The Lack of Cross-National Equivalence of a Therapist Adherence Measure (TAM-R) in Multisystemic Therapy (MST)
| Autor: | Ron H. J. Scholte, Jan J. V. Busschbach, Aurelie M. C. Lange, Reinier Timman, Rachel E. A. van der Rijken, Wim van Geffen |
|---|---|
| Přispěvatelé: | Psychiatry |
| Rok vydání: | 2016 |
| Předmět: |
050103 clinical psychology
Rasch model 05 social sciences Psychological intervention Differential item functioning Cross-cultural studies Item response theory 0501 psychology and cognitive sciences Psychology Multisystemic therapy Equivalence (measure theory) Developmental Psychopathology Applied Psychology 050104 developmental & child psychology Cross national Clinical psychology |
| Zdroj: | European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 32(4), 312-325. Hogrefe Publishing European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 32, 4, pp. 312-325 European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 32, 312-325 |
| ISSN: | 1015-5759 |
| Popis: | Item does not contain fulltext This two-study report investigates the equivalence of the Dutch Therapist Adherence Measure Revised (TAM-R) to the US original. The TAM-R is a questionnaire measuring therapist adherence to the treatment model of Multisystemic Therapy (MST). Monitoring of therapist adherence is essential for evidence-based interventions to ensure the quality of the delivered treatment. International implementation of the TAM-R assumes cross-national equivalence, even though this assumption has never been investigated. In study 1 Rasch analysis was applied to 1,875 Dutch TAM-R reports and the response category frequency distributions of the items of 1,875 US TAM-R reports. Response frequencies were more heavily skewed in the US compared to the Netherlands and several items showed Differential Item Functioning (DIF). Study 2 investigated whether adaptations to the translation of the items and response categories could improve equivalence. For this purpose, 237 families were randomly allocated to 1 of 3 versions (original TAM-R, adapted items only, adapted items and response categories) and the analyses from study 1 were replicated. Results indicated that equivalence was not improved by the adapted translations. The article concludes with a discussion of several potential other sources of bias, such as differences in sample characteristics, implementation of MST, and response styles. 14 p. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|