Skip to main content

Table 1 Two-level mixed effects regression models linking implementation climate and molar climate to clinicians’ EBP use

From: Linking molar organizational climate and strategic implementation climate to clinicians’ use of evidence-based psychotherapy techniques: cross-sectional and lagged analyses from a 2-year observational study

 

Clinician EBP use

 

Cross-sectional analysis (baseline)

Lagged analysis (2-year follow-up)

Predictor

B (SE)

B (SE)

B (SE)

B (SE)

Intercept

3.175 (.079)**

3.060 (.071)**

3.286 (.056)**

3.213 (.063)**

Tenure in organization

.024 (.012)

.025 (.012)*

.019 (.012)

.020 (.012)

Average hours per week

.007 (.005)

.007 (.004)

.008 (.004)

.008 (.003)*

Education level (doctoral)

.071 (.231)

− .014 (.229)

− .021 (.157)

− .094 (.176)

CBT theoretical orientation

.118 (.127)

.187 (.122)

.075 (.079)

.093 (.090)

Attitudes towards EBP

.019 (.113)

− .025 (.116)

.143 (.100)

.136 (.099)

Organization size (# of therapists)

.017 (.007)*

.012 (.005)*

.006 (.004)

.003 (.004)

Molar climate (baseline)

− .012 (.008)

.001 (.008)

− .006 (.006)

.002 (.007)

Implementation climate (baseline)

.480 (.239)*

.154 (.217)

.301 (.131)*

.016 (.198)

Molar climate x implementation climate

 

.021 (.007)**

 

.012 (.005)*

Pseudo model R2

.63

.98

.94

.98

  1. Note: These are two-level mixed-effects regression models with random organization intercepts. CBT cognitive-behavioral therapy, EBP evidence-based practice. For the cross-sectional analysis, k = 20 organizations and n = 112 clinicians; for the lagged analysis, k = 20 organizations and n = 164 clinicians. Pseudo model R2 calculated as (τnull − τmodel)/(τnull) where τnull is the organizational intercept variance in a model with no predictors and τmodel is the residual organizational intercept variance in a model including all predictors [61]
  2. *p ≤ .05, **p < .01