Program Selection Criteria for the Children’s Emotional Disorders Effective Treatment Archive (CEDETA)

Candidate CEDETA programs were evaluated and classified by a Scientist Expert Panel; those treatment programs accepted for inclusion in CEDETA were classified as “possibly efficacious” or “probably efficacious” using the criterion shown below.*


Probably Efficacious Treatments
: Criterion 1, 2 or 3 is met

1. Two experiments showing the treatment is (statistically significantly) superior to a wait-listing control group. However, manuals, specification of sample , and independent investigators are not required.

2. One between group design experiment with clear specification of group, use of manuals, and demonstrating efficacy by being either: (a) Superior to pill placebo, psychological placebo, or another treatment; or (b) Equivalent to an already established treatment in experiments with adequate statistical power (grp n > 30).

3. A small series of single case design experiments (n > 3) with clear specification of group, use of manuals, good experimental designs and comparison between the intervention and pill or psychological placebo or another treatment.


Possibly Efficacious Treatments:
Criterion 1 or 2 is met

1. One between group design experiment with clear specification of group and treatment approach (no manual necessary) and demonstrating efficacy by being either: (a) Superior to pill placebo, psychological placebo, or another treatment; or (b) Equivalent to an already established treatment in experiments with adequate statistical power (grp n > 30).

2. A small series of single case design experiments (n > 3) with clear specification of group and treatment approach (no manual necessary), good experimental designs, at least 2 different investigators or teams, and comparison between the intervention and pill or psychological placebo or another treatment.


*In developing these criteria for CEDETA, we adopted the highly lauded, pioneering criteria used by the State of Hawaii  to develop an evidence-based approach to the provision of state-funded mental health services for children (Chorpita et. al., 2002). Those criteria included two additional classification categories to those shown above: “well-established treatments” (highest classification) and “unsupported treatments”.  None of the CEDETA candidate programs reviewed by our Panel met the strict criterion for the “well-established treatment” classification; those classified as “unsupported treatments” were not accepted for inclusion in CEDETA.


Reference:
Chorpita, B., Yim, L., Donkervoet, J. Arensdorf, A., Amundsen, M. McGee, C., et al. (2002). Toward large-scale implementation of empirically supported treatments for children: A review and observation  by the Hawaii Empirical Basis to Services Task Force. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 9, 165-190.