JMIR Publications

JMIR Mental Health


Citing this Article

Right click to copy or hit: ctrl+c (cmd+c on mac)

Published on 31.10.17 in Vol 4, No 4 (2017): Oct-Dec

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

    Original Paper

    Assessing Therapist Competence: Development of a Performance-Based Measure and Its Comparison With a Web-Based Measure

    1Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

    2Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States

    3Icon Patient Reported Outcomes, Oxford, United Kingdom

    Corresponding Author:

    Zafra Cooper, DPhil, DipClinPsych

    Department of Psychiatry

    University of Oxford

    Warneford Hospital


    United Kingdom

    Phone: 1 2038094213



    Background: Recent research interest in how best to train therapists to deliver psychological treatments has highlighted the need for rigorous, but scalable, means of measuring therapist competence. There are at least two components involved in assessing therapist competence: the assessment of their knowledge of the treatment concerned, including how and when to use its strategies and procedures, and an evaluation of their ability to apply such knowledge skillfully in practice. While the assessment of therapists’ knowledge has the potential to be completed efficiently on the Web, the assessment of skill has generally involved a labor-intensive process carried out by clinicians, and as such, may not be suitable for assessing training outcome in certain circumstances.

    Objectives: The aims of this study were to develop and evaluate a role-play–based measure of skill suitable for assessing training outcome and to compare its performance with a highly scalable Web-based measure of applied knowledge.

    Methods: Using enhanced cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT-E) for eating disorders as an exemplar, clinical scenarios for role-play assessment were developed and piloted together with a rating scheme for assessing trainee therapists’ performance. These scenarios were evaluated by examining the performance of 93 therapists from different professional backgrounds and at different levels of training in implementing CBT-E. These therapists also completed a previously developed Web-based measure of applied knowledge, and the ability of the Web-based measure to efficiently predict competence on the role-play measure was investigated.

    Results: The role-play measure assessed performance at implementing a range of CBT-E procedures. The majority of the therapists rated their performance as moderately or closely resembling their usual clinical performance. Trained raters were able to achieve good-to-excellent reliability for averaged competence, with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from .653 to 909. The measure was also sensitive to change, with scores being significantly higher after training than before as might be expected (mean difference 0.758, P<.001) even when taking account of repeated data (mean difference 0.667, P<.001). The major shortcoming of the role-play measure was that it required considerable time and resources. This shortcoming is inherent in the method. Given this, of most interest for assessing training outcome, scores on the Web-based measure efficiently predicted therapist competence, as judged by the role-play measure (with the Web-based measure having a positive predictive value of 77% and specificity of 78%).

    Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that while it was feasible and acceptable to assess performance using the newly developed role-play measure, the highly scalable Web-based measure could be used in certain circumstances as a substitute for the more labor-intensive, and hence, more costly role-play method.

    JMIR Ment Health 2017;4(4):e51




    Recent research interest in the training of therapists in psychological treatments has highlighted the need for rigorous measures of training outcome, with measures of therapist competence being regarded as of particular importance [1-3]. Competence in this context refers to what has been described as “limited-domain intervention competence” [4], that is, the therapist’s capacity to implement a specific form of treatment to the standard needed for it to achieve its expected effects [5]. Generally, it has been agreed that achieving such competence requires knowledge of the treatment, including how and when to use its strategies and procedures, as well as an ability to apply such knowledge skillfully in practice [6,7]. The assessment of knowledge has generally been regarded as relatively straightforward, because there is a well-studied and documented method for assessing this aspect of competence, usually involving the use of some form of multiple-choice testing [8]. Nevertheless, there are, as yet, few standardized measures for assessing knowledge of the type required to establish therapist competence.

