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 Doss

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-21
Number of pages21
JournalJournal of Behavioral Health Services and Research
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - May 11 2018

Fingerprint

Reproducibility of Results
evaluation
Evidence-Based Practice
Mental Health Services
Psychometrics
Statistical Factor Analysis
Mental Health
mental health
psychometrics
health service
Direction compound
evidence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

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

Cite this

Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure of the Current Assessment Practice Evaluation-Revised (CAPER) in a National Sample. / Lyon, Aaron R.; Pullmann, Michael D.; Dorsey, Shannon; Martin, Prerna; Grigore, Alexandra A.; Becker, Emily M.; Doss, Amanda.

In: Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research, 11.05.2018, p. 1-21.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lyon, Aaron R. ; Pullmann, Michael D. ; Dorsey, Shannon ; Martin, Prerna ; Grigore, Alexandra A. ; Becker, Emily M. ; Doss, Amanda. / Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure of the Current Assessment Practice Evaluation-Revised (CAPER) in a National Sample. In: Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research. 2018 ; pp. 1-21.
@article{a5c6eef61edd409796def3983e12e987,
title = "Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure of the Current Assessment Practice Evaluation-Revised (CAPER) in a National Sample",
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.",
author = "Lyon, {Aaron R.} and Pullmann, {Michael D.} and Shannon Dorsey and Prerna Martin and Grigore, {Alexandra A.} and Becker, {Emily M.} and Amanda Doss",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
day = "11",
doi = "10.1007/s11414-018-9621-z",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "1--21",
journal = "Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research",
issn = "1094-3412",
publisher = "Springer New York",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure of the Current Assessment Practice Evaluation-Revised (CAPER) in a National Sample

AU - Lyon, Aaron R.

AU - Pullmann, Michael D.

AU - Dorsey, Shannon

AU - Martin, Prerna

AU - Grigore, Alexandra A.

AU - Becker, Emily M.

AU - Doss, Amanda

PY - 2018/5/11

Y1 - 2018/5/11

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85046730323&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85046730323&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11414-018-9621-z

DO - 10.1007/s11414-018-9621-z

M3 - Article

SP - 1

EP - 21

JO - Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research

JF - Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research

SN - 1094-3412

ER -