Reliability of Adherence and Competence Assessment in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

Abstract

The use of highly experienced expert judges was suggested for the assessment of therapists' adherence and competence. However, such an approach implies high costs. It can be questioned whether only experts are able to evaluate therapists' adherence and competence reliably. To test this, 4 judges evaluated therapist adherence and competence in 30 randomly selected videotapes of cognitive therapy sessions for depression. In that, 2 judges exhibited high clinical experience (experts), whereas 2 judges did not (novices). We could demonstrate that novices evaluated an aggregated adherence and competence measure with high reliability. However, several adherence and competence aspects were not assessed with satisfactory reliability by novices. Although adherence ratings of experts and novices showed high concordance, the concordance of competence ratings was only moderate. Results revealed that therapists' adherence could be evaluated satisfactorily by trained novices with some restrictions, but not their competence.