The use of standardized assessment in evidence-based practice (EBP) is critical in identifying empirically supported interventions (ESIs); however, the subject has received minimal attention in the literature. In a sample of child welfare involved youth, this study sought to determine whether there was a relationship between dimensions of trauma exposure, emotional/behavioral problems, and substance use problems as identified in the Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths (CANS) assessment conducted by behavioral health providers, and the type of prescribed ESI. Bivariate analysis of variance (ANOVA), chi-square tests, and multivariate binary logistic regression results suggest clinicians use assessment information to varying degrees when prescribing an ESI. Close to 90% of the sample was prescribed an ESI intended to address emotional or behavior concerns. Approximately, one-fourth of the sample was prescribed a trauma-focused ESI, while substance use-focused ESIs were the least frequently prescribed. As the intensity of assessed trauma-related problems increased, so too did the odds of receiving an ESI intended to address trauma. To a lesser degree, as assessed emotional/behavior problems or substance use issues increased, the probability of being prescribed a related ESI also increased. Implications for practitioners, administrators, policymakers, educators, researchers, and other behavioral health stakeholders are discussed.

在循证实践 (EBP) 中使用标准化评估对于确定经验支持的干预措施 (ESI) 至关重要；然而，该主题在文献中很少受到关注。在涉及青少年的儿童福利样本中，本研究试图确定在由行为健康提供者，以及规定的 ESI 类型。双变量方差分析 (ANOVA)、卡方检验和多变量二元逻辑回归结果表明，临床医生在开具 ESI 时会不同程度地使用评估信息。接近 90% 的样本被规定了旨在解决情绪或行为问题的 ESI。大约四分之一的样本被规定了以创伤为中心的 ESI，而以物质使用为中心的 ESI 是最不常开的。随着评估的创伤相关问题的强度增加，接受旨在解决创伤的 ESI 的几率也增加。在较小程度上，随着评估的情绪/行为问题或物质使用问题的增加，被开具相关 ESI 的可能性也增加了。讨论了对从业者、管理人员、政策制定者、教育工作者、研究人员和其他行为健康利益相关者的影响。随着评估的创伤相关问题的强度增加，接受旨在解决创伤的 ESI 的几率也增加。在较小程度上，随着评估的情绪/行为问题或物质使用问题的增加，被开具相关 ESI 的可能性也增加了。讨论了对从业者、管理人员、政策制定者、教育工作者、研究人员和其他行为健康利益相关者的影响。随着评估的创伤相关问题的强度增加，接受旨在解决创伤的 ESI 的几率也增加。在较小程度上，随着评估的情绪/行为问题或物质使用问题的增加，被开具相关 ESI 的可能性也增加了。讨论了对从业者、管理人员、政策制定者、教育工作者、研究人员和其他行为健康利益相关者的影响。