Testing a Measurement Feedback App to Improve Data Quality, Supervision & Outcomes in Behavioral Health
Trial statusRecruiting
Trial phaseNot applicable
Trial typeInterventional
Biological sexAll
Age18+
SponsorUniversity of Pennsylvania
About this trial
The goal of this clinical trial is to test whether a smartphone-based data collection and feedback application ("Footsteps") improves the quality of behavioral data collected by one-to-one aides and leads to better youth mental health outcomes in school-aged youth (ages 4-17) who receive one-to-one support in schools.
The main questions it aims to answer are:
1. Does the Footsteps app improve aides' data collection quality (i.e., consistency, timeliness, and completeness)? 2. Does Footsteps use lead to improved youth behavioral health outcomes (e.g., SDQ, YTP scores)? 3. Does Footsteps improve communication and supervision processes between aides and clinical supervisors?
Researchers will compare aides using Footsteps to those using a "data collection only" control app to see if Footsteps leads to higher quality data collection, enhanced supervisory communication, and better youth outcomes.
Participants will:
* Use either Footsteps or a control app to record de-identified data on one client's behaviors and skills over 12 weeks * Complete biweekly online surveys about data collection experiences, youth progress, and aide-supervisor communication * Participate in a virtual intake and post-trial meeting * (For a subset) Participate in a 30-45 minute qualitative interview about their experience using the app
Eligibility criteria
This trial accepts healthy volunteersQualifiers
Aides must be working with at least one client in school who meets the following criteria: 1) between 3-17 years, 2) has a diagnosis associated with a challenging behavior (e.g., autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder) as indicated on their treatment plan, and 3) receiving 1:1 aide support.
Supervisors must be employed by a community behavior health agency and supervise a participating aide. The investigators will recruit supervisors in dyads and not triads (i.e., no supervisors with two [or more] aides) to ensure there are 30 supervisor-aide dyads in total).
Disqualifiers
Aides who participated in the pilot trial of the Footsteps will be excluded from participating to recruit a sample naïve to Footsteps and the control app.
Trial design
Design model
Parallel
Treatments tested in this trial
Behavioral economics strategies
BehavioralBehavioral economics features designed to increase motivation to collect data and ease of data collection on the electronic platform.
Electronic platform
DeviceElectronic platform to collect data
Treatment groups
200 Participants
are divided into 2 treatment groupsGroup A: Footsteps (Enhancements)Experimental treatment 2 interventions
Group B: Data Collection Only App (No Enhancements)Active comparator 1 intervention
Trial outcomes
Primary outcomes
1
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire total score
A behavioral screening tool used to assess psychological attributes in children and adolescents, leading to a total score of 0 to 40. A higher total score indicates greater difficulties in emotional and behavioral functioning, while lower scores suggest fewer difficulties.
Time frame
Assessed monthly (Baseline; Weeks 4, 8, and 12)2
Data collection consistency
an aggregate of the numbers of intervals scheduled, and the numbers of those intervals in which data was entered (% real time data)
Time frame
Assessed throughout 12-week trial3
Data collection timeliness
for intervals in which data was entered, the time lag between occurrence and data entry
Time frame
Assessed throughout 12-week trialSecondary outcomes
1
Data collection completeness
intervals classified as complete or incomplete according to whether the aide collected their planned metrics as required by their agency (% goals targeted)
Time frame
Assessed throughout 12-week trial2
Youth Top Problems
Top problems identified during intake meeting. Severity of each problem is rated from 0 (not a problem) to 4 (a very big problem). Severity ratings can be tracked for each problem individually or as an overall mean severity score created by averaging ratings from the same informant at the same measurement occasion
Time frame
Assessed biweekly, at baseline through 12-week trialOther outcomes
1
Intentions for Implementors
The investigators adapted scales to measure mechanisms affecting data collection, including intentions, using social psychology methods (Armitage \& Connor, 2001). The intentions measure had one item, which was rated from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree. Strongly agree meant stronger intentions to take data. Aides completed measures at baseline and post-trial (3 weeks). Data reported are changes over time.
Time frame
Assessed biweekly, at baseline through 12-week trial2
Attitudes for Implementors
The investigators adapted scales to measure mechanisms affecting data collection, including attitudes, using social psychology methods (Armitage \& Connor, 2001). The attitudes measure had one item, which was rated from 1=good to 7=bad (meaning that taking data would be bad). Attitudes had 2 items. These items were averaged to create the scale score which could range from 1 to 7 for each measure. Aides completed measures at baseline and post-trial (3 weeks). Data reported are changes over time.
Time frame
Assessed biweekly, at baseline and through 12-week trial3
Perceived Norms for Implementors
The investigators adapted scales to measure mechanisms affecting data collection, including perceived norms, using social psychology methods (Armitage \& Connor, 2001). The perceived norms measure had one item, which was rated from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree. Strongly agree meant stronger influence of norms on taking data. Aides completed measures at baseline and post-trial (3 weeks). Data reported are changes over time.
Time frame
Assessed biweekly, at baseline through 12-week trial4
Descriptive Norms for Implementors
The investigators adapted scales to measure mechanisms affecting data collection, including descriptive norms, using social psychology methods (Armitage \& Connor, 2001). The perceived norms measure had one item, which was rated from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree. Strongly agree meant stronger influence of norms on taking data. Aides completed measures at baseline and post-trial (3 weeks). Data reported are changes over time.
Time frame
Assessed biweekly, at baseline through 12-week trialSponsors and contacts
Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.
University of Pennsylvania
Lead sponsor
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
Collaborator
Source ClinicalTrials.gov