Child STEPs in California: A cluster randomized effectiveness trial comparing modular treatment with community implemented treatment for youth with anxiety, depression, conduct problems, or traumatic stress.

OBJECTIVE: This study reports outcomes from a randomized effectiveness trial testing modular treatment versus multiple community-implemented evidence-based treatments for youth. METHOD: An ethnoracially diverse sample of 138 youth ages 5 to 15 (62 girls, 76 boys) whose primary clinical concerns involved diagnoses or clinical elevations related to anxiety, depression, disruptive behavior, and/or traumatic stress were treated by community therapists randomly assigned to 1 of 2 conditions: (a) modular treatment, which involved a single modular protocol (i.e., modular approach to therapy for children; MATCH) that allowed flexible selection and sequencing of procedures to fit the chosen treatment focus in the context of measurement feedback, and (b) community-implemented treatment (CIT), which was a county-supported implementation of multiple evidence-based practices for youth. RESULTS: Youth treated with MATCH showed significantly faster rates of improvement over time on clinical and functional outcomes relative to youth in the CIT condition and required significantly fewer sessions delivered over significantly fewer days. Caregiver-reported clinical improvement rates were significantly greater for MATCH (60%) versus CIT (36.7%). Further, youth in the CIT condition were significantly more likely to receive additional psychosocial treatment services and were significantly more likely to use a variety of psychotropic medications during the active treatment phase. CONCLUSIONS: These results extend prior findings, supporting the effectiveness and efficiency of a modular, multifocus approach that incorporates monitoring and feedback relative to community implementation of evidence-based treatments. (PsycINFO Database Record

Tracking evidence based practice with youth: validity of the MATCH and standard manual consultation records.

This study sought to evaluate the agreement between therapist report and coder observation of therapy practices. The study sampled session data from a community-based, randomized trial of treatment for youth ages 7 to 13. We used therapist report of session content and coverage gathered using formal Consultation Records and developed complimentary records for coders to use when watching or listening to therapy tape. We established initial reliability between coders and then conducted a random, stratified, and comprehensive sample of sessions across youth (N = 121), therapists (N = 57), conditions (MATCH and Standard Manuals), and study sites (Honolulu and Boston) to code and compare with therapist record reports. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) representing coder versus therapist agreement on manual content delivered ranged from .42 to 1.0 across conditions and problem areas. Analyses revealed marked variability in agreement regarding whether behavioral rehearsals took place (ICCs from -.01 to 1.0) but strong agreement on client comprehension of therapy content and homework assignments. Overall, the findings indicate that therapists can be accurate reporters of the therapeutic practices they deliver, although they may need more support in reporting subtle but valuable aspects of implementation such as types of behavioral rehearsals. Developing means to support accurate reporting is important to developing future clinical feedback methodology applicable to the implementation of evidence-based treatments in the real world.