Table 3 Measurement instruments presented by construct, timepoint, method, and informant
Construct | Instrument | Instrument characteristics | Timepoints | Method | Informant |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Training | |||||
 Knowledge of CBT and treatment of anxiety | Adapted Knowledge Test (KT) [33] | The adapted version of the KT measures knowledge of CBT treatment for anxiety based on 8 multiple-choice questions with 4 possible response options, and two true/false questions. Possible scores range from 0 to 10. Alternate paper forms were used for repeated measurement | Initial training | Questionnaire | Therapist |
Sample description | |||||
 Family characteristics | Demographic information | Age, grade, gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status were administered via REDCap | Pre-diagnostic evaluation | Questionnaire | Parents |
Screening | |||||
 Anxiety disorders | Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders (SCARED) [30] | 41-item, 3-point scale (0 = not true or hardly ever true to 2 = very true or often true) paper version organized around five scales and a Total Score. The SCARED has excellent psychometric properties and has been used in community settings as a screening instrument for anxiety disorders [30] | Pre-diagnostic evaluation | Rating scale | Parents and teachers |
 Content fidelity | Content Fidelity Checklist [38] | Raters use a yes/no response scale to indicate whether the implementer covered a particular component. In a previous study we obtained good inter-observer agreement (.812, range .671–.944) [36]. We used the total % score for the analysis | Ongoing | Video coding | Independent coding of therapist behavior |
 Process fidelity | Process Fidelity Checklist [36] | Ten items are rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being Not at all and 5 being Very Often. A coding manual provides operational definitions for each item and were used to train coders. On a previous study [36], we conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The EFA yielded two factors. Factor 1 (Active engagement) and Factor 2 (Organized teaching) accounted for 39% and 38% of the variance respectively. The overall Cronbach alpha for the total score as well as for factor 1 and factor 2 were excellent and equal to .92, .93, and .90 respectively. We used the average Total and factor scores for analysis for the present study | Ongoing | Video coding | Independent coding of therapist behavior |
 Dosage | Dosage Report | Number of sessions from the manual administered to students was reported by therapists and certified by supervisors using a form completed via REDCap | Ongoing | Questionnaire | Therapists / Supervisors |
 Anxiety symptoms | Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children–2nd Edition (MASC-2) [39] | The MASC-2 is a 50-item, 4-point rating scale (0 = never to 3 = often) paper instrument organized around six subscales and a Total score used for the assessment of anxiety symptoms in children. The instrument has strong psychometric properties and it is effective for measuring treatment effects [39]. The current sample Cronbach Alpha scores were .92 for the parent version, and .91 for the child version. We used the Total score in analyses | Pre- and post-treatment | Rating scale | Parents and students |
 Depression symptoms | Children’s Depression Inventory–2nd Edition (CDI-2) [40] | The CDI-2 is a 28-item, 3-point rating scale instrument organized around six subscales and a Total score used for the assessment of depression symptoms in children. The instrument has strong psychometric properties and it is effective for measuring treatment effects [40, 41]. We used the Total score in analyses. The Cronbach Alpha score was .77 | Pre- and post- treatment | Rating scale | Students |
 Student academic engagement | Engagement versus Disaffection with Learning-Teacher Report (EvsD-Teacher) [42, 43] | The paper version of the EvsD was completed by teachers for all students in the study. This is a 20-item, four-point (1 = not at all true; 4 = very true) instrument with four sub-scales: (a) Behavioral Engagement (BE); (b) Emotional Engagement (EE); (c) Behavioral Disaffection (BD); and (d) Emotional Disaffection (ED). Scores in the BD and ED are reverse scored, so that higher scores indicate better engagement across all four subscales. Reported internal consistency for students in grades 3–6 was .81–.87 for the four subscales [42, 43]. The internal consistency of the subscales in the full baseline sample were BE α = .89; EE α = .90; BD α = .76; and ED α = .73. We used the average score for each of the four scales at pre- and post-participation in treatment | Pre- and post-treatment | Rating scale | Teachers |
 Cost | Administrative records | Information was collected via REDCap about therapist time, agency supervisor time, and expert supervision time implementing the program | Ongoing | Time report | Therapists and supervisors |