Loading...

Reset Password

NDAR provides a single access to de-identified autism research data. For permission to download data, you will need an NDAR account with approved access to NDAR or a connected repository (AGRE, IAN, or the ATP). For NDAR access, you need to be a research investigator sponsored by an NIH recognized institution with federal wide assurance. See Request Access for more information.

Warning Notice

This is a U.S. Government computer system, which may be accessed and used only for authorized Government business by authorized personnel. Unauthorized access or use of this computer system may subject violators to criminal, civil, and/or administrative action.

All information on this computer system may be intercepted, recorded, read, copied, and disclosed by and to authorized personnel for official purposes, including criminal investigations. Such information includes sensitive data encrypted to comply with confidentiality and privacy requirements. Access or use of this computer system by any person, whether authorized or unauthorized, constitutes consent to these terms. There is no right of privacy in this system.

You have logged in with a temporary password. Please update your password. Passwords must contain 8 or more characters and must contain at least 3 of the following types of characters:

Subscribe to our mailing list

Mailing List(s)
Email Format

You are now leaving the National Database for Autism Research (NDAR) web site to go to:

Click on the address above if the page does not change within 10 seconds.

Disclaimer

NDAR is not responsible for the content of this external site and does not monitor other web sites for accuracy.

Selected Filters
No filters selected

The filters you have selected from various query interfaces will be stored here, in the 'Filter Cart'. The database will be queried using filters added to your 'Filter Cart', when multiple filters are defined, each will be executed using 'AND' logic, so with each filter that is applied the result set gets smaller.

From the 'Filter Cart' you can inspect each of the filters that have been defined, and you also have the option to remove filters. The 'Filter Cart' itself will display the number of filters applied along with the number of subjects that are identified by the combination of those filters. For example a GUID filter with two subjects, followed by a GUID filter for just one of those subjects would return only data for the subject that is in both GUID filters.

If you have a question about the filter cart, or underlying filters please contact the help desk at The NDA Help Desk

Description
Value Range
Notes
Data Structures with shared data
No filters have been selected