    On the other hand, the assessment of skill in delivering a psychological treatment is more complex. A widely used method for assessing the skill of therapists involves the evaluation of the quality of their treatment sessions (ie, therapy quality is being used as an index of therapist competence). Assessing therapy quality requires that treatment sessions be evaluated using a standard procedure [9]. In the field of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), for example, treatment sessions are generally rated using the Cognitive Therapy Scale (CTS) [10,11] or its revised version (CTS-R) [12]. Treatment sessions, or usually recordings of them, are evaluated by highly trained raters (usually therapists) with respect to the presence and quality of certain features displayed by the therapist (eg, the eliciting of key cognitions, the use of guided discovery, the setting of homework). Those who score above a prespecified threshold are judged to have performed sufficiently skillfully to be judged competent. This method has the advantage of directly assessing therapists’ skill at implementing the treatment, and thus, has clear ecological validity. In practice, the method poses a number of problems. It is labor-intensive, with the result that few sessions tend to be rated. Consequently, generalizations about the therapist’s overall competence are made on the basis of rating a limited number of the treatment’s procedures. The issue of patient variability is an additional problem. It has been documented that therapists are less likely to adhere to a treatment protocol with some patients rather than others, for example, when comorbidity is present or when they perceive patients’ difficulties to be particularly severe. [13]. Thus, with this method, it is difficult to sample the full range of a treatment’s procedures with patients of varying levels of difficulty [5,6,14]. A related issue is that the CTS and CTS-R, for example, focus largely on aspects of treatment that are common to most forms of CBT and, of necessity, ones that are expected to be present in most treatment sessions. Thus, they assess generic skills but do not assess disorder-specific strategies. In the area of social anxiety disorder, for example, this has led to the development of a disorder-specific measure [15,16].

    A potential solution to these problems lies in role-play–based assessments using simulated standardized patients. This method offers the possibility of assessing therapists’ skills on a wide range of procedures or interventions while controlling the variability of the patient. For many years, this type of assessment has formed part of the objective structured clinical examinations used in evaluating medical training [17] and has been described as one of the most effective “substitutes for reality” [6]. The method also lends itself to the evaluation of psychological treatment training, a situation in which the assessment of a range of patient sessions before and after training would otherwise be difficult to achieve. Indeed, this method has just begun to be used to assess skill acquisition following psychological treatment training [18-21].

    This study was part of a program of work designed to develop scalable methods for training therapists to deliver evidence-based psychological treatments. It used enhanced cognitive behavior therapy (CBT-E) for eating disorders [22-24] as the exemplar treatment. This treatment is described in detail in a comprehensive treatment guide [25], and an outline of its main stages and procedures is shown in Table 1.

    As an essential first step in our work to develop a scalable method of training, we planned to develop methods of assessing training outcome that would also be scalable. Consistent with the view outlined above, we aimed to develop a measure of applied knowledge of CBT-E and a measure of skill at implementing it. We first developed and validated a Web-based measure of applied knowledge of CBT-E [26]. The eMeasure is a brief, scalable, 22-item, Web-based measure for testing applied knowledge of CBT-E, taking about 30 min to complete. It was tested on a relatively large, heterogeneous sample of clinicians at different levels of training. It meets the stringent requirements of the Rasch model and has 3 equivalent versions making it suitable for repeat testing of trainees in outcome studies. Best cut points have been established empirically to distinguish between those judged competent by experts and those who were not.

    In this paper, we describe the second stage of the work. This involved developing a performance-based role-play measure of skill at delivering CBT-E to complement the applied knowledge measure. The performance-based measure was designed as a structured role play with therapists being asked to implement a range of CBT-E procedures with a simulated patient that would be recorded and subsequently rated for competence. To provide evidence to support the use of this measure, we have described its content and the steps involved in its development. Its performance in assessing clinicians at various stages of training was investigated by examining the feasibility and acceptability of the measure, its sensitivity to change after training, and its interrater reliability. In addition, given our interest in scalability, we also investigated its performance in relation to the previously validated scalable measure of applied knowledge to ascertain whether under certain circumstances it might be possible to use the Web-based measure alone to efficiently assess the outcome of training.



    This study was conducted in 3 phases. In the first, clinical scenarios for the role plays were developed and piloted together with a rating scheme for assessing trainees’ performance. In the second, the scenarios were evaluated by examining the performance of a range of trainee therapists from different professional backgrounds and with differing levels of experience in implementing CBT-E. In the third, the relationship between the role-play method of assessing competence and the previously developed Web-based measure of applied knowledge was investigated. Ethical approval was obtained from the Oxford University Central Research Ethics committee.

    Phase One—The Development of the Clinical Scenarios and Rating Scheme

    It was decided in advance that the role-play scenarios should focus on all the main CBT-E procedures and that they should not be inordinately difficult. Each scenario would involve the trainee therapist “treating” a “patient” who would be role-played by an actor (acting as a patient). The scenarios would last no longer than 12 min and 3 different scenarios would be administered in sequence within 1 session, thus enabling the implementation of 3 different procedures to be tested in a 45-min assessment session. We also decided to use 2 different “patients,” each representing a type of patient commonly encountered when helping those with an eating disorder. Patient A was reticent and anxious with an eating style that was generally rigidly controlled, whereas Patient B was talkative and easily distracted and had a more chaotic eating pattern.

