Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 4, 2025

Problem-Solving Before Instruction PS-I: A Protocol for Assessment and Intervention in Students with Different Abilities
Published on: September 11, 2021
The Supportive Accountability Inventory: Psychometric properties of a measure of supportive accountability in coached
Jonah Meyerhoff1, Shefali Haldar1, David C Mohr1
1Center for Behavioral Intervention Technologies (CBITs), Department of Preventive Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 750 North Lake Shore Drive, 10 Floor, Chicago, IL 60611, United States of America.
Background:
One of the most widely used coaching models is Supportive Accountability (SA) which aims to provide intervention users with clear expectations for intervention use, regular monitoring, and a sense that coaches are trustworthy, benevolent, and have domain expertise. However, few measures exist to study the role of the SA model on coached digital interventions. We developed the Supportive Accountability Inventory (SAI) and evaluated the underlying factor structure and psychometric properties of this brief self-report measure.
Method:
Using data from a two-arm randomized trial of a remote intervention for major depressive disorder (telephone CBT [tCBT] or a stepped care model of web-based CBT [iCBT] and tCBT), we conducted an Exploratory Factor Analysis on the SAI item pool and explored the final SAI's relationship to iCBT engagement as well as to depression outcomes. Participants in our analyses (n = 52) included those randomized to a receive iCBT, but were not stepped up to tCBT due to insufficient response to iCBT, had not remitted prior to the 10-week assessment point, and completed the pool of 8 potential SAI items.
Results:
The best fitting EFA model included only 6 items from the original pool of 8 and contained two factors: Monitoring and Expectation. Final model fit was mixed, but acceptable (χ (4) = 5.24, p = 0.26; RMSR = 0.03; RMSEA = 0.091; TLI = 0.967). Internal consistency was acceptable at α = 0.68. The SAI demonstrated good convergent and divergent validity. The SAI at the 10-week/mid-treatment mark was significantly associated with the number of days of iCBT use (r = 0.29, p = .037), but, contrary to expectations, was not predictive of either PHQ-9 scores (F(2,46) = 0.14, p = .89) or QIDS-C scores (F(2,46) = 0.84, p = .44) at post-treatment.
Conclusion:
The SAI is a brief measure of the SA framework constructs. Continued development to improve the SAI and expand the constructs it assesses is necessary, but the SAI represents the first step towards a measure of a coaching protocol that can support both coached digital mental health intervention adherence and improved outcomes.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Self-Report Tests of Personality
Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model
Strategies of Self-Presentation III: Self-Monitoring
Self-Presentation: Self-Monitoring and Self-Handicapping
Reliability and Validity
Introspection

