Free, Brief, and Validated: Standardized Instruments for Low-Resource Mental Health Settings

University of Pennsylvania
Cognitive and Behavioral Practice (Impact Factor: 1.33). 03/2014; 22(1). DOI: 10.1016/j.cbpra.2014.02.002

ABSTRACT Evidence-based assessment has received little attention despite its critical importance to the evidence-based practice movement. Given the limited resources in the public sector, it is necessary for evidence-based assessment to utilize tools with established reliability and validity metrics that are free, easily accessible, and brief. We review tools that meet these criteria for youth and adult mental health for the most prevalent mental health disorders to provide a clinical guide and reference for the selection of assessment tools for public sector settings. We also discuss recommendations for how to move forward the evidence-based assessment agenda.

Download full-text


Available from: Rinad S Beidas, Mar 31, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Accurate assessment is important in all phases of the treatment process, but there is little information about the assessment procedures utilized by those treating eating disorders in clinical practice. This study surveyed the assessment practices of eating disorder specialists. A brief questionnaire was sent to 480 eating disorder specialists in clinical practice; 95 were returned (19.8% return rate). The questionnaire asked specific questions about what assessment methods and measures they used for initial assessment and diagnosis as well as for treatment outcome. A significant minority of respondents used no validated measures at any stage of the assessment process, and even among those who did use well-validated assessment instruments, only a few instruments were used with any regularity. These results raise some potentially troubling issues concerning the typical assessment practices of clinicians. More collaboration between researchers and clinicians is needed to improve this situation.
    Eating and weight disorders: EWD 10/2004; 9(3):238-41. DOI:10.1007/BF03325075 · 0.68 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article discusses issues related to the development and dissemination of evidence-based assessment strategies for anxiety disorders and associated problems. It begins with a review of the criteria that should be considered when determining whether particular assessment procedures are evidence-based. These include such factors as reliability, validity, cost-effectiveness, consumer acceptability, utility across different populations, and ease of dissemination. The importance of considering the purpose of the assessment process when deciding whether a procedure is evidence-based is emphasized. Next, the major assessment domains that are particularly important in the area of anxiety disorders (e.g., triggers for anxiety symptoms, avoidance behaviors) are reviewed. Finally, some potential obstacles to the dissemination of evidence-based assessment procedures are discussed along with suggestions for managing these obstacles.
    Psychological Assessment 10/2005; 17(3):256-66. DOI:10.1037/1040-3590.17.3.256 · 2.99 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Evidence-based treatments are not widely available in community mental health settings. In response to the call for implementation of evidence-based treatments in the United States, states and counties have mandated behavioral health reform through policies and other initiatives. Evaluations of the impact of these policies on implementation are rare. A systems transformation about to occur in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, offers an important opportunity to prospectively study implementation in response to a policy mandate.Methods/design: Using a prospective sequential mixed-methods design, with observations at multiple points in time, we will investigate the responses of staff from 30 community mental health clinics to a policy from the Department of Behavioral Health encouraging and incentivizing providers to implement evidence-based treatments to treat youth with mental health problems. Study participants will be 30 executive directors, 30 clinical directors, and 240 therapists. Data will be collected prior to the policy implementation, and then at two and four years following policy implementation. Quantitative data will include measures of intervention implementation and potential moderators of implementation (i.e., organizational- and leader-level variables) and will be collected from executive directors, clinical directors, and therapists. Measures include self-reported therapist fidelity to evidence-based treatment techniques as measured by the Therapist Procedures Checklist-Revised, organizational variables as measured by the Organizational Social Context Measurement System and the Implementation Climate Assessment, leader variables as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, attitudes towards EBTs as measured by the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale, and knowledge of EBTs as measured by the Knowledge of Evidence- Based Services Questionnaire. Qualitative data will include semi-structured interviews with a subset of the sample to assess the implementation experience of high-, average-, and low-performing agencies. Mixed methods will be integrated through comparing and contrasting results from the two methods for each of the primary hypotheses in this study. DISCUSSION: Findings from the proposed research will inform both future policy mandates around implementation and the support required for the success of these policies, with the ultimate goal of improving the quality of treatment provided to youth in the public sector.
    Implementation Science 03/2013; 8(1):38. DOI:10.1186/1748-5908-8-38 · 3.47 Impact Factor