https://doi.org/10.4081/ripppo.2023.671 · 
Видання: Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome, 2023
Видавець: PAGEPress Publications
Автори:
See Also
Joint PhD position: Health Policies for the Implementation of a self management & monitoring app in routine perinatal careRelevance of continuous EEG versus routine EEG for outcome prediction after traumatic brain injuryRoutine monitoring of eye dosePatient related outcome measures (PROMs) in long term conditions—is it time to bring them into routine clinical practice?- Antonino La Tona
- Sofia Tagini
- Agostino Brugnera
- Barbara Poletti
- Edoardo Nicolò Aiello
- Gianluca Lo Coco
- Lidia Del Piccolo
- Angelo Compare
Анотація
The customization of the intervention using patient feedback is an evidence-based practice aimed at the continuous evaluation, during the course of treatment, of the patient's change at a clinical level. There are few easy-to-use tools for common assessment of psychological distress, designed to be used for screening and during treatment to monitor progress. The CORE-10 is definitely one of them. Thus, the aim of the present study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - 10 (CORE-10). A sample of 548 participants (females, N = 463, 84,5%; mean age 23.29 ± 7.21 years) was recruited in the study and filled out a battery of measures. The internal validity of the CORE-10 was investigated through a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) which evidenced a good fit to the data, suggesting a unidimensional factorial structure of the measure. Further, the scale had a good internal reliability and was significantly associated with other measures of distress, interpersonal problems, wellbeing, and insecure attachment. Finally, it showed excellent diagnostic accuracy, as well as intrinsic and post-test diagnostics. Given its validity and reliability, the CORE-10 may be adopted by Italian-speaking psychotherapists and researchers to evaluate the outcomes of mental health interventions as well as to track the session-to-session changes over time in psychological distress among patients.
Список літератури
- Aiello, E. N., Fiabane, E., Margheritti, S., Magnone, S., Bolognini, N., Miglioretti, M., & Giorgi, I. (2022) Psychometric properties of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) in Italian Physicians. La Medicina del Lavoro, 113, e2022037.
- Barkham, M., Bewick, B., Mullin, T., Gilbody, S., Connell, J., Cahill, J., Evans, C. (2013). The CORE‐10: A short measure of psychological distress for routine use in the psychological therapies. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 13(1), 3-13.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14733145.2012.729069 - Barkham, M., Hardy, G. E., & Startup, M. (1996). The IIP‐32: A short version of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 35(1), 21-35.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1996.tb01159.x - Barkham, M., Hardy, G. E., & Mellor-Clark, J. (Eds.). (2010). Developing and delivering practice-based evidence: A guide for the psychological therapies. John Wiley & Sons.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470687994 - Barkham, M., Margison, F., Leach, C., Luco*ck, M., Mellor-Clark, J., Evans, C., ... & McGrath, G. (2001). Service profiling and outcomes benchmarking using the CORE-OM: Toward practice-based evidence in the psychological therapies. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 69(2), 184.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.69.2.184 - Brugnera, A., Zarbo, C., Farina, B., Picardi, A., Greco, A., Lo Coco, G., Greco, F. (2019). Psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Experience in Close Relationship Scale 12 (ECR-12): an exploratory structural equation modeling study. Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology,Process, Outcome, 22(3). https://doi.org/10.4081/ripppo.2019.392
https://doi.org/10.4081/ripppo.2019.392 - Chiappelli, M., Coco, G. L., Gullo, S., Bensi, L., & Prestano, C. (2008). The Outcome Questionnaire 45.2. Italian validation of an instrument for the assessment of phychological treatments. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 17(2), 152-161.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1121189X00002852 - Chui, H., Chong, E., Atzil-Slonim, D., Sahin, Z., Solomonov, N., Minges, M. V., Barber, J. P. (2021). Beyond symptom reduction: Development and validation of the Complementary Measure of Psychotherapy Outcome (COMPO). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68(5), 550 561.doi:10.1037/cou0000536
https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000536 - De Jong, K., Timman, R., Hakkaart-Van Roijen, L., Vermeulen, P., Kooiman, K., Passchier, J., & Busschbach, J. V. (2014). The effect of outcome monitoring feedback to clinicians and patients in short and long-term psychotherapy: A randomized controlled trial. Psychotherapy Research, 24(6), 629-639.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2013.871079 - Duncan, B. L. (2012). The Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS): The Heart and Soul of Change Project. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 53(2), 93.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027762 - Duncan, B. L., & Reese, R. J. (2015). The Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS) revisiting the client’s frame of reference. Psychotherapy, 52(4), 391.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000026 - Evans, C., Connell, J., Barkham, M., Margison, F., McGrath, G., Mellor-Clark, J., & Audin, K. (2002). Towards a standardised brief outcome measure: Psychometric properties and utility of the CORE–OM. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 180(1), 51-60.
https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.180.1.51 - Evans, C., Connell, J., Barkham, M., Marshall, C., & Mellor‐Clark, J. (2003). Practice‐based evidence: benchmarking NHS primary care counselling services at national and local levels. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy: An International Journal of Theory & Practice, 10(6), 374-388.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.384 - Gallo, E., & Rucci, P. (2000). Supply, demand and predictive factors of psychotherapies in 10 community mental health services in Emilia Romagna. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 9(2), 103-112.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1121189X00008290 - Ghasemi, A., & Zahediasl, S. (2012). Normality tests for statistical analysis: a guide for non-statisticians. International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 10(2), 486.
https://doi.org/10.5812/ijem.3505 - Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: a Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 - Kim, H. Y. (2013). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics, 38(1), 52-54.
https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52 - Kyriazos, T. A. (2018). Applied psychometrics: sample size and sample power considerations in factor analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in general. Psychology, 9(08), 2207.
https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.98126 - Lambert, M. J. (2010). Prevention of treatment failure: The use of measuring, monitoring, and feedback in clinical practice. American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/12141-000 - Lambert, M. J., Gregersen, A. T., & Burlingame, G. M. (2004). The Outcome Questionnaire-45.
