TPC-Journal-V4-Issue5

The Professional Counselor \Volume 4, Issue 5 474 Table 2 shows that level of postintervention CSE significantly predicted the following postintervention variables: SMHQAQ quality of services ( R 2 = .328, F [60] = 29.34, p < .001); knowledge of EBP for ADHD ( R 2 = .205, F [46] = 11.54, p = .001), depression ( R 2 = .288, F [46]= 18.17, p < .001), DBD ( R 2 = .236, F [46]= 13.92, p = .001) and anxiety ( R 2 = .201, F [46]= 10.81, p = .002); usage of EBP specific to treating depression ( R 2 = .301, F [46]= 19.34, p < .001); and total knowledge of EBP ( R 2 = .297, F [44] = 18.20, p < .001). Results further indicated that postintervention CSE was not a significant predictor of usage of EBP for ADHD ( R 2 = .010, F [45] = .457, p = .502), DBD ( R 2 = .024, F [45] = 1.100, p = .300) and anxiety ( R 2 = .075, F [43] = 3.487, p = .069); and total usage of EBP ( R 2 = .090, F [43] = 4.244, p = .045). Table 2 Results of Linear Regressions Between Level of Postintervention CSE and Outcome Variables Variables Beta R 2 Adjusted R 2 F p SMH Quality 0.573 0.328 0.317 29.337 0.000 EBPADHD – Knowledge 0.452 0.205 0.187 11.583 0.001 EBPADHD – Usage 0.100 0.010 –0.012 0.457 0.502 EBP Depression – Knowledge 0.536 0.288 0.272 18.168 0.000 EBP Depression – Usage 0.548 0.301 0.285 19.337 0.000 EBP DBD – Knowledge 0.486 0.236 0.219 13.922 0.001 EBP DBD – Usage 0.154 0.024 0.002 1.100 0.300 EBPAnxiety – Knowledge 0.448 0.201 0.182 10.811 0.002 EBPAnxiety – Usage 0.274 0.075 0.053 3.487 0.069 EBP Total Knowledge 0.545 0.297 0.281 18.197 0.000 EBP Total Usage 0.300 0.900 0.069 4.244 0.045 Note . To control for experiment-wise error, a Bonferroni correction was used and significance was evaluated at the 0.0045 level. Discussion While there has been some previous examination of the association between training and CSE, results have been mixed (see Larson & Daniels, 1998), and no such evaluations have been conducted within the context of SMH services. The current study stemmed from a larger evaluation of a framework to enhance the quality of SMH, targeting quality service provision, EBP, and enhancement of family engagement and empowerment (see Weist et al., 2009). The present study had two primary aims. The first goal was to evaluate differences in level of CSE from pre- to postintervention between two groups of SMH clinicians. We expected that those who received information, training and supervision on QAI and best practice in SMH would report higher levels of CSE postintervention than those in the W condition. The secondary aim was to evaluate whether clinician reports of postintervention CSE would serve as predictors of quality of SMH practice, as well as knowledge and use of EBP. Given the influence that clinician CSE has been found to have on practice-related variables in previous studies (see Larson & Daniels, 1998), we hypothesized that higher level of CSE would significantly predict higher quality of SMH practice, and knowledge and usage of EBP.