    The next step was to identify the skills needed to implement CBT-E. To ensure adequate sampling of the potential content, we developed a blueprint. When developing assessment measures, blueprints are commonly used to match the elements of the assessment measure to the content to be mastered [27,28]. Using the CBT-E treatment manual [25] as our source, we obtained agreement between the CBT-E treatment developers (CF and ZC) and 3 experienced trial therapists (SBS, KB, and RM) that the role-play measure should focus on the implementation of 10 key procedures. We then developed a scenario for each procedure (see Table 1), the goal being to create a partially standardized interaction, that is, one that was focused on the implementation of a particular procedure but not so scripted as to be unrealistic. To this end, we prepared, for the actors, a written account for each scenario describing how the patient should respond in general and the particular patient’s manner of responding, depending upon whether she was Patient A or Patient B. For the person being assessed (ie, the trainee therapist), we prepared for each scenario a written description of the clinical situation to be addressed using CBT-E, a summary of the patient’s progress in treatment so far and some information about her circumstances, personality, and history. To create realistic encounters, we modeled these descriptions on actual patient-therapist interactions. Pilot work led to the 10 clinical scenarios being standardized to 8-min therapist-patient interactions, with each being preceded by 5 min of preparation time for the trainee being assessed.

    We decided to use a global scale for rating trainees’ performance rather than a checklist, as global measures have been shown to have greater validity in discriminating levels of expertise in complex interactions [29-31]. Two rating scales were developed, one to assess the quality of implementation of the procedure in terms of its content and the other to assess whether the trainee’s style was consistent with CBT-E. We developed detailed scenario-specific guidelines specifying both core and desirable features to guide the former ratings and a description of CBT style that included details about therapist behavior that would be both appropriate and inappropriate to guide the latter ratings. These guidelines formed the raters’ manual that guided rater training and was available to raters when making their ratings of trainees’ performance.

    To rate the quality of implementation of participants’ performance in terms of content, a 7-point scale was developed with defined anchor points. The scale ranged from a complete absence of the relevant CBT-E procedures as specified in the scenario-specific guidelines (score=0) to the consistent and complete application of all these procedures (score=6), with a score of 2 indicating limited or inconsistent application of the core features and a score of 4 indicating moderate application of these features (most of the main features present). Remaining scores were used to indicate performance falling between the defined anchor points. On the basis of our extensive experience in training therapists to implement CBT-E, a rating of 4 or more on this scale (defined as at least moderate application of CBT-E procedures) was taken to represent the cut point for “competent” performance at implementing each procedure. With regard to rating the trainee therapist’s style, raters were provided with a detailed description of generic aspects of CBT style (such as being warm, empathic, collaborative, asking open-ended questions, focusing on and encouraging change) as well as a description of those features that would be inappropriate (such as being insensitive to the patient’s feelings, not attending to the patient’s distress, being critical, lacking professional boundaries, personal disclosures demonstrating behavior inconsistent with the advice given to the patient, being controlling). A yes or no rating assessed whether the trainee therapist adopted a CBT-consistent style.

    In practice, the rater first made a procedural rating on the 7-point scale to reflect the quality of implementation of the relevant CBT-E scenario-specific procedure (ie, doing the right thing well). Then if a therapist received a rating of 4 or more (indicating a competent performance on the procedural rating), the rater was required to consider whether an otherwise competent performance was potentially undermined by answering the yes or no categorical question regarding the trainee therapist’s CBT-E style. If this was answered in the affirmative, the rater was required to re-rate the therapists’ performance on the 7-point scale using only a restricted 0 to 3 rating, reflecting the decision that the therapist could not obtain an overall score of 4 or more in the presence of a CBT-E inconsistent style.

    Table 1. Blueprint showing scenarios for enhanced cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT-E) procedures.
    View this table
    Phase Two—Evaluation of the Clinical Scenarios

    To examine the performance of the clinical scenarios, we recruited a sample of 93 therapists who wished to be trained in CBT-E by our group. They were recruited (and participated) at various stages in the training process. Before training, therapists were recruited from the following sources: those registered to attend a conventional 2-day CBT-E training workshop and those about to begin a Web-based training in CBT-E. After training, therapists were recruited from those who had just completed a 2-day workshop, those who had completed a course of expert-led supervision in CBT-E, and those who had completed Web-based training.

