CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 111Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsMental Health Treatment and AccessPsychiatric care and mental health services

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Empirically guided coordination of multiple evidence-based treatments: An illustration of relevance mapping in children's mental health services

Chorpita, Bruce F., Bernstein, Adam, Daleiden, Eric L.·2011·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
DOI 10.1037/a0023982
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Despite substantial progress in the development and identification of psychosocial evidence-based treatments (EBTs) in mental health, there is minimal empirical guidance for selecting an optimal set of EBTs maximally applicable and generalizable to a chosen service sample. Relevance mapping is a proposed methodology that addresses this problem through structured comparison of client characteristics in a service sample to participant characteristics from studies of EBTs. METHOD: The authors demonstrate the feasibility of relevance mapping using data from 1,781 youths in a statewide mental health system and a study data set including 437 randomized clinical trials. Relevance mapping (a) reveals who is "coverable" by any EBT, under different definitions of matches between study participants and clients, and (b) identifies minimum sets of treatments needed to serve maximum numbers of clients, across different levels of analysis for defining treatment operations. RESULTS: In the illustration sample, all problems targeted by the study data set review were fully coverable when matching only required clients to have the same problem as EBT study participants. At the other extreme, when matching also required age, gender, ethnicity, and setting, the percentage of noncoverable youths increased to 86% in this sample. Two minimal sets of only 8 EBTs were identified that, when added to the one EBT already in place in that system, covered 100% of coverable youths when matching required problem, age, and gender. CONCLUSIONS: This methodology offers promise for the empirically guided selection and coordination of EBTs, thereby addressing one aspect of the gap between knowledge and practice.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0023982

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 31 references

1 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–111 of 111

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Chorpita, B. F., Bernstein, A., & Daleiden, E. L.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2011
Volume
79
Issue
4
Pages
470-480
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
DOI
10.1037/a0023982
OpenAlex
W2123648456
Cited by
110
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 3
FWCI
11.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
Keywords
evidence-based treatment, treatment selection, treatment coordination, child mental health services, youth mental health, treatment generalizability, client characteristics, knowledge-practice gap
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Mental Disorders, Child, Child Health Services, Child Psychiatry, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Infant, Male, Mental Health Services, Evidence-Based Practice, Young Adult

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