Cited by 27Health Policy Implementation ScienceEvaluation and Performance AssessmentPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Redesigning implementation measurement for monitoring and quality improvement in community delivery settings

Open access
Berkel, Cady, Gallo, Carlos G., Sandler, Irwin N., Mauricio, Anne M., Smith, Justin D., Brown, C. Hendricks·2019·The Journal of Primary Prevention

Abstract

The field of prevention has established the potential to promote child adjustment across a wide array of outcomes. However, when evidence-based prevention programs have been delivered at scale in community settings, declines in implementation and outcomes have resulted. Maintaining high quality implementation is a critical challenge for the field. We describe steps towards the development of a practical system to monitor and support the high-quality implementation of evidence-based prevention programs in community settings. Research on the implementation of an evidence-based parenting program for divorcing families called the "New Beginnings Program" serves as an illustration of the promise of such a system. As a first step, we describe a multidimensional theoretical model of implementation that links aspects of program delivery with improvements in participant outcomes. We then describe research on the measurement of each of these implementation dimensions and test their relations to intended program outcomes. As a third step, we develop approaches to the assessment of these implementation constructs that are feasible to use in community settings and to establish their reliability and validity. We focus on the application of machine learning algorithms and web-based data collection systems to assess implementation and provide support for high quality delivery and positive outcomes. Examples are presented to demonstrate that valid and reliable measures can be collected using these methods. Finally, we envision how these measures can be used to develop an unobtrusive system to monitor implementation and provide feedback and support in real time to maintain high quality implementation and program outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10935-018-00534-z

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Such methods can reduce measurement burden, recall and reporting biases, and missing data.

    “in addition to increasing scalability, they can reduce measurement burden, recall and reporting biases, and missing data (Berkel et al., 2019).”

    From Measuring the active elements of cognitive-behavioral therapies (2023) · cites this paper as Berkel et al., 2019

    In the Introduction’s “Towards Feasible Assessment of Participant Responsiveness” section (page unavailable), the paper says online data entry could reduce facilitator burden and that technology could help achieve complete data collection. It does not say these methods reduce recall or reporting biases; its discussion of transfer errors is a different point. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Gallo CG, Berkel C, Sandler IN, & Brown CH (2015). Improving implementation of behavioral interventions by monitoring quality of delivery in speech Paper presented at the annual Conference on the Science of Dissemination & Implementation, Washington, DC.
  2. Gallo CG, Li Y, Berkel C, Mehrotra S, Liu L, Benbow N, & Brown CH (under review). Recognizing emotion in speech for assessing the implementing behavioral interventions.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Berkel, C., Gallo, C. G., Sandler, I. N., Mauricio, A. M., Smith, J. D., & Brown, C. H.
Affiliations
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Berkel, Cady
Venue
The Journal of Primary Prevention
Published
2019-01-18
Volume
40
Issue
1
Pages
111-127
ISSN
  • 0278-095X (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-6547
OpenAlex
W2910727329
Cited by
27
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2
FWCI
5.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Primary Prevention (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA033991, R01DA026874, P30-DA027828, R01DA033991-03S1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
implementation measurement, implementation monitoring, quality improvement, evidence-based prevention programs, parent training, divorce, child adjustment, implementation fidelity, machine learning, online data collection, real-time feedback, reliability and validity
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Implementation Science, Adolescent, Adult, Child, Curriculum, Data Collection, Divorce, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Theoretical, Parent-Child Relations, Program Evaluation, Evidence-Based Practice, Quality Improvement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review