• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
A comparison of self-reported and phone-administered methods of ACT fidelity assessment: a pilot study in Indiana.自我报告与电话管理 ACT 保真度评估方法的比较:印第安纳州的一项试点研究。
Psychiatr Serv. 2013 Mar 1;64(3):272-6. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.001252012.
2
A comparison of phone-based and on-site assessment of fidelity for assertive community treatment in Indiana.印第安纳州基于电话和现场评估的坚定社区治疗保真度比较。
Psychiatr Serv. 2011 Jun;62(6):670-4. doi: 10.1176/ps.62.6.pss6206_0670.
3
Comparison of Assertive Community Treatment Fidelity Assessment Methods: Reliability and Validity.积极社区治疗忠诚度评估方法的比较:可靠性与有效性
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2016 Mar;43(2):157-67. doi: 10.1007/s10488-015-0641-1.
4
The TMACT: a new tool for measuring fidelity to assertive community treatment.TMACT:一种用于测量坚持社区治疗的保真度的新工具。
J Am Psychiatr Nurses Assoc. 2011 Jan-Feb;17(1):17-29. doi: 10.1177/1078390310394658.
5
Fidelity and recovery-orientation in assertive community treatment.坚定性和康复取向的社区治疗。
Community Ment Health J. 2010 Aug;46(4):342-50. doi: 10.1007/s10597-009-9275-7. Epub 2009 Dec 24.
6
Comparing the Costs and Acceptability of Three Fidelity Assessment Methods for Assertive Community Treatment.比较三种针对积极社区治疗的保真度评估方法的成本与可接受性。
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2017 Sep;44(5):810-816. doi: 10.1007/s10488-016-0785-7.
7
Self-assessed fidelity: proceed with caution.自我评估的保真度:谨慎行事。
Psychiatr Serv. 2013 Apr 1;64(4):393-4. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.640418.
8
Self-assessed fidelity: proceed with caution: in reply.
Psychiatr Serv. 2013 Apr 1;64(4):394. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.640419.
9
Prediction of outcome from the Dartmouth assertive community treatment fidelity scale.基于达特茅斯积极社区治疗保真度量表对治疗结果的预测
CNS Spectr. 2004 Dec;9(12):937-42. doi: 10.1017/s1092852900009792.
10
The Dartmouth Assertive Community Treatment Scale (DACTS). A generalizability study.达特茅斯积极社区治疗量表(DACTS)。一项可推广性研究。
Eval Rev. 2000 Jun;24(3):319-38. doi: 10.1177/0193841X0002400304.

引用本文的文献

1
Outcomes of the ROSE Sustainment (ROSES) Study, a sequential multiple assignment randomized implementation trial to determine the minimum necessary intervention to sustain a postpartum depression prevention program in agencies serving low-income pregnant people.ROSE维持(ROSES)研究的结果,这是一项序贯多重分配随机实施试验,旨在确定在为低收入孕妇服务的机构中维持产后抑郁症预防项目所需的最低必要干预措施。
Implement Sci. 2025 Feb 10;20(1):9. doi: 10.1186/s13012-025-01420-z.
2
Impact of the Pandemic was Minor Compared to Systemic Decrease in Fidelity of Assertive Community Treatment Services- A Provincial Study in Ontario, Canada.与积极社区治疗服务保真度的系统性下降相比,大流行的影响较小——加拿大安大略省的一项省级研究
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2024 Apr 16. doi: 10.1007/s10488-024-01375-1.
3
Protocol for the ROSE sustainment (ROSES) study, a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial to determine the minimum necessary intervention to maintain a postpartum depression prevention program in prenatal clinics serving low-income women.ROSE 维持研究方案(ROSES),一项序贯多项分配随机试验,旨在确定维持为服务低收入妇女的产前诊所提供的产后抑郁症预防计划所需的最小干预措施。
Implement Sci. 2018 Aug 22;13(1):115. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0807-9.
4
Is There a Role for Fidelity Self-Assessment in the Individual Placement and Support Model of Supported Employment?在支持性就业的个体安置与支持模型中,准确性自我评估是否有作用?
Psychiatr Serv. 2017 Sep 1;68(9):975-978. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201600264. Epub 2017 Apr 17.
5
Measuring Organizational Capacity to Treat Co-Occurring Psychiatric and Substance Use Disorders.衡量治疗同时存在的精神疾病和物质使用障碍的组织能力。
J Dual Diagn. 2013 Jan 1;9(2):165-170. doi: 10.1080/15504263.2013.779051.