    Each trainee therapist completed 3 clinical scenarios on any 1 testing occasion selected from the 20 possible scenarios (10 scenarios each with Patient A or B). Two therapists (SBS and KB) role-played the patients. The encounters were audiorecorded for subsequent rating by at least 2 trained raters (see Table 2) who were blind to the identity and training status of the trainee therapists. The trainees were also asked to rate the extent to which they thought their performance in the role plays resembled their usual everyday clinical performance. To do this, a simple 4-point scale (from no resemblance=0 to close resemblance=3) was used. In addition, after completing the role-play assessment, the trainees were asked to complete the Web-based measure of applied knowledge of CBT-E [26] within 2 weeks. The trainees were not provided with any feedback after completing these summative assessments.

    Four raters, research assistants with psychology degrees, were trained to assess the trainees’ performance in the role plays. After didactic training in the use of the rating scale provided by 2 experts, the raters were then required to rate 40 prerecorded calibration [32] role plays covering the 10 scenarios and both patients. These had been previously rated by 2 expert clinicians (ZC and RM). Training ratings were compared with the experts’ calibration ratings and any discrepancies discussed and clarified to obtain consensus with the expert calibration ratings before beginning to rate the trainees’ performance on the role-play assessments [15,33].

    Phase Three—Relationship Between the Web-Based Measure and the Role-Play Measure

    The trainee therapists’ scores on the Web-based eMeasure completed at the same time point as their role-play performance (ie, time-matched) were compared with their ratings on the role-play measure to determine whether competence on the former (a scalable measure of applied knowledge of the treatment) predicted competence on the role-play measure (performance skill at applying the treatment).

    Data Analysis

    Data were analyzed using SPSS version 19.0 (IBM Corp) and Stata version 12.0, (StataCorp). Both individual performance scores (categorical scores) and scores averaged over all 3 clinical scenarios in any one assessment (continuous scores) were used in the analyses. Average performance scores on the clinical scenarios were approximately normally distributed. Values of n (%), mean (SD), and median (range) were used as appropriate to describe the data, with chi-square tests (with linear trend where appropriate) used to compare categorical scores between groups and t tests and ANOVAs (analyses of variance) and linear mixed models to compare continuous scores.

    Agreement between categorical individual performance scores given by each of the raters was assessed using kappa statistics with Cohen kappa statistics used to assess agreement between pairs of raters and Fleiss kappas to calculate agreement across all 4 raters. Analyses were conducted first using all possible rating scores (ie, scores 0-6) and then on binary variables defined as scores over the threshold for competence (ie, 4 or more). Values of kappa <0 were taken to indicate no agreement, 0 to 0.20 slight, 0.21 to 0.40 fair, 0.41 to 0.60 moderate, 0.61 to 0.80 substantial, and 0.81 to 1 almost perfect agreement over that expected by chance [34].

    Agreement between continuous scores was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). With the average performance scores, ICCs (2-way random effects model, ie, ICC2,1 for single measures and ICC2,k for average measures) were calculated between raters in pairs, in triplets, and over all 4 raters, with values of <0.4 indicating poor agreement, 0.4 to 0.75 fair-to-good agreement, and >0.75 excellent agreement [35].

    To assess the impact of time (before or after training), rater, simulated patient type, and particular scenario on performance scores, data were first analyzed using ANOVA to compare performance scores between groups. An interaction term between rater and time was also fitted. Values of eta-squared (η2) were used to express the percentage of variance explained by each factor, with 0.02 considered to be small, 0.13 medium, and 0.26 large [36]. To take account of the repeated nature of the data and the specific correlation structure of nonindependent (repeated) data, linear mixed models with variance components were used. This is a form of Generalizability theory (G-theory) in which the sources of measurement error are identified, estimated, and disentangled [37]. Models were fitted with fixed and random effects as appropriate for time, rater, time × rater, patient type, and scenario. The relative contribution of these factors to the variability in the model was estimated using the ICC, calculated as the variance of each individual effect divided by the overall variance.

    To determine whether competence on the Web-based eMeasure predicted competence on the role-play measure, the competence scores of each trainee therapist (average performance score over all raters on each occasion on the clinical scenarios [averaged over 3 scenarios] rated as >4) and their competence score on the Web-based eMeasure (using the previously reported cut points for competence [26]) were matched. Values for the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the Web-based measure were calculated.


