The California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare
The California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare

This document was printed from the website of the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare (CEBC), which you can access at http://www.cachildwelfareclearinghousetest.org/

Scientific Rating Scale

The classification system uses criteria regarding a practice’s clinical and/or empirical support, documentation, acceptance within the field, and potential for harm to assign a summary classification score. A lower score indicates a greater level of support for the practice protocol. The summary categories are:

Visualisation of Rating scale, 1 is highest 6 is lowest

 

Specific criteria for each classification system category are presented below:

1. Well–Supported – Effective Practice

  • There is no clinical or empirical evidence or theoretical basis indicating that the practice constitutes a substantial risk of harm to those receiving it, compared to its likely benefits.
  • The practice has a book, manual, and/or other available writings that specify components of the service and describes how to administer it.
  • Multiple Site Replication: At least two rigorous randomized controlled trials (RCT's) in different usual care or practice settings have found the practice to be superior to an appropriate comparison practice. The RCTs have been reported in published, peer-reviewed literature.
  • In at least two of the RCT's meeting criteria for "C" above, the practice has shown to have a sustained effect at least one year beyond the end of treatment, with no evidence that the effect is lost after this time.
  • Outcome measures must be reliable and valid, and administered consistently and accurately across all subjects.
  • If multiple outcome studies have been conducted, the overall weight of the evidence supports the effectiveness of the practice.

2. Supported – Efficacious Practice

  • There is no clinical or empirical evidence or theoretical basis indicating that the practice constitutes a substantial risk of harm to those receiving it, compared to its likely benefits.
  • The practice has a book, manual, and/or other available writings that specifies the components of the practice protocol and describes how to administer it.
  • At least two rigorous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in highly controlled settings (e.g., university laboratory) have found the practice to be superior to an appropriate comparison practice. The RCTs have been reported in published, peer-reviewed literature.
  • In at least two of the RCT's meeting criteria for "C" above, the practice has shown to have a sustained effect at least one year beyond the end of treatment, with no evidence that the effect is lost after this time.
  • Outcome measures must be reliable and valid, and administered consistently and accurately across all subjects.
  • If multiple outcome studies have been conducted, the overall weight of evidence supports the efficacy of the practice.

3. Promising Practice

  • There is no clinical or empirical evidence or theoretical basis indicating that the practice constitutes a substantial risk of harm to those receiving it, compared to its likely benefits.
  • The practice has a book, manual, and/or other available writings that specifies the components of the practice protocol and describe how to administer it.
  • At least one study utilizing some form of control (e.g., untreated group, placebo group, matched wait list) has established the practice’s efficacy over the placebo, or found it to be comparable to or better than an appropriate comparison practice. The study has been reported in published, peer-reviewed literature.
  • If multiple outcome studies have been conducted, the overall weight of evidence supports the efficacy of the practice.

4. Effectiveness is Unknown

  • There is no clinical or empirical evidence or theoretical basis indicating that the practice constitutes a substantial risk of harm to those receiving it, compared to its likely benefits.
  • The practice has a book, manual, and/or other available writings that specifies the components of the practice protocol and describes how to administer it.
  • The practice is generally accepted in clinical practice as appropriate for use with children receiving services from child welfare or related systems and their parents/caregivers.
  • The practice lacks adequate published, peer-reviewed research to empirically determine efficacy.

5. Evidence Fails to Demonstrate Effect

  • Two or more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have found the practice has not resulted in improved outcomes, when compared to usual care.
  • If multiple outcome studies have been conducted, the overall weight of evidence does not support the efficacy of the practice.

6. Concerning Practice

  • If multiple outcome studies have been conducted, the overall weight of evidence suggests the intervention has a negative effect upon clients served;
    and/or
  • There is a reasonable theoretical, clinical, empirical, or legal basis suggesting that the practice constitutes a risk of harm to those receiving it, compared to its likely benefits.