| Title |
Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure of the Current Assessment Practice Evaluation-Revised (CAPER) in a National Sample
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11414-018-9621-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aaron R. Lyon, Michael D. Pullmann, Shannon Dorsey, Prerna Martin, Alexandra A. Grigore, Emily M. Becker, Amanda Jensen-Doss |
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 38% |
| Canada | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 6 | 75% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 4% |
| Professor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 14 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 6 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 15 | 54% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 May 2018.
All research outputs
#2,748,872
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research
#42
of 469 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,135
of 329,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research
#2
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 469 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,150 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.