinicians. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology. 2017:1–12.Google Scholar
- 19.Lyon AR, Dorsey S, Pullmann M, et al. Clinician use of standardized assessments following a common elements psychotherapy training and consultation program. Administration & Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research. 2015;42(1):47–60.Google Scholar
- 20.Close-Goedjen JL, Saunders SM. The effect of technical support on clinician attitudes toward an outcome assessment instrument. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research. 2002;29(1):99–108.Google Scholar
- 26.Cone JD. Idiographic, nomothetic, and related perspectives in behavioral assessment. Conceptual Foundations of Behavioral Assessment. 1986:111–128.Google Scholar
- 27.Lyon AR, Connors E, Jensen-Doss A, et al. Intentional research design in implementation science: implications for the use of nomothetic and idiographic assessment. Translational Behavioral Medicine. 2017:1–14.Google Scholar
- 28.McLeod BD, Jensen-Doss A, Ollendick TH. Diagnostic and Behavioral Assessment in Children and Adolescents: A Clinical Guide. Guilford Press; 2013. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Ja8YAAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=Diagnostic+and+behavioral+assessment+in+children+and+adolescents:+A+clinical+guide&ots=X_Qv66A4Iy&sig=mLeKpn1VzNc-Ga-PYN_ubghbtlI. Accessed May 10, 2017.
- 31.Weisz JR, Chorpita BF, Frye A, et al. Youth Top Problems: Using idiographic, consumer-guided assessment to identify treatment needs and to track change during psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology. 2011;79(3):369.Google Scholar
- 34.Lyon AR, Ludwig K, Wasse JK, et al. Determinants and functions of standardized assessment use among school mental health clinicians: A mixed methods evaluation. Administration & Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research. 2015;43(1):122–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-015-0626-0 Google Scholar
- 35.Lindhiem O, Bennett CB, Orimoto TE, et al. A meta-analysis of personalized treatment goals in psychotherapy: A preliminary report and call for more studies. Clinical Psychology: Science & Practice. 2016;23(2):165–176.Google Scholar
- 36.Becker EM, Smith AM, Jensen-Doss A. Who’s using treatment manuals? A national survey of practicing therapists. Behaviour Resesarch & Therapy. 2013;51(10):706–710.Google Scholar
- 37.Brookman-Frazee L, Haine RA, Baker-Ericzén M, et al. Factors associated with use of evidence-based practice strategies in usual care youth psychotherapy. Administration & Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research. 2010;37(3):254–269.Google Scholar
- 38.Hatfield DR, Ogles BM. Why some clinicians use outcome measures and others do not. Administration & Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research. 2007;34(3):283–291.Google Scholar
- 39.Hyde PS. Report to Congress on the Nation’s substance abuse and mental health workforce issues. US Department of Health & Human Services Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services. Jan 2013. 2013;10. http://www.cimh.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/samhsa_bhwork_0.pdf. Accessed May 10, 2017.
- 40.Hawley KM, Cook JR, Jensen-Doss A. Do noncontingent incentives increase survey response rates among mental health providers? A randomized trial comparison. Administration & Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research. 2009;36(5):343–348.Google Scholar
- 41.Glisson C, Landsverk J, Schoenwald S, et al. Assessing the Organizational Social Context (OSC) of mental health services: Implications for research and practice. Administration & Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research. 2008;35(1–2):98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-007-0148-5 Google Scholar
- 42.Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM. Internet, Mail, and Mixed Mode Survey: The Tailored Design Method. Hoboken. NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2009.Google Scholar
- 43.Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using Multivariate Statistics (5th Edition). Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.; 2007.Google Scholar
- 44.Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen M. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods. 2008;6(1):53–60.Google Scholar
- 45.Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling Multidisciplinary Journal. 1999;6(1):1–55.Google Scholar
- 54.Chapman JE, McCart MR, Letourneau EJ, et al. Comparison of youth, caregiver, therapist, trained, and treatment expert raters of therapist adherence to a substance abuse treatment protocol. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology. 2013;81(4):674.Google Scholar
- 55.Hogue A, Dauber S, Henderson CE, et al. Reliability of therapist self-report on treatment targets and focus in family-based intervention. Administration & Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research. 2014;41(5):697–705.Google Scholar