The factor structure and psychometric properties of the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation – Outcome Measure (CORE-OM) in Norwegian clinical and non-clinical samples

BMC Psychiatry

Vidje Hansen⁶  Knut Sørgaard⁶  Kjersti Lillevoll⁵  Lars Henrik Myklebust⁴  Chris Evans¹  Sigmund Elgarøy²  Oddgeir Friborg³  Ingunn Skre⁵ 

[1] Nottinghamshire healthcare NHS trust, Nottingham, UK;Sami national competence centre for mental health services (SANKS), Finnmark health trust, Lakselv, Norway;Centre for psychiatric research, University hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway;Psychiatric research centre of North Norway, Nordland hospital trust, Bodø, Norway;Department of psychology, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway;Department of clinical medicine, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway

关键词: Confirmatory factor analysis;    Reliability;    Translation;    CORE-OM;    Outcome measure;   

Others  :  1124095
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-244X-13-99

 received in 2012-10-15, accepted in 2013-03-11,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

The Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - Outcome Measure (CORE-OM) is a 34-item instrument developed to monitor clinically significant change in out-patients. The CORE-OM covers four domains: well-being, problems/symptoms, functioning and risk, and sums up in two total scores: the mean of All items, and the mean of All non-risk items. The aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Norwegian translation of the CORE-OM.

Methods

A clinical sample of 527 out-patients from North Norwegian specialist psychiatric services, and a non-clinical sample of 464 persons were obtained. The non-clinical sample was a convenience sample consisting of friends and family of health personnel, and of students of medicine and clinical psychology. Students also reported psychological stress. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was employed in half the clinical sample. Confirmatory (CFA) factor analyses modelling the theoretical sub-domains were performed in the remaining half of the clinical sample. Internal consistency, means, and gender and age differences were studied by comparing the clinical and non-clinical samples. Stability, effect of language (Norwegian versus English), and of psychological stress was studied in the sub-sample of students. Finally, cut-off scores were calculated, and distributions of scores were compared between clinical and non-clinical samples, and between students reporting stress or no stress.

Results

The results indicate that the CORE-OM both measures general (g) psychological distress and sub-domains, of which risk of harm separates most clearly from the g factor. Internal consistency, stability and cut-off scores compared well with the original English version. No, or only negligible, language effects were found. Gender differences were only found for the well-being domain in the non-clinical sample and for the risk domain in the clinical sample. Current patient status explained differences between clinical and non-clinical samples, also when gender and age were controlled for. Students reporting psychological distress during last week scored significantly higher than students reporting no stress. These results further validate the recommended cut-off point of 1 between clinical and non-clinical populations.

Conclusions

The CORE-OM in Norwegian has psychometric properties at the same level as the English original, and could be recommended for general clinical use. A cut-off point of 1 is recommended for both genders.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Skre et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Barkham M, Evans C, Margison F, McGrath G, Mellor-Clark J, Milne D, Connell J: The rationale for developing and implementing core outcome batteries for routine use in service settings and psychotherapy outcome research. J Ment Heal 1998, 7:35-47.
• [2]Lambert M: Prevention of Treatment Failure: The Use of Measuring, Monitoring, and Feedback in Clinical Practice. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association; 2010.
• [3]International Test Commission Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests. http://www.intestcom.org webcite
• [4]Evans C, Mellor-Clark J, Margison F, Barkham M, Audin K, Connell J, McGrath G: CORE: Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation. J Ment Heal 2000, 9:247-255.
• [5]Barkham M, Mellor-Clark J, Connell J, Cahill J: A CORE approach to practice-based evidence: A brief history of the origins and applications of the CORE-OM and CORE System. Couns Psychother Res 2006, 6:3-15.
• [6]Howard KI, Lueger RJ, Maling MS, Martinovich Z: A Phase Model of Psychotherapy Outcome: Causal Mediation of Change. J Consult Clin Psychol 1993, 61:678-685.
• [7]Elfström ML, Evans C, Lundgren J, Johansson B, Hakeberg M, Carlsson SG: Validation of the Swedish version of the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Outcome Measure (CORE-OM). Clin Psychol Psychother 2012. Published online ahead of publication: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com webcite
• [8]Evans C, Connell J, Barkham M, Margison F, McGrath G, Mellor-Clark J, Audin K: Towards a standardised brief outcome measure: psychometric properties and utility of the CORE-OM. Br J Psychiatry 2002, 180:51-60.
• [9]Lyne KJ, Barrett P, Evans C, Barkham M: Dimensions of variation on the CORE-OM. Br J Clin Psychol 2006, 45:185-203.
• [10]Bedford A, Watson R, Lyne J, Davies F, Deary IJ: Mokken scaling and principal components analyses of the CORE-OM in a large clinical sample. Clin Psychol Psychother 2010, 17:51-62.
• [11]Spielberger CD: Conceptual and methodological issues in anxiety research. In Anxiety: Current trends in theory and research. Edited by Spielberger CD. New York: Academic Press; 1972:481-492.
• [12]Palmieri G, Evans C, Hansen V, Brancaleoni G, Ferrari S, Porcelli P, Reitano F, Rigatelli M: Validation of the Italian version of the clinical outcomes in routine evaluation outcome measure (CORE-OM). Clin Psychol Psychother 2009, 16:444-449.
• [13]Uji M, Sakamoto A, Adachi K, Kitamura T: Psychometric properties of the Japanese version of the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation – Outcome Measure. Compr Psychiatry 2012, 53:600-608.
• [14]Connell J, Barkham M, Stiles WB, Twigg E, Singleton N, Evans O, Miles JNV: Distribution of CORE-OM scores in a general population, clinical cut-off points, and comparison with the CIS-R. Br J Psychiatry 2007, 190:69-74.
• [15]Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D: LISREL 8.80 for Windows [Computer Software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc; 2006.
• [16]Hu L, Bentler PM: Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 1999, 6(1):1-55.
• [17]Marsh HW, Hau KT, Wen Z: In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Struct Equ Modeling 2004, 11(3):320-341.
• [18]Jacobson NS, Truax P: Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol 1991, 59(1):12-19.