Table 5 Models’ range in priority risks, target behaviors, intended pathways and stance on technique categories
Across the Five Models | |||
|---|---|---|---|
Minimum | Median | Maximum | |
Priority Risks, Target Behaviors and Intended Pathways | |||
Number of Priority Risks | 7 | 10 | 10 |
Number of Target Behaviors | 5 | 12 | 14 |
Number of Intended Pathways | 16 | 34 | 41 |
Stance on the 23 Technique Categories | |||
Number ever Endorsed | 12 | 20 | 23 |
Number ever Required | 0 | 5 | 22 |
Number ever Recommended | 12 | 18 | 20 |
Number ever Not Endorsed but Compatible with Model | 2 | 15 | 23 |
Number ever Not Compatible | 1 | 1 | 2 |
Propensity toward Explicit Endorsement of Technique Categories | |||
Mean Number of Endorsed Technique Categories per Intended Pathway | 1.5 | 16.0 | 20.0 |
Consistency of Technique Category Endorsement | |||
Percent of Technique Categories that are Either Always or Never Endorsed across All Intended Pathways | 22% | 70% | 100% |
Breadth of Designated High-Emphasis Technique Categories | |||
Number of Technique Categories ever Defined as High-Emphasis | 0 | 10 | 12 |