1 / 20

Catrin Eames Bangor University c.eames@bangor.ac.uk

The Importance of Treatment Fidelity in Delivering Parent Programmes Presentation for the Incredible Years Wales Conference Llandrindod Wells, 7th February 2008. Catrin Eames Bangor University c.eames@bangor.ac.uk. Supervisory committee: Dr Judy Hutchings, Dr Carl Hughes, Dr David Daley

hamish-mcdaniel
Download Presentation

Catrin Eames Bangor University c.eames@bangor.ac.uk

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Importance of Treatment Fidelity in Delivering Parent ProgrammesPresentation for the Incredible Years Wales ConferenceLlandrindod Wells, 7th February 2008 Catrin Eames Bangor University c.eames@bangor.ac.uk Supervisory committee: Dr Judy Hutchings, Dr Carl Hughes, Dr David Daley Funded in collaboration by ESF/Objective 1 fund and Incredible Years Wales

  2. Overview of presentation • The importance of treatment fidelity • History of treatment fidelity research • Current Ph.D. research

  3. What is fidelity? • Fidelity may be referred to as the degree to which intervention delivery adheres to the original intervention protocol (IOM, 2001).

  4. Fidelity research terminology • Adherence • Treatment delivery • Treatment differentiation • Treatment exposure • Treatment integrity • Participant responsiveness

  5. Effective delivery • Adequate evidence base • Methods used • Means of assessing fidelity

  6. History of treatment fidelity research • Poor methodologies • Surge of treatment manuals • Manuals alone do not guarantee fidelity • Few studies reported any fidelity issues • Of those that did, no reference to the development of valid fidelity measures

  7. The importance of fidelity • It is necessary to implement all components of a programme fully in order to preserve the behaviour change mechanisms that made the original programme model a successful one (Arthur & Blitz, 2000; Mihalic et al., 2002) • Can offer a template of service delivery • Further resources/supervision/training • Ensure adherence to delivery of intervention models • Programme drift most common reason for poor treatment outcomes (Mills & Ragan, 2000; Mowbray et al, 2003)

  8. Current fidelity measures • Typically, manuals or checklist format • Measure programme content • Threats to validity

  9. Benefits of observation • Precise account of behaviour as it unfolds • Bias reduced with independent observation • Continuous sampling, quantitative

  10. Rationale for current research • IY : Internationally delivered and evaluated • Over 10,000 trained in the BASIC • Numbers of independent replications increasing • Quantitative observational measure of process skills • Ensure measure is reliable and valid • Relate leader fidelity scores to changes in parent and child behaviour from the Sure Start Study

  11. Leader Observation Tool (LOT) • Objective frequency count • Continuous time sampling at 10-minute intervals throughout the 2-hour session • Both leaders coded • 18 behaviour categories forming five skills subgroups: • Listening • Empathy • Physical Encouragement • Positive Behaviour • Other/Negative

  12. Data set • 12 groups, two leaders per group, 2 hour sessions • Course split up into : • Play and relationship building • Praise and reward • Effective limit setting • Handling misbehaviour • Four sessions selected for coding for each group • Of these, 30% randomly selected for second coding • Coders blind to behaviour change scores to avoid bias

  13. LOT reliability and validity • Internal reliability at both p<.05 and p<.01 • 84% average inter-rater agreement • Intra-class correlations of each category: mean of .92 and .95 for code-recode and inter-rater reliability respectively • Concurrent validity with parent and leader reports of the group intervention process • LOT identified variability between groups, highlighting the heterogeneity in process skills and treatment fidelity

  14. LOT scores and behaviour change • Leaders attributed total score per subgroup • Parent data = 86 completers • Each parent attributed a leader fidelity exposure score • Predict that probability of parent behaviour change greater when attending a group delivered with high fidelity • Greater change in parent behaviour in turn predict greater change in child behaviour

  15. Measures Leader  Parent  Child • Leader: LOT • Parent: Parenting Scale, Positive Parenting • Child: ECBI, Child positives, Compliance

  16. Results

  17. Therefore…. • In order to change child behaviour, need to change parenting behaviour • Leader treatment fidelity of process skills significantly predict both observed change in parenting behaviour as well as parent self reported behaviour • In turn, predict the change in child behaviour

  18. Conclusion • Need to report fidelity criteria in treatment outcome studies, especially considering the number of manual based interventions that are replicated in the community today • Poor implementation fidelity is the most common factor for poor treatment outcome (Mills & Ragan, 2000) • Valid fidelity measurement can predict treatment outcome, as well as document treatment differentiation in multi-centre research

  19. Thank you for listening For further information please contact: Catrin Eames School of Psychology College of Health and Behavioural Sciences Bangor University Gwynedd LL57 2DG 01248 38 2651 c.eames@bangor.ac.uk

More Related