Table 2.

Clinical and evaluative measures used in pilot studies.

Type	Description	Administration in Pilot 1	Administration in Pilot 2
Outcome measures and clinical tools	The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, Ford, Simmons, Gatward, & Meltzer, 2000) is a 25-item self-report measure of youth mental health. A Total Difficulties score is derived and an Impact Supplement measures associated distress and functional impairment, with an additional descriptive item on chronicity of difficulties. Borderline and abnormal cut-offs were calculated based on the top 20% and 10% of scores obtained for a normative reference sample in India (Bhola, Sathyanarayanan, Rekha, Daniel, & Thomas, 2016)	Counsellor at baseline; researcher at end of intervention	Researcher at baseline/end of intervention
	The SDQ Session by Session (SxS) (Hall et al., 2014, 2015) measure is a modified form of the SDQ Impact Supplement that is intended for intervention progress monitoring. Self-rated items assess adolescents' perceptions of recent improvement, impacts of problems on everyday life in the present and anticipated improvement in the future.	Counsellor at each face-to-face contact where the full SDQ was not used	–
	The Youth Top Problems (YTP; Weisz et al., 2011) is an idiographic measure that identifies, prioritises and scores adolescents' three main problems. Each of the nominated problems is scored from 0 (not at all) to 10 (very much), reflecting the extent to which it is a current concern. A mean score is calculated across the nominated problems. The measure has been validated in US clinical populations, where it shows strong evidence of test–retest reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and sensitivity to change. It was used in Pilot 1 as a screening and outcome measure, and in Pilot 2 as an outcome measure only.	Counsellor at each face-to-face contact	Researcher at baseline/end of intervention
	The Session Feedback Questionnaire (SFQ; Law & Wolpert, 2014) is an ultra-brief 4-item self-report measure of therapeutic alliance, which uses a 5-point Likert scale to assess (i) relational bond between the counsellor and young person, (ii) agreement on session topics, (iii) understanding of session content, and (iv) utility of session content. It is widely used in clinical practice with adolescents in the UK, and also has the advantage of being freely available (unlike similar measures which are only available under paid license). It was used in Pilot 1 to assess the quality of therapeutic alliance over time.	Counsellor at each face-to-face contact	–
Process indicators	An 8-item self-report measure of service satisfaction (Larsen, Attkisson, Hargreaves & Nguyen, 1979) was used to obtain a summative index of intervention acceptability. Total scores range from 8 to 32 (higher scores = greater satisfaction). An established 4-level categorisation system (Smith et al., 2014) was used to benchmark different levels of satisfaction: poor (8–13), fair (14–19), good (20–25) and excellent (26–32).	Researcher at end of intervention	–
	Additional acceptability indicators were derived from referral logs and clinical case records. These were operationalised in terms of demand (numbers and proportions of referred adolescents by referral source/age/grade/gender); uptake (proportion of eligible adolescents participating in at least one session); intervention completion (as a proportion of adolescents starting the intervention), and reasons for non-completion; session attendance (as a proportion of all scheduled sessions); use of materials at home/in sessions, and factors affecting use. Feasibility indicators for intervention delivery were operationalised in terms of number/duration of sessions and length of the completed intervention.	Counsellor (routinely maintained)	Counsellor (routinely maintained)
Qualitative interviews	Individual exit interviews with adolescents were based on a semi-structured topic guide. This examined valued aspects of the intervention; barriers and facilitators to intervention delivery and engagement; and positive and negative outcomes. N = 21 adolescents were purposively sampled to ensure representation across schools, grades and gender.	Researcher, 1–2 weeks after end of intervention	–
	A focus group discussion with counsellors examined the same domains as the adolescent exit interview, with an additional focus on suggested modifications to the intervention. New Delhi counsellors (n = 3) participated alongside other providers with experience of delivering the intervention in Goa (n = 4). Data were recorded using detailed process notes; these were circulated among intervention team members to provide further annotations.	Researcher, mid-way through study	–