Collaborative Study Psychotherapy Rating Scale
Collaborative Study Psychotherapy Rating Scale (CSPRS) · Also known as: CSPRS, Psychotherapy Rating Scale
The Collaborative Study Psychotherapy Rating Scale (CSPRS) is an observer-rated measure of therapist adherence to a psychotherapy protocol and general competence in delivering the intervention. Developed for the NIMH Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program, the CSPRS uses audiotape or videotape review to assess whether therapists follow intended treatment protocols and execute techniques skillfully. It is the gold standard instrument for fidelity and competence measurement in psychotherapy research and training.
Read the full method
Sign in with a free account to read this section.
Method map
The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.
When to use it
The CSPRS is used in: (1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to verify therapists delivered the intended intervention; (2) therapist training and competency certification (rate trainees' sessions to assess readiness for independent practice); (3) quality assurance in clinical organizations (audit a sample of therapist sessions annually); (4) research on mechanisms (does higher adherence and competence predict better outcome?); (5) fidelity studies (do different training methods produce different adherence/competence levels?); (6) comparative effectiveness trials (ensure protocol fidelity across comparison conditions). Most applicable in structured, manualized therapies (CBT, IPT, behavioral therapy); less applicable to insight-oriented or process-based therapies where flexibility is valued. Requires session recording (ethical/legal/feasibility considerations). Used primarily in research and formal training; less common in routine practice due to time burden.
Strengths & limitations
- Gold standard for fidelity measurement; observer-rated (not therapist self-report), reducing bias.
- Blind raters (unaware of participant outcome) prevent outcome bias in ratings; if CSPRS is rated post-outcome, blinding maintains objectivity.
- Separates adherence from competence; reveals whether protocol-drift is the issue or poor execution of protocol.
- Enables researcher to determine why outcomes differ: is it the therapy or the delivery? Is adherence or competence the active ingredient?
- Supports therapist learning; supervisors can use CSPRS scores and session recordings to coach therapists on adherence and technique refinement.
- Modality-specific versions exist (CBT, IPT, psychodynamic, family therapy); captures nuances of each approach.
- Time and cost intensive; requires trained raters, recording equipment, and 2–4 hours per session to complete ratings. Impractical for routine practice.
- Rater training burden: raters must be extensively trained on the therapy protocol and rating criteria; inconsistent training produces low inter-rater reliability.
- Observer bias despite blinding: raters may be influenced by session quality, therapist voice/demeanor, or participant engagement, leading to halo effects.
- Requires session recording; ethical/legal issues in some settings; client consent; technical quality matters (audio-only vs. video).
- Protocol-specific: each therapy modality requires a tailored CSPRS; generic measures don't capture modality-specific nuances.
- Ordinal scale properties: means and standard deviations assume interval data, which violates Likert scale assumptions; non-parametric statistics are more appropriate.
- Assumes the protocol is correctly designed; if the manual itself is flawed, high adherence to a bad manual does not improve outcome.
- Inter-rater reliability varies by study and rater training; agreement sometimes reported as modest (ICC 0.55–0.75); high threshold agreement (ICC >0.80) is ideal but not always achieved.
Frequently asked
What's the difference between adherence and competence?
Adherence = Did the therapist follow the protocol? (Behavioral: Did they assign homework? Cognitive: Did they target thoughts?) Competence = How skillfully did they deliver? (Did the homework assignment make sense for the client's goals? Were the thought records conducted thoughtfully and collaboratively?) A therapist can adhere but lack competence (assigns homework rigidly without rationale), or show competence while deviating from protocol (skillfully does exploration, which is outside CBT). Both matter; together they define fidelity.
How much does adherence matter for outcome?
Research shows mixed results. Some studies find strong correlation between CSPRS adherence and symptom improvement; others find competence matters more than adherence. The relationship may be moderated by client factors (resistant clients benefit from competence over rigid adherence) or therapy type (structured therapies like CBT show stronger adherence-outcome link). Use CSPRS data in your study to answer this question empirically rather than assuming.
Can I use CSPRS in routine clinical practice?
Rarely, due to time burden (2–4 hours per session). In specialized training clinics (e.g., therapy training center), selective rating of trainees' sessions (e.g., one session per month) is feasible for supervision. Most practices use simpler process measures (therapist self-report, client alliance rating) instead. CSPRS is primarily a research and formal training tool.
What if therapists know they're being rated on CSPRS? Won't they change their behavior?
Possibly. Therapists aware of fidelity monitoring may increase adherence artificially. This is why some researchers use 'unannounced' rating (random session selection without therapist knowledge) or rate after outcome is determined. However, some argue that rating transparency is beneficial: therapists who know CSPRS is used may be motivated to adhere. Document whether rating is announced/unannounced and consider it in interpretation.
How do I train raters to reliably code CSPRS?
Provide: (1) detailed rater manual with item definitions; (2) anchor examples (video clips demonstrating each rating level 1–7); (3) practice rating sessions (trainees rate sample sessions, discuss with trainer, refine understanding); (4) reliability check (trainees rate same session as expert rater and compare; aim for ICC >0.80 before independent coding). Training typically takes 20–40 hours. Ongoing reliability checks (e.g., monthly consensus meetings) prevent drift.
Can I use CSPRS with online or telehealth therapy?
Yes, as long as video recording is available and legal. Audio-only therapy is harder to rate (non-verbal cues like pacing or body language are missed). Video telehealth sessions can be rated identically to in-person. Ensure secure recording storage and participant consent. Some researchers find comparable adherence and competence in online vs. in-person therapy, suggesting CSPRS is modality-neutral.
Sources
- Waltz, J., Addis, M. E., Koerner, K., & Jacobson, N. S. (1993). Testing the integrity of a psychotherapy protocol: Assessment of adherence and competence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(4), 620–630. DOI: 10.1037/0022-006X.61.4.620 ↗
- Shaw, B. F., Elkin, I., Yamaguchi, J. L., Olmsted, M., & Vallis, T. M. (1999). Adherence ratings and clinical outcome: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(2), 147–154. link ↗
How to cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Collaborative Study Psychotherapy Rating Scale (CSPRS). ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/psychotherapy-research/collaborative-study-psychotherapy
Which method?
Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.
- Outcome Rating ScalePsychotherapy Research↔ compare
- Session Rating ScalePsychotherapy Research↔ compare
- Therapeutic Alliance ScalePsychotherapy Research↔ compare
- Working Alliance InventoryPsychotherapy Research↔ compare