- Lambert, M.J., Burlingame, G.M., Umphress, V., Hansen, N.B., Vermeersch, D.A., Clouse, G.C. (1996). The reliability and validity of the Outcome Questionnaire. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 3, 249–258.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0879(199612)3:4<249::AID-CPP106>3.0.CO;2-S - Lambert, M. J., Whipple, J. L., & Kleinstäuber, M. (2018). Collecting and delivering progress feedback: A meta-analysis of routine outcome monitoring. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 520.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000167 - Lambert, M. J., Whipple, J. L., Hawkins, E. J., Vermeersch, D. A., Nielsen, S. L., & Smart, D. W. (2003). Is it time for clinicians to routinely track patient outcome? a meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(3), 288.
https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bpg025 - Lambert, M. J., Whipple, J. L., Vermeersch, D. A., Smart, D. W., Hawkins, E. J., Nielsen, S. L., & Goates, M. (2002). Enhancing psychotherapy outcomes via providing feedback on client progress: A replication. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 9(2), 91-103.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.324 - Lomazzi, L., Fava, E., Landra, S., D'Angelo, P., Lammoglia, M., Pazzi, E., ... & Carta, I. (1997). Psychotherapies in Lombard public mental health services: psichiatrists' and psicologists' point of view. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 6(3), 184-193.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1121189X00005030 - Lovibond S.H., Lovibond, P.F (1995). Manual for the depression anxiety stress scales (2nd ed.), Psychology Foundation, Sydney.
https://doi.org/10.1037/t01004-000 - MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130 - Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2012). An attachment perspective on psychopathology. World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA), 11(1), 11–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpsyc.2012.01.003
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpsyc.2012.01.003 - Miller, S. D., Duncan, B. L., Brown, J., Sparks, J. A., & Claud, D. A. (2003). The outcome rating scale: A preliminary study of the reliability, validity, and feasibility of a brief visual analog measure. Journal of brief Therapy, 2(2), 91-100.
- Nor, A. W. (2015). The graphical assessment of multivariate normality using SPSS. Education in Medicine Journal, 7(2), e71-e75.
https://doi.org/10.5959/eimj.v7i2.361 - Østergård, O. K., & Hougaard, E. (2020). The evidence for the partners for change outcome management system is insufficient: Reply to Duncan and Sparks (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000419 - Østergård, O. K., Randa, H., & Hougaard, E. (2020). The effect of using the Partners for Change Outcome Management System as feedback tool in psychotherapy - A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychotherapy Research, 30(2), 195-212.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2018.1517949 - Palmieri, G., Evans, C., Hansen, V., Brancaleoni, G., Ferrari, S., Porcelli, P., ... & Rigatelli, M. (2009). Validation of the Italian version of the clinical outcomes in routine evaluation outcome measure (CORE‐OM). Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy: An International Journal of Theory & Practice, 16(5), 444-449.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.646 - Pavot, W., Diener, E. (1993). Review of the Satisfaction With Life Scale. Psychological Assessment, 5(2), 164-172. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.5.2.164
https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.5.2.164 - Shepherd, M., Ashworth, M., Evans, C., Robinson, S. I., Rendall, M., & Ward, S. (2005). What factors are associated with improvement after brief psychological interventions in primary care? Issues arising from using routine outcome measurement to inform clinical practice. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 5(4), 273-280.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14733140600571326 - Twenge, J. M., Cooper, A. B., Joiner, T. E., Duffy, M. E., & Binau, S. G. (2019). Age, period, and cohort trends in mood disorder indicators and suicide-related outcomes in a nationally representative dataset, 2005–2017. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 128(3), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000410
https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000410 - WHO (1998). Wellbeing Measures in Primary Health Care/The Depcare Project. WHO Regional Office for Europe: Copenhagen.
Публікації, які цитують цю публікацію
PsyCARE study: assessing impact, cost-effectiveness, and transdiagnostic factors of the Italian ministry of health’s “psychological bonus” policy
Ilaria M.A. Benzi, Angelo Compare, Antonino La Tona, Santo Di Nuovo, David Lazzari, Vittorio Lingiardi, Gianluca Lo Coco, Laura Parolin
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01345-6 ·
2023, BMC Psychology, №1
Scopus
WoS
Цитувань Crossref:0
Знайти всі цитування публікації
Дані публікації
| Кількість цитувань | 0 |
| Кількість джерел у списку літератури: | 37 |
| Видання індексується в Scopus | Так |
| Видання індексується в Web of Science | Так |