Family Cognitive Therapy Rating Scale

fctrs

01

Download Definition as
Download Submission Template as
Element NameData TypeSizeRequiredDescriptionValue RangeNotesAliases
subjectkeyGUIDRequiredThe NDAR Global Unique Identifier (GUID) for research subjectNDAR*
src_subject_idString20RequiredSubject ID how it's defined in lab/project
interview_dateDateRequiredDate on which the interview/genetic test/sampling/imaging was completed. MM/DD/YYYYRequired field
interview_ageIntegerRequiredAge in months at the time of the interview/test/sampling/imaging.0 :: 1260Age is rounded to chronological month. If the research participant is 15-days-old at time of interview, the appropriate value would be 0 months. If the participant is 16-days-old, the value would be 1 month.
genderString20RequiredSex of the subjectM;FM = Male; F = Female
siteString100RecommendedSiteStudy Site
visitString50RecommendedVisit nameCharacter description of each type of visit
days_baselineIntegerRecommendedDays since baseline
vidaudIntegerRecommendedVideo or Audio1;21=Video; 2=Audio
tapequalIntegerRecommendedTape quality1::41=Blank; 2=Poor quality, cannot hear; 3=Short tape; 4=Good quality
fctrq1IntegerRecommendedGeneral Therapeutic Skills: Agenda0::6; -90 = Therapist did not set agenda; 1=1; 2 = Therapist set agenda that was vague or incomplete; 3=3; 4 = Therapist worked with family to set a mutually satisfactory agenda that included specific target problems (e.g., reducing EE, improving family communication); 5=5; 6 = Therapist worked with family to set an appropriate agenda with target problems, suitable for the available time. Established priorities and then followed the agenda; -9 = Not applicable
fctrq2IntegerRecommendedGeneral Therapeutic Skills: Feedback0::6; -90 = Therapist did not ask for feedback to determine family's understanding of or response to the session; 1=1; 2 = Therapist elicited some feedback from the family, but did not ask enough questions to be sure the family understood the therapist's line of reasoning during the session or to ascertain whether the family was satisfied with the session; 3=3; 4 = Therapist asked enough questions to be sure that the family understood the therapist's line of reasoning throughout the session and to determine the family's reactions to the session. The therapist adjusted his/her behavior in response to the feedback, when appropriate; 5=5; 6 = Therapist was especially adept at eliciting and responding to verbal and non-verbal feedback throughout the session (e.g., elicited reactions to session, regularly checked for understanding, helped summarize main points at end of session.); -9 = Not applicable
fctrq3IntegerRecommendedGeneral Therapeutic Skills: Understanding0::6; -90 = Therapist repeatedly failed to understand what the family explicitly said and thus consistently missed the point. Poor empathic skills; 1=1; 2 =Therapist was usually able to reflect or rephrase what the family members explicitly said but repeatedly failed to respond to more subtle communication. Limited ability to listen and empathize; 3=3; 4 = Therapist generally seemed to grasp the family's interactional processes as reflected by both what the family explicitly said and how the family interacted in the session. Good ability to listen, observe and empathize; 5=5; 6 = Therapist seemed to understand the family's interactional processes thoroughly and was adept at communicating this understand through appropriate verbal and non-verbal responses to the family (e.g., the tone of the therapist's responses conveyed a sympathetic understanding of the family "message"). Excellent listening and emphatic skills; -9 = Not applicable
fctrq4IntegerRecommendedInterpersonal Effectiveness0::6; -90 = Therapist had poor interpersonal skills. Seemed hostile, demeaning, or, in some other way, destructive to the family; 1=1; 2 = Therapist did not seem destructive but had significant interpersonal problems. At times, therapist appeared unnecessarily impatient, aloof, insincere or had difficulty conveying confidence and competence; 3=3; 4 = Therapist displayed a satisfactory degree of warmth, concern, confidence, genuineness, and professionalism. No significant interpersonal problems; 5=5; 6 = Therapist displayed optimal levels of warmth, concern, confidence, genuineness, and professionalism appropriate for this particular family in this session; -9 = Not applicable
fctrq5IntegerRecommendedGeneral Therapeutic Skills: Collaboration0::6; -90 = Therapist did not attempt to set up a collaboration with family; 1=1; 2 = Therapist attempted to collaborate with family but had difficulty either defining a problem that the family considered important or establishing rapport; 3=3; 4 = Therapist was able to collaborate with family, focus on a problem that both family and therapist considered important and establish rapport; 5=5; 6 = Collaboration seemed excellent. Therapist encouraged family as much as possible to take an active role during the session (e.g., by eliciting family input) so they could function as a "team."; -9 = Not applicable
fctrq6IntegerRecommendedGeneral Therapeutic Skills: Pacing and Efficient Use of Time0::6; -90 = Therapist made no attempt to structure therapy time. Session seemed aimless; 1=1; 2 = Session had some direction. Therapist, nevertheless, had significant problems with structuring or pacing (e.g., too little structure, inflexible about structure, too slowly paced, too rapidly paced). 3=3; 4 = Therapist was reasonably successful at using time efficiently. Therapist maintained appropriate control over flow of discussion and pacing; 5=5; 6 = Therapist used time very efficiently by tactfully limiting peripheral and unproductive discussion and by pacing the session as rapidly as was appropriate for the family; -9 = Not applicable
fctrq7IntegerRecommendedConceptualization, Strategy and Technique: Collaboration0::6; -90 = Therapist relied primarily on "lecturing." Therapist seemed to be "cross-examining" family, putting the family on the defensive, or forcing his/her point of view on the family; 1=1; 2 = Therapist relied too heavily on lecturing rather than assisting the family to learn and apply new skills. However, the therapist's style was supportive enough that the family did not seem to feel attacked or defensive; 3=3; 4 = Therapist, for the most part, helped the family learn and apply new perspectives through presentations, modeling and practice; 5=5; 6 = Therapist was especially adept at helping the patient and family work as a team around depression. Achieved an excellent balance between teaching skills and assisting family to work collaboratively; -9 = Not applicable
fctrq8IntegerRecommendedConceptualization, Strategy and Technique: Focusing on Key Skills and Interactional Processes0::6; -90 = Therapist did not attempt to present or apply new interactional skills and behaviors; 1=1; 2 = Therapist used appropriate techniques to present new skills; however, therapist had difficulty finding a focus, or focused on skills that were irrelevant to the family's key problems; 3=3; 4 = Therapist focused on skills or interactions relevant to the target problem. However, therapist could have focused on more skills that offered greater promise for progress; 5=5; 6 = Therapist very skillfully focused on key interactional processes that were most relevant to the problem area and that offered considerable promise for progress; -9 = Not applicable
fctrq9IntegerRecommendedConceptualization, Strategy and Technique: Strategy for Change0::6; -90 = Therapist did not select cognitive-behavioral techniques; 1=1; 2 = Therapist selected cognitive-behavioral techniques; however, either the overall strategy for bringing about change seemed vague or did not seem promising in helping the family; 3=3; 4 = Therapist seemed to have a generally coherent strategy for change that showed reasonable promise and incorporated cognitive-behavioral techniques; 5=5; 6 = Therapist followed a consistent strategy for change that seemed very promising and incorporated the most appropriate cognitive-behavioral techniques; -9 = Not applicable
