Category	“Best Practice”	Competent	Inadequate
1.Name	Clearly names intervention and provides alternative names that may be associated with the intervention, (e.g., The Listening Program and auditory integration training) and links to resources that provide specific, in-depth information about the intervention.	Provides only the name of the specific intervention being described and links to resources that provide specific, in-depth information about the intervention.	Does not clearly name intervention nor provide links to resources.
2.Theory: “Why it works”	Clearly describes the theoretical model(s) and tenets that were used to develop the intervention, including: the hypothesized causal mechanism that the intervention addresses evidence supporting the theoretical model assumptions and beliefs, key tenets of the model used to develop the intervention evidence of the hypothesized causal mechanism	Identifies the theoretical model used to develop the intervention, including: evidence supporting the theoretical model Assumptions, beliefs and key tenets of the theoretical model	Labels the theoretical model used to develop the intervention.
3.Population “For Whom it Works”	Clearly describes what population should be considered and/or ruled out as potential candidates for this intervention Provides level of evidence to support inclusion/exclusion criteria	Labels and describes what clinical population would benefit and not benefit from this intervention.	Provides only minimal information on inclusion/exclusion for intervention
4.Assessment and Measuring the Impact of Intervention	Clearly describes a “best practice” aspects of measuring outcomes of intervention, including: Identifies constructs that need be measured Differential diagnosis tools and scores to indicate when client should or should not apply the intervention Provides specific assessments tools and process Identification of psychometrically sound tools with known applicability, reliability, and validity Using the ICF Framework, identify the measurement construct that are indicators of change that are theorized to be changed by the intervention (e.g., Body Function/structure (strength), Activity, Participation, Environmental Factors, QoL) Identify and describe the standardized subjective and objective measures that might be used, including psychometrics and appropriate use of the measures (clinical interpretations of the score) Describe “best practice” for non-standardized measures (e.g., clinical data indicators)	Provides major indicators that should be monitored for measuring the impact of the intervention. Names standardized measures, does not discuss the psychometrics or how the score influences intervention development	Does not provide any information on measuring the impact of the intervention.
Intervention Process “Key elements of Intervention”	Clearly describes a theorized or evidence of the process by which the intervention causes the change.	Based on a broad theory (e.g., dynamic systems, diffusion of innovation, etc.), and/or heavy reliance on values and beliefs.	Does not address.
5.Clinical Reasoning	Clearly describes important indicators that should be considered while reflecting on the client-intervention- outcome process. Clearly describes all of alternative interventions which should be considered and ruled out due to clinical and/or client characteristics (e.g., consistent with differential diagnosis)	Highlights some indicators that should be considered while reflecting on client-intervention- outcome process. Identifies some alternatives interventions which should be considered.	Does not provide any indicators that should be considered while reflecting on client-intervention- outcome process. Does not identify any alternative interventions which should be considered.
6.Evidence “What Works”	Peer-reviewed Evidence Clearly describes the strength of evidence to support using this intervention with each population Provides citation Is the intervention cited in a “best practice” guideline, provides strength of evidence? Clinical Evidence Provides clear synthesis of clinical evidence	Peer-reviewed Evidence Uses multiple person/multiple site narratives/clinical experience to describe the client change experienced when using this intervention. Clinical Evidence Describes a systematic outcomes data collection system, including the list of data points collected, however only some clinical outcomes data provided	Peer-reviewed Evidence No peer-reviewed evidence is provided, reliance on expert opinion and personal experience Clinical Evidence Anecdotal experience with general description of client outcomes and heavy reliance on goal achievement (unstandardized and/or lacks evidence of reliability/validity, limited interpretability of change scores)