Table 3 Measurement and analysis of objective 2

Demographics

Recipient

Project-developed survey^a,c,d,e,f

Not applicable

Organizational readiness

Recipient

Organizational readiness for change (ORC)^a,d,e,f

How did the characteristics of your agency affect implementation of the modified intervention? ^a,d,e,g

Feasibility

External environment

CW performance indicators: % of enrolled families whom CW performance indicators for casework contact goals are met within most recent 6 month period ^b,g

How were you able to meet requirements by external agencies by using the modified intervention?^a,d,e,g

Feasibility

Recipient

Client characteristics:

What helped or got in the way of delivering the modified intervention as it was designed? ^a,d,e,g

Participant flow: % of children/caregivers meeting inclusion criteria among those screened^b,g

Organizational capacities (ability of caseworkers to deliver 4R2S with fidelity): caseworker fidelity ratings^b,h

HF: % of components scored as “partially met” or “fully met”

Feasibility

Intervention perspectives

Client perspectives

How feasible was it to implement the modified intervention? What were the challenges? What helped? ^a,d,e,g

Attendance logs^b,g

HF: % of children/caregivers who attend ≥80–100 % of sessions

Kazdin barriers to treatment (KBT), ^c,g

Please describe things that influenced your decision to participate or not participate in the modified intervention? ^c,g

HF: % of participants with average score ≤2

Organization perspective

Lyons Acceptability, feasibility, appropriateness scale

(LAFAS)—feasibility subscale^a,d,e,g

HF: % of participants with average score ≥4

Acceptability

Intervention perspectives

Client perspectives

What facilitated/hindered your satisfaction with the modified intervention? ^{a,c d,e,g}

Metropolitan Area Child Study (MACS) Treatment Program Satisfaction Scale^c,g

HA: % of participants with average score ≥3

What are the benefits/challenges of using task-shifting to implement EBPs in CW setting? ^a,d,e,g

Organization perspective on intervention

LAFAS questionnaire—acceptability and appropriateness subscales ^a,d,e,g

HA: % of participants with average score ≥4

Evidence-based practice attitude scale^a,d,e,f,g (EBPAS)

HA: % of participants with average score ≥3 at post-intervention