Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jan 31.
Published in final edited form as: Child Youth Care Forum. 2014 Aug 7;44(1):133–157. doi: 10.1007/s10566-014-9274-x

Table 3.

Operationally defined natural decision-making theory terms and constructs measured for clinical psychology.

Natural Decision-Making Process
E= Experts, N= Novice
Form of Assessment in this MH Study

Number of questions (summated per verbal protocol and averaged across vignettes)

Qualitative description of questions
Type of Reasoning:
E=Forward reasoning (demonstrated by asking few relevant
questions)

N=Backward reasoning (demonstrated by asking many irrelevant and relevant questions)
Organization of Information & Deriving Hypotheses
(Diagnoses)
E=Highly organized & accurate (generate minimal hypotheses-diagnoses with accuracy)

N=Poorly organized & less accurate (generate many
hypotheses-multiple diagnoses with inaccuracy)
Number of diagnoses
(summated all unique diagnoses stated and
averaged across vignettes)
% DBD Dx (DBD, ODD, CD, DBD NOS)
% each diagnostic classification
(Mood D/Os, Anxiety D/Os, ADHD, LD &
Other-Attachment D/O, Substance D/Os) (%s
summated for each vignette)
Attention to Information and Level of Abstraction:
E=High abstraction (attend to relevant information and high
level of abstraction-attend to child factors such as symptoms)

N=Low abstraction (attend to all information, focusing on
detail and low level of abstraction- attend to child, parent and
family factors such as context)
Total Number of factors attended to of any type
(across all vignettes)
Mean Number of Child factors attended to
(averaged across vignettes)*
Mean Number of Parent factors attended to
(averaged across vignettes)
Mean Number of Family factors attended to
(averaged across vignettes)
Finding a solution:
E=Timely solution, Effective solution (clearly stating use of an
effective treatment, providing details with rationale)

N=Extended time in generating solution or no solution,
Ineffective solution (stating use of ineffective treatment or
vague statement of treatment, providing limited to no details or
rationale)
% time discussing treatment
(# of treatment lines divided by total lines of
protocol and averaged across vignettes)

Score of treatment extensiveness (assigned
rating between 1–5 and averaged across
vignettes)
Incorporating Actuarial Information:
E= Incorporate actuarial information with individual’s
characteristics and demonstrate flexibility in applying it (use of
EBT and standardized assessments)

N= Unsure how to incorporate actuarial information with an
individual’s characteristic and challenged by applying it
flexibly (no use of EBT or standardized assessments)
Mean % of treatment plans including EBT
(across all vignettes per clinician: PCIT, PMT,
PSST, MST, IY. CBT)§

Number of Standardized Assessments
indicated

Notes: DBD= disruptive behavior disorder, ODD= Oppositional Defiant Disorder, CD= Conduct Disorder, NOS= Not Otherwise Specified, ADHD= Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, LD= Learning Disorder, Dx = Diagnosis, D/O = Disorder;

*

A total of 6 child factors were reported for this study from clinician responses and included: 1) relationships with peers, 2) disruptive behaviors at home, 3) disruptive behaviors at school, 4) psychological or school testing/assessment, 5) academic performance, and 6) social skills,

A coding scheme developed in a previous study (Baker-Ericzén, Jenkins, et al., 2010) was used to code the occurrence of a set of 7 parent and 18 family factors,

treatment plan scored 1 had limited detail (i.e. broad description of treatment plan with short explanation), a plan scored 5 had details and explanations (i.e. the treatment was labeled, explained, and described in detail with defined steps or strategies). EBT= evidence-based treatment, PCIT= Parent Child Interaction Therapy, PMT= Parent Management Training, PSST= Problem Solving Skills Training, MST= Multisystemic Therapy, IY= Incredible Years Parent Training, CBT= Cognitive-Behavior Therapy

§

EBT determined from published lists according to EST definition (Eyberg, et al., 2008; Ollendick & King, 2004; Warren, et al., 2010).