Erratum to: Adm Policy Ment Health DOI 10.1007/s10488-013-0515-3

Unfortunately, in the original publication of the article, the narrative and Tables 3 and 4 presented the exponentiated regression coefficient estimates potentially confusing readers. Although all findings are unchanged in terms of statistical significance, we present here the narrative and corrected Tables 3 and 4 reporting the raw Beta estimates and standard errors.

1. The incorrect values should be replaced in the last line of the heading “Outer Context Hypothesis” under the “Results” section, on page 6.

The correct sentence should read as:

Programs accepting private insurance were more likely to offer both CMT (B = 0.54, SE = 0.23, p < 0.05) and MAT (B = 0.47, SE = 0.24, p < 0.05).

2. The incorrect values should be replaced in the last three sentences of second paragraph of the heading “Inner Context Hypotheses” under the “Results” section, on page 6.

The correct sentences should read as:

Supervisor attitudes toward EBPs, specifically openness (B = 0.37, SE = 0.15, p < 0.05) and regulation (B = 0.28, SE = 0.14, p < 0.05), were statistically significantly related to CMT implementation. In addition, the most robust statistically significant relationship was found between supervisor readiness-for-change attributes and CMT (B = 0.78, SE = 0.28, p < 0.01). Supervisors’ openness towards EBPs was also associated with MAT (B = 0.27, SE = 0.14, p < 0.05).

3. The incorrect values should be replaced in the last sentence of the third paragraph of the heading “Inner Context Hypotheses” under the “Results” section, on page 6.

The correct sentence should read as:

The interaction effect between private insurance and openness to EBPs was statistically significant (B = 1.52, SE = 0.56, p < 0.01), as well as the interaction of parent organization and openness to EBPs (B = 1.17, SE = 0.53, p < 0.05).

Revised Tables 3 and 4 are presented below.

Table 3 Implementation of CMT (N = 122)
Full size table
Table 4 Implementation of MAT (N = 122)
Full size table