Development and psychometrics of the five item daily index in a psychiatric sample

Effects of providing domain specific progress monitoring and feedback to therapists and patients on outcome

“…The DI-5 has shown good internal consistency and sensitivity to change in a sample of inpatients and day-patients undergoing psychological treatment, Cronbach's α = 0.86 in current sample (Cronbach's α = 0.88; Dyer, Hooke, & Page, 2014). Further the DI-5 has been demonstrated as a valid measure in these samples (Dyer et al, 2014) showing good concurrent validity with an existing measure, the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (Depression r = .71, Anxiety r = .54, Stress r = .58). The DI-5 consists of five items (e.g., "I have felt depressed;" "I have felt anxious") rated on a six-point Likert-type scale measuring frequency from "All of the time" to "At no time".…”

Methods of Delivering Progress Feedback to Optimise Patient Outcomes: The Value of Expected Treatment Trajectories

“…Patients endorse the appropriate option for the previous 24 hours. The DI-5 has demonstrated high internal consistency and test-retest reliability in clinical samples (Dyer et al, 2014); and sound construct validity, exhibiting high correlations with other mental health measures in clinical samples. (Newnham et al, 2010b).…”

“…Therapy outcomes are improved when therapists (and often patients) are provided with feedback about patients who are not on track for a good outcome (Dyer, Hooke, & Page, 2014;Newnham et al, 2010b;Shimokawa, Lambert, & Smart, 2010). The use of computerised methods such as touchscreen technology has further streamlined and automated large scale patient monitoring (Newnham, Doyle, Sng, Hooke, & Page, 2012).…”

“…For each function, upper and lower boundaries of half a standard deviation either side of the mean score of each measurement point were then calculated to produce the final trajectories of expected treatment response. A similar procedure was used to develop the symptom trajectories (bottom charts in Figure 1), but only four groups were necessary to model expected treatment responses across the different levels of severity (Dyer et al, 2014).…”

“…The distinction between on-track and not-on-track progress was subsequently made based on comparing the patient's actual scores to the expected trajectories (Dyer et al, 2014;Newnham et al, 2010b). Detailed investigation of the impact of patients' progress status on their perceptions of the feedback graphs was beyond the scope of this exploratory study.…”