本文引用的文献

1
A comparison of phone-based and on-site assessment of fidelity for assertive community treatment in Indiana.印第安纳州基于电话和现场评估的坚定社区治疗保真度比较。
Psychiatr Serv. 2011 Jun;62(6):670-4. doi: 10.1176/ps.62.6.pss6206_0670.
2
Differences in self and independent ratings on an organisational dual diagnosis capacity measure.在组织双诊断能力衡量标准上,自我评估和独立评估的差异。
Drug Alcohol Rev. 2009 Nov;28(6):682-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2009.00116.x.
3
Correspondence of motivational enhancement treatment integrity ratings among therapists, supervisors, and observers.治疗师、督导和观察者之间动机增强治疗完整性评分的一致性。
Psychother Res. 2009 Mar;19(2):181-93. doi: 10.1080/10503300802688460.
4
Assertive community treatment: facilitators and barriers to implementation in routine mental health settings.积极社区治疗:常规精神卫生环境中实施的促进因素和障碍
Psychiatr Serv. 2009 Feb;60(2):189-95. doi: 10.1176/ps.2009.60.2.189.
5
Fidelity outcomes in the National Implementing Evidence-Based Practices Project.国家实施基于证据的实践项目中的保真度结果。
Psychiatr Serv. 2007 Oct;58(10):1279-84. doi: 10.1176/ps.2007.58.10.1279.
6
Moving assertive community treatment into standard practice.将积极社区治疗纳入标准实践。
Psychiatr Serv. 2001 Jun;52(6):771-9. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.52.6.771.
7
Evidence of self-report bias in assessing adherence to guidelines.在评估指南依从性方面存在自我报告偏差的证据。
Int J Qual Health Care. 1999 Jun;11(3):187-92. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/11.3.187.
8
Fidelity to assertive community treatment and client outcomes in the New Hampshire dual disorders study.在新罕布什尔双相障碍研究中对积极社区治疗及客户结果的忠诚度。
Psychiatr Serv. 1999 Jun;50(6):818-24. doi: 10.1176/ps.50.6.818.
9
Program fidelity in assertive community treatment: development and use of a measure.积极社区治疗中的项目保真度:一种测量方法的开发与应用
Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1998 Apr;68(2):216-32. doi: 10.1037/h0080331.
10
Measuring the fidelity of implementation of a mental health program model.衡量心理健康项目模式的实施保真度。
J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994 Aug;62(4):670-8. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.62.4.670.

自我报告与电话管理 ACT 保真度评估方法的比较:印第安纳州的一项试点研究。

A comparison of self-reported and phone-administered methods of ACT fidelity assessment: a pilot study in Indiana.

机构信息

Department of Psychology, Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA.

出版信息

Psychiatr Serv. 2013 Mar 1;64(3):272-6. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.001252012.

DOI:10.1176/appi.ps.001252012
PMID:23280337
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4058097/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Monitoring fidelity of assertive community treatment (ACT) teams is costly. This study investigated the reliability and validity of a less burdensome approach: self-reported assessment.

METHODS

Phone-administered and self-reported assessments were compared for 16 ACT teams. Team leaders completed a self-report protocol providing information sufficient to score the Dartmouth Assertive Community Treatment Scale (DACTS). Two raters scored the DACTS using only self-reported information. Two additional raters conducted phone interviews with team leaders, verifying the self-reported data, and independently scored the DACTS.

RESULTS

DACTS total scores obtained via self-reported assessments were reliable and valid compared with phone-administered assessment on the basis of interrater consistency (intraclass correlation) and consensus (mean rating differences). Phone-administered assessments agreed with self-reported assessments within .25 scale points (out of 5 points) for 15 of 16 teams.

CONCLUSIONS

A self-report approach could address concerns regarding costs of monitoring as part of a stepped approach to quality assurance.

摘要

目的

监测坚定社区治疗(ACT)团队的保真度成本高昂。本研究探讨了一种负担较轻的方法的可靠性和有效性:自我评估。

方法

对 16 个 ACT 团队进行了电话管理和自我评估的比较。团队领导完成了一份自我报告协议,提供了足以对达特茅斯坚定社区治疗量表(DACTS)进行评分的信息。两名评分员仅使用自我报告的信息对 DACTS 进行评分。另外两名评分员与团队领导进行了电话访谈,核实了自我报告的数据,并独立对 DACTS 进行了评分。

结果

基于评分者间一致性(组内相关系数)和共识(平均评分差异),自我报告评估获得的 DACTS 总分与电话评估相比是可靠和有效的。在 16 个团队中的 15 个团队中,电话评估与自我报告评估的一致性在.25 个量表点(5 分制)以内。

结论

自我报告方法可以解决监测成本方面的问题,作为质量保证的递进方法的一部分。