Table 2.

Generalized difference-in-differences analyses testing study hypotheses

	Consequents
	EBP implementation climate			Clinician use of EBP			Clinician use of non-EBP
Exposures and controls	B	SE	p	B	SE	p	B	SE	p
High EBP implementation climate				.23	.08	.007	.08	.08	.311
High implementation leadership	.48	.19	.017	− .03	.10	.740	− .06	.10	.545
Transformational leadership	− .08	.21	.697	− .08	.10	.425	− .18	.10	.095
Molar organizational climate	.02	.01	.087	− .01	.01	.335	.01	.01	.248
Clinicians’ average years of experience	− .02	.02	.343	.03	.01	.007	.02	.01	.037
Cohen’s d	.92			.55			.25

K = 73 observations across N = 30 organizations. These are two-way fixed effects regression models. Exposures for implementation leadership and EBP implementation climate are coded as Low = 0 and High = 1 based on a median split. EBP evidence-based practice. EBP use is measured as clinicians’ use of cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy techniques; non-EBP use is measured as clinicians’ use of psychodynamic psychotherapy techniques. The indirect effect of exposure to improved implementation leadership on clinicians’ EBP use via improved EBP implementation climate is d = .26