    Characteristics of the Trainee Therapists

    The mean age of the 93 trainee therapists who took part in the role-play based assessment was 42.7 (SD 9.6) years, and the majority (77 trainees) were female (83%). Their mean number of years of clinical experience was 15.0 (SD 9.65) with their professional backgrounds being as follows: 33 clinical psychologists (35%); 26 psychiatric nurses or nurse therapists (28%); 7 eating disorder therapists (8%); and 4 occupational therapists (4%). The remaining 23 trainee therapists (25%) came from a variety of other professional groups, including social workers, psychiatrists, and dietitians. Eighty-seven trainees (94%) encountered patients with eating disorders in their clinical practice, with 65 (75%) doing so regularly. A substantial majority of the trainees (78/93, 90%) also treated patients with eating disorders.

    Scenario and eMeasure Completion

    Of the 93 trainee therapists, there were 27 in the workshop-only training group, 36 in the workshop plus clinical supervision group, and 30 in the Web-based training. All the trainees completed at least one set of (3 different) scenarios, either before or after receiving training, with 24 therapists completing them before training only, 29 after training only, and 40 therapists completing scenarios both before and after training. Before training, 64 (24+40) trainees completed a set of scenarios and an accompanying eMeasure (both completed at the same time point, ie, time-matched), whereas after training 68 had a complete set of time-matched role-play and accompanying eMeasure score (1 eMeasure score was lost because of technical failure: 29+40−1). Results are reported separately for groups before training and after training.

    Of those who treated patients, 60 trainees (77%) rated that their performance moderately, or closely (a rating of 2 or 3 on the 0-3 scale), resembled their usual clinical performance.

    Agreement Between the Raters

    Overall, ratings of the mean Cohen kappa statistic for the binary ratings of competence (averaged over the 3 scenarios) were moderate, with a kappa of 0.51 over pairs of raters and with a Fleiss combined kappa of 0.52.

    ICCs assessing the reliability of the raters’ scores, assuming a single rater or average scores for more than 1 rater (as was the case for all competence ratings in this study), are shown in Table 2 (data include ratings given both before and after training). The mean (standard error, SE) scenario scores for each rater (rated on the 7-point rating scale) are shown along with the ICCs for each combination of raters, indicating fair-to-good agreement in all cases and excellent agreement in the majority of cases of the average ratings.

    Factors Contributing to Variance in Performance Scores

    Performance scores increased significantly from before to after training (mean difference 0.758, P<.001; effect size 0.51). After taking the repeated nature of the data into account, the adjusted mean difference remained highly significant (mean difference 0.667, P<.001) but with a smaller effect size at 0.33 (see Table 3).

    Before training, there was no significant difference in the mean rating scores of the 4 raters (P=.56, η2=0.005). Although there was a significant difference after training (P=.01), the value of η2was small (0.020). Although the main effect of rater was nonsignificant (P=.65), there was an overall effect of time (mean difference: 0.80, SE=0.091, P<.001) and a significant interaction between rater and time (P=.02). In the mixed model analyses adjusting for repeated data, the significant effect of time remained (mean difference: 0.79, SE=0.117, P<.001), and there was a significant interaction between time and rater (P=.03) but no significant overall effect of rater (P=.16).

    Using mixed model (variance components) analyses with fixed effects for time, patient type, and scenario, and random effects for trainee and rater, there was no significant effect of patient type (Patient A or B; P=.41), but there was a significant effect for scenario (P<.001), with 5 scenarios (scenarios 1, 2, 5, 9, and 10) given significantly lower ratings than the other 5 (mean difference: −0.48, SE=0.088), thus suggesting that they were more challenging than the others. Trainee therapists were, however, just as likely to receive these scenarios as the other potentially easier scenarios (with 505/984, 51.3% of scenario scores derived from the 5 less challenging ones).

