Teacher-reported measures of treatment integrity (the extent to which prescribed practices are delivered as intended by teachers) have the potential to support efforts to evaluate and implement evidence-based interventions in early childhood settings. However, self-report treatment integrity measures have shown poor correspondence with observer-report treatment integrity measures, raising questions about score validity. This paper reports on the development and initial evaluation of the score reliability and validity of the Treatment Integrity Measure for Early Childhood Settings Teacher Report (TIMECS-TR), which is designed to address limitations of previous self-report treatment integrity measures that may have contributed to low correspondence with observer-rated measures. The TIMECS-TR includes 24 items designed to represent practices found in evidence-based interventions delivered in early childhood settings that target child social, emotional, and behavioral skills, rather than adherence to practices found in a specific evidence-based intervention. Fifty-four teachers (92.6% female, 7.4% male; 61.1% White) completed the TIMECS-TR weekly for a total of 618 times (M = 6.79 per child; SD = 2.16; range 2 to 11) about the practices they delivered with 91 children (45.1% female, 54.9% male; M = 4.53 years old; SD = 45.1% Black) who were at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Analyses indicated that the TIMECS-TR items evidenced mild to moderate test–retest score reliability over one week. However, analyses did not support the convergent score validity of the TIMECS-TR items or scale with observational ratings of the same practices. Teachers reported higher levels of practice delivery on the TIMECS-TR items relative to observer report. Overall, our findings raise concerns about the accuracy of teacher-report adherence measures. Lessons from this research can be used to identify possible reasons for the low correspondence between teacher- and observer-report treatment integrity measures so that future research can strive to dependably capture teacher delivery of the practices found in evidence-based interventions.

老师报告的治疗完整性衡量（按照老师的预期达到规定的程度）有可能支持在幼儿期评估和实施循证干预的工作。但是，自我报告治疗完整性测度与观察者报告治疗完整性测度的对应性较差，这引发了有关得分效度的疑问。本文报告了早期儿童环境治疗完整性评估教师报告（TIMECS-TR）的评分信度和效度的发展和初步评估，该评估旨在解决以前自我报告的治疗完整性评估可能造成的局限性与观察者评价的措施的对应度较低。TIMECS-TR包括24个项目，旨在代表在幼儿期针对儿童的社交，情感和行为技能的循证干预措施中发现的做法，而不是坚持在特定的循证干预措施中遵循的做法。54名教师（女性为92.6％，男性为7.4％；白人为61.1％）每周完成TIMECS-TR，共计618次（ 每个孩子的M = 6.79；SD = 2.16；关于他们对91名儿童（45.1％的女性，54.9％的男性；M = 4.53岁；SD = 45.1％黑人）有情绪和行为障碍的风险。分析表明，TIMECS-TR项目在一周内显示出轻度至中度的重测分数信度。但是，分析不支持TIMECS-TR项目的聚合评分有效性，也不支持具有相同实践观察等级的量表。与观察员报告相比，教师报告说TIMECS-TR项目的练习交付水平更高。总体而言，我们的研究结果引起了人们对教师报告依从性措施准确性的担忧。这项研究的经验教训可以用来确定教师和观察者报告治疗完整性测度之间对应度较低的可能原因，以便将来的研究可以努力可靠地捕捉教师在循证干预中发现的实践。