Alvarez 2010.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods | Study design: quasi‐randomised controlled trial Unit of allocation: participant Unit of analysis: participant Adjustment for clustering: no (participants received the intervention in groups. The composition of groupings was not reported.) | |
| Participants | Location: Nevada, USA Setting: not reported Sample size calculation: not reported Sample size: 55 mental health professionals with a Bachelor’s level degree or higher and graduate students in mental health programs (i.e. psychology, educational psychology, counselling, social work) (Alvarez 2010, p 213); intervention group n and control group n not reported Mean age (SD): (i) intervention group = 40 (10.9) years, (ii) control group = 36.6 (12.4) years (Alvarez 2010, p 213) Gender: (i) intervention group = 88.9% women, (ii) control group = 77.8% women (Alvarez 2010, p 213) Race/ethnicity: (i) intervention group = 80.8% Caucasian (understood to be white), (ii) control group = 74.1% Caucasian (understood to be white) (Alvarez 2010, p 213) Years of experience: not reported Previous child protection training: not reported Previous experience with child maltreatment reporting: (i) intervention group = 51.9% yes, (ii) control group = 59.3% yes (Alvarez 2010, p 213) Baseline equivalence: authors report no statistical differences between participants in the intervention and control conditions prior to receiving training (Alvarez 2010, p 213) | |
| Interventions | Name: child maltreatment reporting workshop (Alvarez 2010, p 215) Contents: (i) how to involve caregivers in the reporting process, (ii) systematic dissemination of state and federal laws relevant to reporting suspected child maltreatment, (iii) common indicators of child maltreatment, (iv) common misconceptions resulting in failure to report suspected child maltreatment (Alvarez 2010, p 213), (v) empirically supported procedures to assist in making a child maltreatment report (Alvarez 2010, p 215), and (vi) prevalence rates of child maltreatment (Alvarez 2008, pp 51‐2) Processes and teaching methods: (i) presentation of training agenda, (ii) presentation of information, (iii) modelling in videotaped role‐play scenario, (iv) practice of techniques in role plays, (v) group discussion, and (vi) questions and answers (Alvarez 2008, p 51‐2) Delivery mode: face‐to‐face workshop Trainers and qualifications: non‐licensed graduate students at Master's level enrolled in a clinical psychology doctoral programme (Alvarez 2010, p 215) Duration: 2 hours (Alvarez 2008, p 56) Intensity: not reported Intervention integrity: workshop facilitators and blinded independent raters completed protocol checklists (Alvarez 2010, p 215) Comparison condition: alternative training (cultural sensitivity workshop) (Alvarez 2010, p 215) | |
| Outcomes |
Eligible measures (outcome domain)
Ineligible measures (reason): clinical expertise in reporting suspected child maltreatment (measures skills in safeguarding therapeutic relationships; not listed in protocol for this review), comprising 15 items with multiple‐choice response options for each item (Alvarez 2010, p 214) Timing of outcome assessment: pre‐test (immediately before training), post‐test (immediately after training) (Alvarez 2010, p 215) |
|
| Notes | Funding: National Institute on Drug Abuse (1R01DA020548‐01A1) Author contact: yes | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk |
Comment: inadequate description of the generation of the randomised sequence Quote: "on completion of baseline measures, participants were randomly assigned to one of two workshops" (Alvarez 2010, p 215) |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Comment: method of concealment not reported by study authors |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Comment: performance bias due to lack of blinding, and therefore likely knowledge of the allocated intervention by participants and personnel during the study, which may have influenced subjective study outcomes (i.e. self‐report measures) |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | Comment: detection bias due to knowledge of the allocated intervention by outcome assessors, and outcome measurement is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding (pre‐post self‐report measures tied closely to intervention purpose) |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Comment: 1 participant was excluded from analyses due to inability to complete the postintervention measure; however, authors do not report the participant's allocation condition (Alvarez 2010, p 212) |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Comment: study protocol not available; however, the published report, Alvarez 2010, and unpublished report, Alvarez 2008, are consistent |
| Other bias | High risk | Comment: additional potential sources of bias related to the specific study design have been identified |
| Reliability of outcome measures (measurement bias) | High risk | Comment: low internal consistency for eligible outcomes measured by the Knowledge of Child Maltreatment Reporting Laws Inventory (α = 0.18) and Recognition and Intent to Report Child Maltreatment Inventory (α = 0.10); however, test‐retest reliability was acceptable for both measures (r = 0.88 for both) (Alvarez 2008, p 288) |
| Group comparability (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Comment: no statistically significant differences between conditions at baseline on demographic variables, which is supported by report of data between conditions and formal statistical testing. No formal assessment of comparability on primary and secondary outcomes at baseline. Across conditions at baseline, mean scores < 1‐point difference. The Knowledge of Child Maltreatment Reporting Laws Inventory had a range of 0 to 15, and the Recognition and Intent to Report Child Maltreatment Inventory had a range of 0 to 48 (Alvarez 2010, p 214). |
| Contamination (contamination bias) | Unclear risk | Comment: unclear whether control and experimental participants worked in the same setting, thereby potentially leading to contamination |