Youth · Mobile
Youth app prototype
Connects check-in and privacy controls into a clickable mobile walkthrough.
Open youth prototype
Conceptual UX Case Study
Path Compass
A guide for youth and clinicians on the path to healing — turning a TF-CBT evaluation plan into a trauma-informed clinical product.
⚑Scope honesty: a conceptual case study built on a real graduate evaluation plan. No primary research with clinicians or youth — personas and journeys are synthesized from literature. HIPAA-aware principles, no real patient data.
Problem
Paper breaks trauma-informed care in three places.
Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT) only works if it's delivered with fidelity (the program is implemented exactly as intended), tracked across five timepoints, and youth feel safe enough to actually disclose. Paper-based workflows undermine all three at once.
8
PRACTICE components a clinician must deliver — and usually reconstructs from memory after the session
Deblinger et al., 2014
5×
Timepoints where SDQ + FSSQ (emotional, behavioral, and social support screening questionnaires) outcomes need to be collected from both youth and caregiver
Evaluation plan, WSU
1
Privacy setting most tools offer at intake — a single all-or-nothing caregiver toggle
Competitive review
0
Adjacent tools that combine fidelity, longitudinal outcomes, and granular youth privacy
6-tool benchmark
◆The real design problem isn't measurement — it's trust. A youth who over-discloses to a system that reports everything to a caregiver will stop disclosing at all, which quietly breaks the evaluation plan it was built to support.
Final how might we
How might we support high-fidelity TF-CBT delivery in community clinics while giving youth greater agency over their information and reducing documentation burden for clinicians and caregivers?
Keeps clinical fidelity and youth agency as equal, non-negotiable constraints.
Names documentation burden as a design problem, not a training problem.
Scopes to three real audiences: youth, clinician, and caregiver.
Process
Five phases, starting from a real evaluation plan.
Most case studies start from a blank problem. This one started from a graduate-level measurement plan already built for TF-CBT — the design challenge was translating it into an interface clinicians and youth would actually use.
I directed the research synthesis and selected the evaluation methods and frameworks. AI tools helped structure literature coding, surface candidate sources for my review, and draft initial versions of personas and journey maps, which I then refined against the TF-CBT evaluation plan, PRACTICE fidelity model, and trauma-informed literature. No primary research was conducted with clinicians or youth.
01
Foundation & research
TF-CBT evaluation plan, PRACTICE fidelity model, and trauma-informed constraints from published literature.
02
Synthesis
Three personas and current-vs-ideal journey maps across six evaluation phases.
03
Exploration & benchmarking
Six adjacent tools compared on fidelity, outcomes, and privacy to find Path Compass's wedge.
04
Design & prototyping
Wireframes, high-fidelity screens, and two interactive Figma prototypes.
05
Evaluation & validation
Heuristic review against Nielsen's heuristics and trauma-informed design principles.
Foundation & research
The PRACTICE model, made checkable.
TF-CBT is delivered through eight components. Fidelity means every session can be checked against them — the design question was where and when that checking happens.
P Psychoeducation & parenting
R Relaxation
A Affective modulation
C Cognitive coping
T Trauma narrative
I In vivo mastery
C Conjoint sessions
E Enhancing safety
Q1
Process evaluation
Was TF-CBT delivered with PRACTICE fidelity in community clinics?
Process question
Q2
Short-term outcome
Are internalizing symptoms (SDQ) reduced after treatment?
Short-term question
Q3
Intermediate outcome
Gains in social support (FSSQ) and coping, versus therapy as usual?
Intermediate question
Q4
Long-term impact
Mental health and quality-of-life improvements 12–18 months later?
Long-term question
Synthesis
Three people, one shared system.
Nia and Denise are a matched youth–caregiver dyad. Marcus is their clinician. Every design decision had to hold for all three at once.
N
Nia, 14
Youth · Mobile app
Goal
Feel safer at home and control what she shares — without the app feeling like it's reporting on her.
Frustration
Paper forms feel like homework; she fears her caregiver will see private answers.
Design implication: default-private entries, warm microcopy, never auto-notify caregivers of scores.
M
Marcus, 38
Clinician · Dashboard & fidelity tools
Goal
Deliver PRACTICE with fidelity and document without losing presence in the room.
Frustration
Post-session forms lose accuracy; there's no trend view across five timepoints.
Design implication: in-session marking, surfaced caregiver participation, minimal clicks.
D
Denise, 41
Caregiver · Portal
Goal
Help Nia heal without blame, around retail shifts, and stay informed when she can't attend.
Frustration
Scheduling conflicts, lost paper handouts, emotional barriers to staying involved.
Design implication: mobile-first async reports, non-punitive reschedule, plain-language recaps.
Journey maps
Current-state and ideal-state journeys for Nia and Marcus across six TF-CBT evaluation phases — from recruitment through 18-month follow-up. Denise’s caregiver needs are captured in her persona above; these maps focus on the youth–clinician workflow where fidelity, privacy, and longitudinal data collection collide. Click any map to enlarge and zoom.
