↓ Skip to main content

Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure of the Current Assessment Practice Evaluation-Revised (CAPER) in a National Sample

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
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
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.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Researcher 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 13 45%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 24%
Social Sciences 4 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 14 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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
#4,424,856
of 30,047,244 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research
#89
of 604 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,292
of 345,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 30,047,244 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 604 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 345,209 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.