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

Aaron R. Lyon, Michael D. Pullmann, Shannon Dorsey, Prerna Martin, Alexandra A. Grigore, Emily M. Becker, Amanda Jensen-Doss

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Scopus citations


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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)43-63
Number of pages21
JournalJournal of Behavioral Health Services and Research
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jan 15 2019


ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health(social science)
  • Health Policy
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this