fctrq10IntegerRecommendedConceptualization, Strategy and Technique: Application of Cognitive-Behavioral Techniques0::6; -90 = Therapist did not apply any cognitive-behavioral techniques; 1=1; 2 = Therapist used cognitive-behavioral techniques, but there were significant flaws in the way they were applied; 3=3; 4 = Therapist applied cognitive-behavioral technique with moderate skill; 5=5; 6 = Therapist very skillfully and resourcefully employed cognitive-behavioral techniques; -9 = Not applicable
fctrq11IntegerRecommendedConceptualization, Strategy and Technique: Homework0::6; -90 = Therapist did not attempt to incorporate homework relevant to CBT; 1=1; 2 = Therapist had significant difficulties with homework (e.g., did not review previous homework, did not explain homework in sufficient detail, assigned inappropriate homework) 3=3; 4 = Therapist reviewed previous homework and assigned "standard" CBT homework generally relevant to issues dealt with in session. Homework was explained in sufficient detail; 5=5; 6 = Therapist reviewed previous homework; assigned homework drawn from CBT and "custom tailored" to help the family incorporate new perspectives, test hypotheses, or experiment with new behaviors discussed during session; -9 = Not applicable
p3a1IntegerRecommendedWas Family Psychoeducation Session 1 Module used in this session?0;10=No; 1=Yes
p3a2aString150RecommendedIf Family Psychoeducation Mession 1 Module = yes, the therapist did:
p3b11IntegerRecommendedWas Family Psychoeducation Session 2 Module used in this session?0;10=No; 1=Yesp3b1
p3b2aString150RecommendedIf Family Psychoeducation Mession 2 Module = yes, the therapist did:
p3c1IntegerRecommendedWas Family Problem Solving Module used in this session?0;10=No; 1=Yes
p3c2aString150RecommendedIf Family Problem Solving Module = yes, the therapist did:
p3d1IntegerRecommendedWas the Family Communcation Module used in this session?0;10=No; 1=Yes
p3d2aString150RecommendedIf Family Communcation Module = yes, the therapist did:
p3e1IntegerRecommendedWas the Family Contingency Management Module used in this session?0;10=No; 1=Yes
p3e2aString150RecommendedIf Family Contingency Management Module = yes, the therapist did:
p3f1IntegerRecommendedWas the High Expectations and Positive Reinforcement Module used in this session?0;10=No; 1=Yes
p3f2aString150RecommendedIf High Expectations and Positive Reinforcement Module = yes, the therapist did:
p3g1IntegerRecommendedWas the Family Attachment and Commitment Module used in this session?0;10=No; 1=Yes
p3g2aString150RecommendedIf Family Attachment and Commitment Module = yes, the therapist did:
emotion_regulationIntegerRecommendedEmotion Regulation - Module used0;10 = unchecked; 1 = checkedp3h1
p3h2aString150RecommendedIf Family Emotion Regulation Module = yes, the therapist did:
p3j1IntegerRecommendedWas the Reducing Negative Emotion Module used in this session?0;10=No; 1=Yes
p3j2aString150RecommendedIf Reducing Negative Emotion Module = yes, the therapist did:
ctq7IntegerRecommendedConceptualization, Strategy, and Technique: Empiricism0::6; -9 00 = 0 Therapist relied primarily on debate, persuasion, or "lecturing". Therapist seemed to be "cross-examining" patient, putting the patient on the defensive, or forcing his/her point of view on patient; 01 = 1; 02 = 2 Therapist relied too heavily on persuasion and debate, rather than "guided discovery" and "empiricism". However, therapist's style was supportive enough that patient did not seem to feel attacked or defensive; 03 = 3; 04 = 4 Therapist, for the most part, helped patient see new perspetives through the empirical approach ("guided discovery", hypothesis-testing) rather than throught debate. Used qusetioning appropriately; 05 = 5; 06 = 6 Therapist was especially adept at using empirical approach during the session, helping patient draw his/her own conclusions. Achieved an excellent balance between skillful questioning and other modes of intervention; -9 = Not applicable
ctq8IntegerRecommendedConceptualization, Strategy, and Technique: Focusing on Key Cognitions or Behaviors0::6; -9 00 = 0 Therapist did not attempt to elicit specific thoughts, assumptions, images, meanings or behaviors; 01 = 1; 02 = 2 Therapist focused on specific cognitions or behaviors relevant to the target problem. However, therapist could have focused on more central cognitions or behaviors that offered greater promise for progress; 05 = 5; 06 = 6 Therapist very skillfully focused on key toughts, assumptions, behaviors, etc. that were most relevant to the problem area and that considerable promise for progress; -9 = Not applicable
ctq11cIntegerRecommendedTo the rate: rate how the overall Emotion Regulation module was conducted0::6; -9 00 = 0 Therapist did not do emotion regulation; 01 = 1; 02 = 2 Therapist did emotion regulation that was vague or incomplete; 03 = 3; 04 = 4 Therapist presented the basic details of emotion regulation model and adequately introduced the patient and/or parent to the concept of emotion dysregulation; 05 = 5; 06 = 6 Therapist collaboratively conducted chain analysis, intoduced the patient and/or parent to the concept of emotion dysregulation, indentified triggers and skills deficits, and introduced relevant skills to diminsih destructive behavior using at least emotions, and distinguishing between action, urges, and choices; -9 = Not applicable
ctq11fIntegerRecommendedTo the rater: rate how the overall psychoeducation module was conducted0::6; -9 00 = 0 Therapist did not do psychoeducation; 01 = 1; 02 = 2 Therapist did psychoeducation that was vague or incomplete; 03 = 3; 04 = 4 Therapist conducted psychoeducation that was satisfactory. Therapist reviewed confidentiality, obtained no-suicide contract, and socialized family to CBT treatment model; 05 = 5; 06 = 6 Therapist provided accurate and concise information about depression, socialized family to CST model, reviewed confidentiality, and obtained no-suicide contract in a collaborative and individualized fashion; -9 = Not applicable
ctq12aIntegerRecommendedDid any special problems arise during session (e.g., non-adherence to homework, interpersonal issues between therapist and patient, hopelessness about continuing therapy, relapse)?0;10 = No; 1 = Yes
ctq12bIntegerRecommendedIf Yes to special problems arising during session:0::6; -900 = 0 Therapist could not deal adequately with special problems arose; 01 = 1; 02 = 2 Therapist dealt with special problems adequately, but used strategies or conceptualizations inconsistent with cognitive therapy; 03 = 3; 04 = 4 Therapist attempted to deal with special problems using cognitive framework and was moderately skillful in applying techniques; 05 = 5; 06 = Therapist was very skillful at handling special problems using cognitive therapy framework; -9 = Not applicable
ctq13aIntegerRecommendedWere there any significant unusual factors in this session that you feel justified the therapist's departure from the standard approach measured by the scale?0;10 = No; 1 = Yes
ctq13bString500RecommendedIf yes to unusual factors in the session that justified the therapist's departure, explain:
comments_miscString4,000RecommendedMiscellaneous comments on study, interview, methodology relevant to this form data
eratingIntegerRecommendedEXPERT RATING - Rate the therapist's competence as a C/B therapist taking the difficulty of the patient's problems and other patient variables (e.g., psychological mindedness) into account1::90-3 Novice C/B Therapist: The therapist was psychotherapeutic ability but is weak C/B technical ability and adaptability; 0 = 0; 1 = 1; 2 = 2; 3 = 3; 4-6 Intermediate: The therapist has both C/B technical ability and psychotherapeutic ability but had difficulty handling atypical therapy events within the framework of the cognitive model. Requires monitoring and supervision and is not ready for independent C/B practice. 4 = 4; 5 = 5; 6 = 6; 7-9 Advanced: This therapist has achieved a level of competence characterized by psychotherapeutic ability, C/B technical ability and adaptability. He/she can function as a valid representative of the cognitive approach in a psychotherapy outcome study with clinical patients; 7 = 7; 8 = 8; 9 = 9
Data Structure