    Table 2. Mean scenario scores and values of intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for agreement between groups of raters.
    View this table
    Table 3. Mean (standard error) and median scores of trainee therapists before and after training.
    View this table
    Table 4. Number of trainee therapists achieving competence as assessed by the skill (role-play) measure and the eMeasure.
    View this table

    Relationship Between the Web-Based Measure and the Role-Play Measure

    The ability of the Web-based measure (eMeasure), with an effect size of 0.46 for change following training, to predict competence on the role-play measure was assessed. The findings are shown in Table 4. Before training (64 trainee therapists), the sensitivity of the Web-based measure was 10% (2/21), whereas after training (68 trainee therapists) it was 67% (24/36). The figures for specificity were 100% (43/43) and 78% (25/32), respectively. NPV of the Web-based measure was 69% (43/62) before training and 68% (25/37) after training, and PPVs were 100% (2/2) and 77% (24/31), respectively. Thus, the majority of trainee therapists who were judged competent on the Web-based measure were also judged competent on the role-play measure.


    Principal Findings

    There are at least two components involved in assessing therapist competence: the assessment of their knowledge of the treatment concerned, including how and when to use its strategies and procedures, and an evaluation of their ability to apply such knowledge skillfully in practice. Using CBT-E as an exemplar, this paper describes the development and the evaluation of the performance of a role-play based measure of skill at delivering CBT-E designed as a complement to the previously developed and validated Web-based measure of applied knowledge [26]. It also reports results of a comparison of the performance of these measures at assessing therapist competence with particular emphasis on whether the more scalable Web-based measure was able to predict performance on the more time-consuming and complex role-play measure.

    The role-play based measure had a number of strengths. It assessed actual performance skill rather than mere knowledge and understanding; it was possible to test trainee therapists’ performance on a range of key CBT-E procedures; and it did this within an hour. Furthermore, it was found that trained raters could rate trainees’ performance with moderate-to-good agreement for binary ratings of competence between pairs of raters, and more importantly, good-to-excellent reliability for averaged competence. The measure was also sensitive to change, with scores being significantly higher after training than before, as might be expected. Of note, as well, the majority of the trainee therapists thought that their role-play performance resembled their everyday clinical practice. A further potential advantage is that the role-play measure could be used as a formative assessment to assess and improve performance during training. In the present context, it was used purely as a summative assessment measure, but it is clear that its design does not preclude its use as a formative assessment tool.

    The major shortcoming of the role-play–based measure was that it required considerable time and resources. This shortcoming is inherent in the method. Although the medical literature has long recognized that standardized patient evaluations are a good substitute for reality [6], they have also been recognized as complex to devise and expensive to implement [17], especially when the need to devise relatively long and comprehensive assessments is taken into account [14].

    The relationship between the scores on the Web-based measure of applied knowledge and those on the role-play measure is therefore of importance, given the ease of use and scalability of the former. It was found that the Web-based measure had a PPV of 77% after training. Thus, the majority of those judged competent on the Web-based measure were also found to be competent on the role-play measure. As role-play tasks are generally accepted as simulating reality well and the therapists regarded their performance as being representative of their clinical practice, it seems reasonable to take estimates of competence on the Web-based measure as a good substitute for a skill-based measure.


    Some limitations of this work need to be recognized. First, despite recruiting almost 100 trainee therapists to help evaluate the performance-based measure, a larger sample might have allowed further refinement of the role-play measure by allowing reassessment of its performance after modifications. Ideally, all scenarios would be of equal difficulty or the difficulty level of the scenarios could be better ranked for use in further competence testing. Larger numbers of trainees tested would also have potentially strengthened confidence in the results of the comparison of trainees’ performance on the 2 measures. Second, although cut points for competence by their very nature require expert judgments, it would have been preferable to validate these against treatment outcome. However, obtaining such data presents considerable practical obstacles. Third, we have used just one treatment as an exemplar. It cannot be assumed that similar findings would be obtained with all psychological treatments. Fourth, while establishing competence at a given time (eg, passing a driving test) may make ongoing high-quality performance both feasible and more likely, it does not ensure it (consistent high-quality driving). Thus, there is a need to complement the assessment of competence, required for training outcome, with the assessment of the quality of therapists’ performance over time. This is especially important to combat the well-documented phenomenon of “therapist drift” [38,13]. Finally, whereas the cost of an easily administered Web-based measure that can be scored automatically is likely to be less than more traditional and labor-intensive method of assessing competence, a formal study of cost-effectiveness was unfortunately beyond the scope of this work.


    In summary, this study describes the development and testing of a performance-based measure of skill at delivering CBT-E. Although the measure performed reasonably well, it had inherent disadvantages in terms of scalability. It is therefore of considerable interest that the Web-based measure of applied knowledge of CBT-E was relatively efficient at predicting competence as assessed by the role-play measure. This indicates that the scalable Web-based measure could be used in certain circumstances to assess the outcome of training in CBT-E.


