Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure of the Current Assessment Practice Evaluation-Revised (CAPER) in a National Sample.
Saved in:
| Title: | Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure of the Current Assessment Practice Evaluation-Revised (CAPER) in a National Sample. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Lyon, Aaron R., Pullmann, Michael D., Dorsey, Shannon, Martin, Prerna, Grigore, Alexandra A., Becker, Emily M., Jensen-Doss, Amanda |
| Source: | Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research. Jan2019, Vol. 46 Issue 1, p43-63. 21p. 6 Charts. |
| Subjects: | Factor structure, Mental health services, Mental training, Measuring instruments, Medical care, Evaluation research, Professional practice, Research funding, Research evaluation, Questionnaires, Psychometrics, Attitudes of medical personnel, Research methodology, Research, Evidence-based medicine, Factor analysis, Comparative studies |
| Geographic Terms: | United States |
| Abstract: | 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 10943412 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11414-018-9621-z |