This page displays the data structure defined for the measure identified in the title and structure short name. The table below displays a list of data elements in this structure (also called variables) and the following information:

  • Element Name: This is the standard element name
  • Data Type: Which type of data this element is, e.g. String, Float, File location.
  • Size: If applicable, the character limit of this element
  • Required: This column displays whether the element is Required for valid submissions, Recommended for valid submissions, Conditional on other elements, or Optional
  • Description: A basic description
  • Value Range: Which values can appear validly in this element (case sensitive for strings)
  • Notes: Expanded description or notes on coding of values
  • Aliases: A list of currently supported Aliases (alternate element names)
  • For valid elements with shared data, on the far left is a Filter button you can use to view a summary of shared data for that element and apply a query filter to your Cart based on selected value ranges

At the top of this page you can also:

  • Use the search bar to filter the elements displayed. This will not filter on the Size of Required columns
  • Download a copy of this definition in CSV format
  • Download a blank CSV submission template prepopulated with the correct structure header rows ready to fill with subject records and upload

Please email the The NDA Help Desk with any questions.

Distribution for DataStructure: fctrs01 and Element:
Chart Help

Filters enable researchers to view the data shared in NDA before applying for access or for selecting specific data for download or NDA Study assignment. For those with access to NDA shared data, you may select specific values to be included by selecting an individual bar chart item or by selecting a range of values (e.g. interview_age) using the "Add Range" button. Note that not all elements have appropriately distinct values like comments and subjectkey and are not available for filtering. Additionally, item level detail is not always provided by the research community as indicated by the number of null values given.

Filters for multiple data elements within a structure are supported. Selections across multiple data structures will be supported in a future version of NDA.