    This research was supported by a Strategic Award from the Wellcome Trust, London (094585). CGF is supported by a Principal Research Fellowship (046386). We are grateful for their support. We are grateful to Katy Sivyer who oversaw the initial data entry and to Eleanor Pettit, Priya Kochuparampil, Emily Rothwell, and Vanessa Peynenburg for rating the role-play assessments.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.


    1. Beidas RS, Kendall PC. Training therapists in evidence-based practice: a critical review of studies from a systems-contextual perspective. Clin Psychol (New York) 2010 Mar;17(1):1-30 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    2. Muse K, McManus F. A systematic review of methods for assessing competence in cognitive-behavioural therapy. Clin Psychol Rev 2013 Apr;33(3):484-499. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. McHugh RK, Barlow DH. The dissemination and implementation of evidence-based psychological treatments. A review of current efforts. Am Psychol 2010;65(2):73-84. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. Barber JP, Sharpless BA, Klostermann S, McCarthy KS. Assessing intervention competence and its relation to therapy outcome: a selected review derived from the outcome literature. Prof Psychol Res Pr 2007;38(5):493-500. [CrossRef]
    5. Fairburn CG, Cooper Z. Therapist competence, therapy quality, and therapist training. Behav Res Ther 2011 Jun;49(6-7):373-378 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. Miller GE. The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Acad Med 1990 Sep;65(9 Suppl):S63-S67. [Medline]
    7. McHugh RK, Barlow DH. Training in evidence-based psychological interventions. In: McHugh RK, Barlow DH, editors. Dissemination and Implementation of Evidence-Based Psychological Interventions. New York: Oxford University Press; 2012:43-58.
    8. Haladyna TM. Developing and Validating Multiple-choice Test Items. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence erlbaum associates; 2004.
    9. Kazdin AE. Implementation and evaluation of treatments for children and adolescents with conduct problems: findings, challenges, and future directions. Psychother Res 2016:1-15. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. Young J, Beck AT. Members.academyofct. 1980. Cognitive therapy scale rating manual   URL: [accessed 2017-10-25] [WebCite Cache]
    11. Young J, Beck A. Cognitive Therapy Scale: Rating Manual. Philadelphia: Unpubl Manuscr; 1988.
    12. Blackburn IM, James IA, Milne DL, Baker C, Standart S, Garland A, et al. The Revised Cognitive Therapy Scale (CTS-R): psychometric properties. Behav Cogn Psychother 2001 Oct;29(4):431-446. [CrossRef]
    13. Waller G, Turner H. Therapist drift redux: why well-meaning clinicians fail to deliver evidence-based therapy, and how to get back on track. Behav Res Ther 2016 Feb;77:129-137. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    14. van der Vleuten CP, Schuwirth LW, Scheele F, Driessen EW, Hodges B. The assessment of professional competence: building blocks for theory development. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2010 Dec;24(6):703-719. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Ginzburg DM, Bohn C, Höfling V, Weck F, Clark DM, Stangier U. Treatment specific competence predicts outcome in cognitive therapy for social anxiety disorder. Behav Res Ther 2012 Dec;50(12):747-752 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. von Consbruch K, Clark DM, Stangier U. Assessing therapeutic competence in cognitive therapy for social phobia: psychometric properties of the cognitive therapy competence scale for social phobia (CTCS-SP). Behav Cogn Psychother 2012 Mar;40(2):149-161. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    17. Hodges BD, Hollenberg E, McNaughton N, Hanson MD, Regehr G. The Psychiatry OSCE: a 20-year retrospective. Acad Psychiatry 2014 Feb;38(1):26-34. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Ruzek JI, Rosen RC, Garvert DW, Smith LD, Sears KC, Marceau L, et al. Online self-administered training of PTSD treatment providers in cognitive-behavioral intervention skills: results of a randomized controlled trial. J Trauma Stress 2014 Dec;27(6):703-711. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Beidas RS, Maclean JC, Fishman J, Dorsey S, Schoenwald SK, Mandell DS, et al. A randomized trial to identify accurate and cost-effective fidelity measurement methods for cognitive-behavioral therapy: project FACTS study protocol. BMC Psychiatry 2016 Sep 15;16(1):323 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Beidas RS, Edmunds JM, Marcus SC, Kendall PC. Training and consultation to promote implementation of an empirically supported treatment: a randomized trial. Psychiatr Serv 2012 Jul;63(7):660-665 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Dimeff LA, Harned MS, Woodcock EA, Skutch JM, Koerner K, Linehan MM. Investigating bang for your training buck: a randomized controlled trial comparing three methods of training clinicians in two core strategies of dialectical behavior therapy. Behav Ther 2015 May;46(3):283-295. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    22. Fairburn CG, Cooper Z, Shafran R. Cognitive behaviour therapy for eating disorders: a “transdiagnostic” theory and treatment. Behav Res Ther 2003 May;41(5):509-528. [Medline]
