Patient‐centered assessment in psychotherapy: Toward a greater bandwidth of evidence

The psychometric properties of PSYCHLOPS, an individualized patient-reported outcome measure of personal distress

OBJECTIVE

Few studies report the psychometric properties of individualized patient-reported outcome measures (I-PROMs) combining traditional analysis and Item Response Theory (IRT).

METHODS

Pre- and posttreatment PSYCHLOPS data derived from six clinical samples (n = 939) were analyzed for validity, reliability, and responsiveness; caseness cutoffs and reliable change index were calculated. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to determine whether items represented a unidimensional construct; IRT examined item properties of this construct.

RESULTS

Values for internal consistency, construct validity, convergent and discriminant validity, and structural validity were satisfactory. Responsiveness was high: Cohen's d, 1.48. Caseness cutoff and reliable clinical change scores were 6.41 and 4.63, respectively. IRT analysis confirmed that item scores possess strong properties in assessing the underlying trait measured by PSYCHLOPS.

CONCLUSION

PSYCHLOPS met the criteria for norm-referenced measurement of patient psychological distress. PSYCHLOPS functioned as a measure of a single latent trait, which we describe as "personal distress."

Idiographic patient reported outcome measures (I-PROMs) for routine outcome monitoring in psychological therapies: Position paper

Idiographic patient-reported outcome measures (I-PROMs) are a growing set of individualized tools for use in routine outcome monitoring (ROM) in psychological therapies. This paper presents a position statement on their conceptualization, use, and analysis, based on contemporary evidence and clinical practice. Four problem-based, and seven goal-based, I-PROMs, with some evidence of psychometric evaluation and use in psychotherapy, were identified. I-PROMs may be particularly valuable to the evaluation of psychological therapies because of their clinical utility and their alignment with a patient-centered approach. However, there are several challenges for I-PROMs: how to generate items in a robust manner, their measurement model, methods for establishing their reliability and validity, and the meaning of an aggregated I-PROM score. Based on the current state of the literature, we recommend that I-PROMs are used to complement nomothetic measures. Research recommendations are also made regarding the most appropriate methods for analyzing I-PROM data.

Personalising Outcome Measurement in Substance Misuse Treatment: the Feasibility and Psychometrics of Two Individualised Outcome Measures

Individualised information in substance misuse treatment complements standardised outcome measures. However, few studies investigate the use of individualised measures and their robustness in terms of quantifying outcomes. In this study, we analysed the psychometrics and feasibility of two individualised outcome measures (PQ and PSYCHLOPS). We followed a cross-sectional methodology, administering the individualised measures and three additional standardised measures (TOP, a measure of psychological health within addiction services; PHQ-9; CORE-OM) to a sample of 93 patients entering substance misuse treatment in four clinical services. The results showed high levels of patient acceptability of the two individualised measures (response rates > 95%). The internal reliability was good for both PQ and PSYCHLOPS (Cronbach’s alpha, .79 and .72, respectively). Convergent validity of PQ with standardised measures was weak: Pearson’s r values for TOP (psychological health), PHQ-9 and CORE-OM were .21, .22 and .27, respectively. In contrast, convergent validity of PSYCHLOPS was moderate: r = .40, .39 and .50, respectively. Convergence between PQ and PSYCHLOPS was weak (r = .28). Experience of previous treatment episodes was associated with higher PQ and PSYCHLOPS scores; PSYCHLOPS but not PQ scores were higher among those opting to complete the questionnaires in written rather than verbal format. Our findings demonstrated that PQ and PSYCHLOPS are reliable and feasible individualised outcome measures for use in substance misuse treatment units, although the lack of strong convergent validity indicates that they may be measuring different underlying constructs. Optimal outcome measurement may involve combining individualised and standardised measures.

How Routine Patient-Centered Monitoring Relates to Therapeutic Gains in Family Therapy: A Single-Case Study

As routine outcome monitoring systems develop, questions emerge about how therapists incorporate feedback into their practice, and how this relates to therapeutic gains. A case of covert grief was monitored in each session with the Personal Questionnaire and the Helpful Aspects of Therapy instruments. At 4 months follow-up, the Change Interview was administered. Individualized items facilitated access to the private views and needs of each member, which was useful for case formulation and ongoing personalization of the intervention. Qualitative feedback of treatment experiences helped therapists confirm the impacts of interventions, monitor therapeutic alliance, reformulate clinical hypothesis, and plan sessions. Therapists followed a critical triangulation process to decide the clinical meaning of feedback, according to his/her intervention model, expertise, and case-specific context.

Capturing and missing the patient's story through outcome measures: A thematic comparison of patient-generated items in PSYCHLOPS with CORE-OM and PHQ-9

Background

There is increasing interest in individualized patient‐reported outcome measures (I‐PROMS), where patients themselves indicate the specific problems they want to address in therapy and these problems are used as items within the outcome measurement tool.

Objective

This paper examined the extent to which 279 items reported in an I‐PROM (PSYCHLOPS) added qualitative information which was not captured by two well‐established outcome measures (CORE‐OM and PHQ‐9).

Design

Comparison of items was only conducted for patients scoring above the “caseness” threshold on the standardized measures.

Setting and patients

107 patients were participating in therapy within addiction and general psychiatric clinical settings.

Main results

Almost every patient (95%) reported at least one item whose content was not covered by PHQ‐9, and 71% reported at least one item not covered by CORE‐OM.

Discussion

Results demonstrate the relevance of individualized outcome assessment for capturing data describing the issues of greatest concern to patients, as nomothetic measures do not always seem to capture the whole story.