Nia, 14
Youth · Mobile app
Marcus, 38
Clinician · Dashboard & fidelity tools
◆Journey mapping insight: paper workflows break at three handoffs — privacy transfer, post-session fidelity recall, and fragmented PROM collection across five timepoints. That became the design brief.
Exploration & benchmarking
No single tool covers fidelity, outcomes, and privacy.
Six adjacent products each solve one piece of the problem. Path Compass's wedge is combining all three in one community-clinic workspace.
I selected the comparison dimensions (fidelity tracking, longitudinal outcomes, and youth privacy controls) and the final set of six tools. AI assisted with surfacing candidate tools and organizing initial feature comparisons, which I then refined against the literature and clinical constraints.
Scroll/swipe to compare
| Capability | Paper | TF-CBTWeb | SPARK | Greenspace | Lyssn | VA apps | Path Compass |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Real-time PRACTICE fidelity | |||||||
| Longitudinal PROM (5 timepoints) | |||||||
| Youth privacy / sharing controls | |||||||
| Caregiver portal / parallel support | |||||||
| Low clinician documentation burden | |||||||
| Trauma-informed youth UX |
Built-in / strong
Partial / adjacent
Absent or not the job
How adjacent tools handle the same four workflows
Pattern comparisons contrast the typical approach against Path Compass's target design. Click to enlarge.
Design
Three pressure points, five decisions.
- Youth over-disclosure risk
- Default caregiver visibility
- Post-session fidelity reconstruction
These drove every choice below — each weighed against a real alternative.
Design decision implemented
Flat, always-visible PRACTICE checklist, markable during session with optional inline notes.
Design alternative considered
Collapsible sections by PRACTICE phase, to reduce visual density.
Why?
Clinicians reconstruct fidelity from memory after a session — a flat list keeps every component glanceable mid-narrative.
Design decision implemented
All check-in and journal content starts private; youth share per category, per audience.
Design alternative considered
Caregiver-visible by default with opt-out, or one-time intake privacy settings.
Why?
Parent-visible defaults risk over-disclosure. Granular revoke operationalizes trauma-informed choice instead of just stating it.
Design decision implemented
Optional per-item notes expand inline beneath each PRACTICE row.
Design alternative considered
Modal dialog for notes, separating marking from documentation.
Why?
Modals force a context switch mid-session. Inline expansion keeps the checklist visible while still allowing documentation.
Design decision implemented
Mood-first check-ins, then discrete prompts, with a persistent “Private” signal before input.
Design alternative considered
Lead with full clinical measure screens, or open-text journaling.
Why?
First-use anxiety and over-disclosure risk are highest at entry. Low-stakes mood entry builds trust before clinical prompts.
Design decision implemented
A labeled, collapsible panel shows only youth signals Nia explicitly shared.
Design alternative considered
Full youth chart visibility, or no youth context on the fidelity screen at all.
Why?
Clinical context without over-exposure — collapsible keeps it from competing with the fidelity checklist mid-session.
Low-fidelity wireframes
Layout experiments checked against trauma-informed literature — not live sessions. Click to enlarge.
Final designs
Youth check-in and privacy controls on mobile; PRACTICE fidelity checklist and dashboard on desktop. Click any screen to zoom.
Prototyping
Two interactive Figma walkthroughs.
One links the youth mobile screens; the other links the clinician desktop flow. The Figma prototypes are best experienced on a full screen.
Open youth prototype
Clinician · Desktop
Clinician dashboard prototype
Interactive walkthrough of the in-session PRACTICE fidelity checklist and clinician workflow.
Open clinician prototype
Evaluation & validation
Reviewed against Nielsen's heuristics and trauma-informed principles.
No moderated testing with clinic participants — validation was an expert heuristic pass against usability heuristics and trauma-informed design values: safety, trustworthiness, choice, collaboration, empowerment.
What held up
◆Privacy-first ordering — control cues appear before sensitive prompts, aligned with trauma-informed choice.
◆Mood-first, discrete responses — low cognitive-load entry pattern using closed scales instead of open text.
◆Always-visible PRACTICE list — supports in-session marking without hiding unmarked components.
◆Running fidelity score — visible during marking, supporting recognition over recall.
What the review flagged
◆No exit path mid-check-in H3 · User control — youth could get trapped in a multi-step flow.
◆No back navigation on privacy screen H3 · Choice — sharing choices felt final, not reversible.
◆No visible private-status signal H1 · Visibility — youth couldn't tell if answers were shared before submitting.
◆No session progress indicator H1 · Visibility — clinicians lost track of where they were in the PRACTICE arc.
◆No scoped youth-context panel H1 · Visibility — fidelity screen showed full chart visibility or none; shared youth signals weren’t labeled or collapsible.
◆No confirmation before ending session H5 · Error prevention — risked accidental data loss.
