An examination of the evidence in culturally adapted evidence-based or empirically supported interventions.

Abstract

Measurement yields perhaps the most critical evidence influencing whether culturally adapted evidence- based practice (EBP) and empirically supported treatments (EST) are deemed more effective for African Americans, Latino/a Americans, Asian/Pacific Islander Americans, Native Americans, and related immigrant groups than standard treatments, as well as for determining the validity of results of surveys of health conditions in nondominant populations internationally. However, little attention has been given to measuring the effects of race and ethnic culture, as experiential constructs rather than sociodemographic categories, on diagnosis, the treatment process, and outcomes. Three meta-analyses of culturally adapted treatments and three studies cited in them were analyzed to determine the ways in which researchers incorporated measurement of racial and ethnic cultural dynamics as explicit factors in any phase of their interventions. The analysis revealed that researchers did not report adapting standard measures to address cultural influences, nor did they define symptoms from participants' cultural or racial experiences. The author concludes that although there are criteria for judging good research designs, which may or not be feasible for research on nondominant racial and ethnic groups, there are no paradigms for developing measures or for interpreting existing measures to incorporate ethnicity and racialized experiences. Some principles from cross-cultural assessment research (i.e., functional, conceptual, metric, and linguistic equivalence) are adapted to suggest how measures for investigating the effectiveness of culturally adapted interventions for nondominant ethnic and racialized groups might be developed and/or used more appropriately throughout the course of the intervention.