Faculty Bibliography

Reports an error in "Psychometric properties and U.S. National norms of the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS)" by Gregory A. Aarons, Charles Glisson, Kimberly Hoagwood, Kelly Kelleher, John Landsverk and Guy Cafri (Psychological Assessment, 2010[Jun], Vol 22[2], 356-365). There were three errors in Table 1 on p. 360. In the last row, the row label should be "Overall EBPAS mean," M = 2.73, and SD = 0.49. The revised Table 1 appears in the erratum. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2010-10892-016.) The Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS) assesses mental health and social service provider attitudes toward adopting evidence-based practices. Scores on the EBPAS derive from 4 subscales (i.e., Appeal, Requirements, Openness, and Divergence) as well as the total scale, and preliminary studies have linked EBPAS scores to clinic structure and policies, organizational culture and climate, and first-level leadership. EBPAS scores are also related to service provider characteristics, including age, education level, and level of professional development. The present study examined the factor structure, reliability, and norms of EBPAS scores in a sample of 1,089 mental health service providers from a nationwide sample drawn from 100 service institutions in 26 states in the United States. The study also examined associations of provider demographic characteristics with EBPAS subscale and total scores. Confirmatory factor analysis supported a second-order factor model, and reliability coefficients for the subscales ranged from .91 to .67 (total scale = .74). The study establishes national norms for the EBPAS so that comparisons can be drawn for U.S. local as well as international studies of attitudes toward evidence-based practices. The results suggest that the factor structure and reliability are likely generalizable to a variety of service provider contexts and different service settings and that the EBPAS subscales are associated with provider characteristics. Directions for future research are discussed.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine follow-up service use by students identified at risk for suicidal behavior in a school-based screening program and assess barriers to seeking services as perceived by youths and parents. METHOD: We conducted a longitudinal study of 317 at-risk youths identified by a school-based suicide screening in six high schools in New York State. The at-risk teenagers and their parents were interviewed approximately 2 years after the initial screen to assess service use during the intervening period and identify barriers that may have interfered with seeking treatment. RESULTS: At the time of the screening, 72% of the at-risk students were not receiving any type of mental health service. Of these students, 51% were deemed in need of services and subsequently referred by us to a mental health professional. Nearly 70% followed through with the screening's referral recommendations. The youths and their parents reported perceptions about mental health problems, specifically relating to the need for treatment, as the primary reasons for not seeking service. CONCLUSIONS: Screening seems to be effective in enhancing the likelihood that students at risk for suicidal behavior will get into treatment. Well-developed and systematic planning is needed to ensure that screening and referral services are coordinated so as to facilitate access for youths into timely treatment.

There is growing evidence that mental health and school functioning for children are intertwined. This article summarizes historical perspectives on U.S. child mental health policies and their interface with education and discusses trends in educational policy relevant to children's mental health, specifically the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act and No Child Left Behind. The traditional approach of mental health research in schools, which focuses on program and intervention development, has become stagnant. New paradigms are needed. These include attending to indigenous school resources, to the organizational context of learning, and to participatory models for constructing environments conducive to mental health promotion and learning. Persistent underfunding and fragmented fiscal support, however, render new approaches meaningless. If progress is to be made, new funding structures to support integrative educational and mental health practices are needed.

BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, the most common childhood behavioral condition, is one that pediatricians think they should identify and treat/manage. OBJECTIVE: Our goals were to explore the relationships between pediatricians' self-reports of their practice behaviors concerning usually inquiring about and treating/managing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and (1) attitudes regarding perceived responsibility for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and (2) personal and practice characteristics. METHODS: We analyzed data from the 59th Periodic Survey of the American Academy of Pediatrics for the 447 respondents who practice exclusively in general pediatrics. Bivariate and logistic regression analyses were used to identify attitudes and personal and practice characteristics associated with usually identifying and treating/managing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. RESULTS: A total of 67% reported that they usually inquire about and 65% reported that they usually treat/manage attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Factors positively associated with usually inquiring about attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adjusted multivariable analyses include perceived high prevalence among current patients, attendance at a lecture/conference on child mental health in the past 2 years, having patients who are assigned or can select a specific pediatrician, practicing in suburban communities, practicing for > or =10 years, and being female. Pediatricians' attitudes about responsibility for identification of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder were not associated with usually inquiring about attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in either unadjusted or adjusted analyses. Attitudes about treating/managing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder were significantly associated with usually treating/managing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in unadjusted and adjusted analyses. Those who perceived that pediatricians should be responsible for treating/managing had almost 12 times the odds of reporting treating/managing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, whereas those who believe physicians should refer had threefold decreased odds of treating/managing. Other physician/practice characteristics significantly associated with the odds of usually treating/managing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder include belief that attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is very prevalent among current patients, seeing patients who are assigned or can select a specific pediatrician, and practice location. CONCLUSIONS: Taking responsibility for treating attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and practice characteristics seem to be important correlates of pediatrician self-reported behavior toward caring for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

This paper, the second in a series of two guideline papers emerging from the 2007 Best Practices for Mental Health in Child Welfare Consensus Conference, provides an overview of the key issues related to parent support and youth empowerment in child welfare and presents consensus guidelines in these important areas. The paper also discusses some of the implications these guidelines have for the child welfare field