◆All six higher-priority issues were fixed before final delivery — a Save & Close control, back navigation on privacy, a persistent Private signal, a PRACTICE progress indicator, a labeled collapsible youth panel, and an End Session confirmation.
Reflection
What it proved, and what's still open.
Trauma-informed design isn’t about soft colors or calming visuals — it’s about what happens by default. For Path Compass, that meant what starts private, when the clinician documents care, and whether a young person can take back something they shared.
What it achieved
An end-to-end system joining live PRACTICE fidelity, five-timepoint outcomes, and trauma-informed privacy — with granular, reversible youth control instead of default caregiver visibility, and two interactive prototypes covering both surfaces.
Limitations
Conceptual scope only — no primary research with clinicians or youth, and validation limited to heuristic review rather than moderated testing. Personas and insights are synthesized from literature and the evaluation plan.
Next steps
Moderated usability testing with community clinicians and youth on the fidelity checklist and privacy controls, plus comparing documentation time against paper checklists and testing share/revoke flows with matched youth–caregiver dyads.
Transferable insight
Youth privacy can’t rely on a single sign-up checkbox or “parent sees everything” — the competitive benchmark showed that’s what most adjacent tools offer, and Nia’s persona flagged caregiver visibility as a disclosure risk. The heuristic review found the same gaps in the prototypes: no Private signal before sensitive input, no way back on sharing.
Post-session documentation pushes clinicians to reconstruct PRACTICE from memory — Marcus’s journey and the heuristic review both raised that recall risk, which is why in-session marking became the design direction. The journey maps showed paper failing wherever surveys, privacy, and fidelity were planned separately; that pattern comes from the evaluation plan and literature, not yet tested with clinicians or youth.
References
Sources referenced in this case study.
View bibliography
- Abdulai, A.-F., Naghdali, H., Tekie Ghirmay, E., Adam, F., & Bawafaa, E. (2023). Trauma-informed care in digital health technologies: Protocol for a scoping review. JMIR Research Protocols, 12, e46842. https://doi.org/10.2196/46842
- Birkeland, M. S., Holt, T., Ormhaug, S. M., & Jensen, T. K. (2020). Perceived social support and posttraumatic stress symptoms in children and youth in therapy: A parallel process latent growth curve model. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 132, 103655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2020.103655
- Broadhead, W. E., Gehlbach, S. H., De Gruy, F. V., & Kaplan, B. H. (1988). The Duke-UNC Functional Social Support Questionnaire: Measurement of social support in family medicine patients. Medical Care, 26(7), 709–723. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-198807000-00006
- Cohen, J. A., & Mannarino, A. P. (2008). Trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy for children and parents. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 13(4), 158–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-3588.2008.00502.x
- Cohen, J. A., & Mannarino, A. P. (2015). Trauma-focused cognitive behavior therapy for traumatized children and families. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 24(3), 557–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2015.02.005
- Deblinger, E., Cohen, J. A., Mannarino, A. P., Murray, L., & Epstein, C. (2014). TF-CBT brief practice fidelity checklist (Rev. ed.). Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy National Therapist Certification Program. https://tfcbt.org/tf-cbt-brief-practice-fidelity-checklist/
- Goodman, R., Meltzer, H., & Bailey, V. (1998). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A pilot study on the validity of the self-report version. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 7(3), 125–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s007870050057
- Hussain, H. (2023). Trauma-informed design: The whitepaper. Chayn. https://assets.website-files.com/60fdc9111506063bb9fe8e49/64b081438e3221d7ffc92b12_Trauma-informed%20design_%20the%20whitepaper%20by%20Chayn.pdf
- National Child Traumatic Stress Network. (n.d.). How to implement trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT). https://www.nctsn.org/sites/default/files/resources/how_to_implement_tfcbt.pdf
- Nielsen, J. (1994, April 24). 10 usability heuristics for user interface design. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/
- Rudd, B. N., Last, B. S., Gregor, C., Jackson, K., Berkowitz, S., Zinny, A., Kratz, H. E., Cliggitt, L., Adams, D. R., Walsh, L. M., & Beidas, R. S. (2019). Benchmarking treatment effectiveness of community-delivered trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy. American Journal of Community Psychology, 64(3–4), 438–450. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12370
- Smallenburg, J. (n.d.). TF-CBT evaluation plan [Unpublished master’s evaluation plan]. Wayne State University, M.S. Community Health Education program.
- Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014). SAMHSA’s concept of trauma and guidance for a trauma-informed approach (HHS Publication No. SMA 14-4884). https://store.samhsa.gov/product/samhsa-s-concept-of-trauma-and-guidance-for-a-trauma-informed-approach/SMA14-4884
- Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy National Therapist Certification Program. (n.d.). About TF-CBT. https://tfcbt.org/about/
- Webb, C., Hayes, A. M., Grasso, D., Laurenceau, J.-P., & Deblinger, E. (2014). Trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy for youth: Effectiveness in a community setting. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 6(5), 555–562. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037364
- Youthinmind. (n.d.). Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). https://www.sdqinfo.org/