    23. Fairburn CG, Cooper Z, Doll HA, O'Connor ME, Bohn K, Hawker DM, et al. Transdiagnostic cognitive-behavioral therapy for patients with eating disorders: a two-site trial with 60-week follow-up. Am J Psychiatry 2009 Mar;166(3):311-319 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Fairburn CG, Bailey-Straebler S, Basden S, Doll HA, Jones R, Murphy R, et al. A transdiagnostic comparison of enhanced cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT-E) and interpersonal psychotherapy in the treatment of eating disorders. Behav Res Ther 2015 Jul;70:64-71 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Fairburn CG. Cognitive Behavior Therapy and Eating Disorders. New York: The Guilford Press; 2008.
    26. Cooper Z, Doll H, Bailey-Straebler S, Kluczniok D, Murphy R, O'Connor ME, et al. The development of an online measure of therapist competence. Behav Res Ther 2015 Jan;64:43-48 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. Bridge PD, Musial J, Frank R, Roe T, Sawilowsky S. Measurement practices: methods for developing content-valid student examinations. Med Teach 2003 Jul;25(4):414-421. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Coderre S, Woloschuk W, McLaughlin K. Twelve tips for blueprinting. Med Teach 2009 Apr;31(4):322-324. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Setyonugroho W, Kennedy KM, Kropmans TJ. Reliability and validity of OSCE checklists used to assess the communication skills of undergraduate medical students: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns 2015 Jun 27;98(12):1482-1491. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. Hodges B, Regehr G, McNaughton N, Tiberius R, Hanson M. OSCE checklists do not capture increasing levels of expertise. Acad Med 1999 Oct;74(10):1129-1134. [Medline]
    31. Norman G. Editorial--checklists vs. ratings, the illusion of objectivity, the demise of skills and the debasement of evidence. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2005;10(1):1-3. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Martino S, Paris Jr M, Añez L, Nich C, Canning-Ball M, Hunkele K, et al. The effectiveness and cost of clinical supervision for motivational interviewing: a randomized controlled trial. J Subst Abuse Treat 2016 Sep;68:11-23. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    33. Martino S, Ball SA, Nich C, Frankforter TL, Carroll KM. Community program therapist adherence and competence in motivational enhancement therapy. Drug Alcohol Depend 2008 Jul 1;96(1-2):37-48 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    34. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977 Mar;33(1):159-174. [Medline]
    35. Fleiss JL. Design and Analysis of Clinical Experiments. New York: Wiley Classical Library; 1999.
    36. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
    37. Webb N, Shavelson R. Generalizability theory: overview. In: Inveritt BS, Howell D, editors. Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons; 2005:717-719.
    38. Rosen RC, Ruzek JI, Karlin BE. Evidence-based training in the era of evidence-based practice: challenges and opportunities for training of PTSD providers. Behav Res Ther 2017 Jan;88:37-48. [CrossRef] [Medline]


    ANOVA: analysis of variance
    CBT: cognitive behavioral therapy
    CBT-E: enhanced cognitive behavioral therapy
    CTS: Cognitive Therapy Scale
    CTS-R: revised Cognitive Therapy Scale
    ICCs: intraclass correlation coefficients
    NPV: negative predictive value
    PPV: positive predictive value
    SD: standard deviation
    SE: standard error

    Edited by G Eysenbach; submitted 15.03.17; peer-reviewed by J Ruzek, A Thaw, K Muse, F Mcmanus; comments to author 12.07.17; revised version received 01.09.17; accepted 20.09.17; published 31.10.17

    ©Zafra Cooper, Helen Doll, Suzanne Bailey-Straebler, Kristin Bohn, Dian de Vries, Rebecca Murphy, Marianne E O'Connor, Christopher G Fairburn. Originally published in JMIR Mental Health (, 31.10.2017.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Mental Health, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.