An independent replication of the Adolescent-Community Reinforcement Approach with justice-involved youth.

Background And Objectives: Substance use disorders among youth remain a serious public health problem. Although research has overwhelmingly supported the use of evidenced-based interventions, one of the primary limitations of the current evidence base is that for the vast majority of treatments, the developers of the treatments are also the ones conducting research on them, raising the possibility of allegiance bias.

Methods: The present study was an independently conducted randomized controlled trial (n = 126) comparing an evidenced-based treatment for adolescent substance use, Adolescent-Community Reinforcement Approach (A-CRA), and assertive continuing care (ACC), to services as usual (SAU) provided by a juvenile probation department.

Clinician knowledge and utilization of empirically-supported treatments for maltreated children.

Efforts to disseminate empirically-supported treatments (ESTs) for maltreated children are confronted with numerous challenges, and the success of these efforts is unclear. The current study reports on the results of a nationwide survey of 262 clinicians serving maltreated children in the United States. From a provided list, clinicians were asked to identify interventions they believed possessed adequate empirical support, as well as the interventions they commonly used, were trained to use, or would like to receive training to use.

Do defense attorney referrals for competence to stand trial evaluations depend on whether the client speaks English or Spanish?

Criminal defense attorneys (N = 142) responded to a survey asking them to read a vignette describing a Hispanic defendant charged with assault and rate the severity of the defendant's mental illness and likelihood of referring him for an evaluation of competence to stand trial (CST). The vignettes varied in terms of whether the defendant spoke English or Spanish, and whether his mental illness symptoms were obvious or ambiguous. Overall, attorneys rated the Spanish-speaking defendant as less mentally ill than the English-speaking defendant, and were less likely to refer the Spanish-speaking defendant for a CST evaluation.