Table 3.
Continuous variable analyses testing study hypotheses
| Consequents | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EBP implementation climate | Clinician use of EBP | Clinician use of non-EBP | |||||||
| Antecedents | B | SE | p | B | SE | p | B | SE | p |
| EBP implementation climate | .36 | .13 | .009 | .10 | .13 | .424 | |||
| Implementation leadership | .44 | .14 | .004 | − .00 | .12 | .976 | − .13 | .12 | .305 |
| Transformational leadership | − .10 | .16 | .546 | − .15 | .13 | .245 | − .12 | .13 | .359 |
| Molar organizational climate | .01 | .01 | .101 | − .01 | .01 | .239 | .01 | .01 | .179 |
| Clinicians’ average years of experience | − .02 | .01 | .197 | .03 | .01 | .011 | .02 | .01 | .030 |
| Model R2 | .59 | .33 | .19 | ||||||
K = 73 observations across N = 30 organizations. These are two-way fixed effects regression models which estimate the conditional, within-organization effect of change in each antecedent variable on change in the consequent, controlling for all other variables in the model as well as population trends in the consequent over time and all stable organizational characteristics. 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. Indirect effect of implementation leadership on clinician EBP use via EBP implementation climate = .16 (95% CI = .03 to .33)