Validation of the Drexel University ACT/tCBT adherence and competence rating scale: revised for use in a clinical population
Abstract
This study is a replication and extension of a previous study (McGrath, Forman & Herbert, 2009) that developed and investigated the psychometric properties of the Drexel University ACT/tCBT Adherence and Competence Rating Scale (DUACRS). The DUACRS, a rater-scored measure designed to assess therapist adherence and competence in the delivery of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) and traditional cognitive behavioral therapy (tCBT), was designed in order to fill the need for an ACT-specific treatment integrity measure with established psychometric properties and a treatment integrity measure permitting investigation of the specific features of both ACT and tCBT, as well as factors common to both approaches. Recent years have witnessed a growing number of clinical trials investigating ACT, including studies comparing ACT and tCBT. In addition, controversy has surfaced regarding the degree to which the two treatments are truly distinct. A treatment adherence measure is therefore sorely needed to address these issues in future research. Participants were individuals meeting DSM-IV criteria for anxiety disorders who were enrolled in a large clinical trial in which they were randomized to receive either tCBT or ACT. Two recorded therapy sessions were randomly selected for each study participant; these sessions were coded using the DUACRS-R by raters trained in ACT and tCBT in order to investigate its interrater reliability, internal consistency, factor structure, discriminant validity, and overall utility as a treatment adherence measure. Results indicate that the DUACRS-R has good interrater reliability and can be used to successfully distinguish tCBT from ACT. The items on the ACT- and tCBT-Specific behavior and the Competence subscales appear to assess uniform constructs (though the items on the Behavioral and Non-Model-Specific subscales do not). Furthermore, four of the five components extracted through Principal Component Analysis and Principal Axis Factoring corresponded closely to the ACT-Specific Behavior, tCBT-Specific, Behavioral Intervention, and Competence subscales of the DUACRS-R.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The CTS+ is a 15-item scale based on the German version of the Cognitive Therapy Scale and the Drexel University ACT/tCBT adherence and competence rating scale.
“The CTS+ is a 15item scale based on the German version of the Cognitive Therapy Scale (CTS; Weck et al., 2010) and the Drexel University ACT/tCBT adherence and competence rating scale (DUARCS; McGrath, 2012).”
From A clinical effectiveness trial comparing ACT and CBT for inpatients with depressive and mixed mental disorders (2021) · cites this paper as McGrath, 2012
Cited by
Sorted by citations
O'Neill, L., Latchford, G., McCracken, L. M., & Graham, C. D. (2019) · Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science · doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2019.08.008 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Juncos, D. G., & Markman, E. J. (2016) · Psychology of Music · doi:10.1177/0305735615596236 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Samaan, M., Diefenbacher, A., Schade, C., Dambacher, C., Pontow, I.-M., Pakenham, K., & Fydrich, T. (2021) · Psychotherapy Research · doi:10.1080/10503307.2020.1802080 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Probst, T., Mühlberger, A., Kühner, J., Eifert, G. H., Pieh, C., Hackbarth, T., & Mander, J. (2020) · Clinical Psychology in Europe · doi:10.32872/cpe.v2i3.3115 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Stockton, D., Kellett, S., Wilkinson, N., Hague, J., Bliss, P., Heaver, M., & Devine, A. (2021) · International Journal of Cognitive Therapy · doi:10.1007/s41811-021-00118-6 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- McGrath, K. B., & Forman, E. M.
- Affiliations
- DU
- Drexel University (1970-)
- ORCID
- Forman, Evan M.
- Publisher
- Drexel University Libraries
- Published
- 2021
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
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