Table 3.
Interobserver agreement | Procedural integrity | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Participant | Sessions (%) | Mean (%) | Range (%) | Sessions (%) | Mean (%) | Range (%) |
Luisa | 20.0% | 100% | 100% | 20.0% | 100% | 100% |
Keysha | 91.3% | 99.2% | 83.3–100% | 91.3% | 96.8% | 50.0–100%* |
Dolores | 27.7% | 98.7% | 83.3–100% | 27.7% | 100% | 100% |
Julieta | 75.7% | 100% | 100% | 81.1% | 98.8% | 66.7–100%* |
Keion | 88.0% | 100% | 100% | 88.0% | 99.5% | 66.7–100%* |
Imani | 75.0% | 99.6% | 83.3–100% | 75.0% | 98.9% | 50.0–100%** |
Percent of sessions with IOA, mean IOA, and range of IOA are shown in the left-most columns. Percent of sessions with procedural integrity, mean integrity, and range of integrity are shown in the right-most columns. *One session fell below 80% fidelity. **Two sessions fell below 80% fidelity