Clinicians’ Attitudes Towards Outcome and Process Monitoring: A Validation of the Outcome Measurement Questionnaire

Abstract

Valid and reliable instruments to measure monitoring attitudes of clinicians are scarce. The influence of sociodemographics and professional characteristics on monitoring attitudes is largely unknown. First, we investigated the factor structure and reliability of the Outcome Measurement Questionnaire among a sample of Flemish mental health professionals (n = 170). Next, we examined the relationship between clinicians' sociodemographic and professional characteristics and monitoring attitudes. Construct validity was determined using a confirmatory factor analysis. Internal consistency was ascertained using Cronbach's alpha. Mean level differences in monitoring attitudes related to clinicians' gender, work setting, level of education and psychotherapeutic training, were investigated using ANOVAs. The relationships between clinicians' age, clinical experience and attitudes were calculated using the Pearson correlation coefficient. A model with one general factor and a method factor referring to reverse-worded items best fitted our data. Internal consistency was good. Clinicians with psychotherapeutic training reported more favorable monitoring attitudes than those without such training. Compared to clinicians working in subsidized outpatient services, private practitioners and clinicians from inpatient mental health clinics had more positive attitudes. Results highlight the need for sustained and targeted training, with particular focus on transforming measurement data into meaningful clinical support tools.

Attitudes of Austrian psychotherapists towards process and outcome monitoring

“…In previous studies, the OMQ reached satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ranging from .79 and .89) and an adequate factor structure (Smits et al, 2015). However, a German language version of this instrument was not available at the beginning of this period.…”

“…In the original version, the authors proposed two rationally constructed subscales named "Openness to feedback" and "Monitoring attitude". These subscales could not be confirmed in a factor analysis by Smits et al (2015), who instead found a factor solution with one factor including positively coded items and one method factor including reverse-scored items to be of best fit. The first factor was correlated almost perfectly with OMQ scores (r = .97), justifying the use of a total sum score of the OMQ to measure attitudes towards monitoring (details in Appendix B).…”

“…While attitudes toward outcome monitoring were already mainly positive in the baseline measure, it was shown to improve after a training workshop on this subject. The resulting questionnaire was validated with a larger sample by Smits, Claes, Stinckens, & Smits (2015), who also translated the OMQ to the Flemish language. In this study, attitude toward outcome monitoring was better for practitioners with a higher level of education and psychotherapeutic training.…”

The clinical utility of the Personal Questionnaire (PQ): a mixed methods study

“…Outcomes of patients attending services are ought to be assessed on a routine basis and used for monitoring quality (i.e., assessing and improving treatments within teams or services) and for benchmarking (i.e., to make comparisons betweens teams or services, allowing investors, such as insurance companies, to choose between service providers) (Smits, Claes, Stinckens, & Smits, 2014;van Noorden, van der Wee, Zitman, & Giltay, 2012). Being valuable sources of evidence of treatment effect as it occurs naturally within daily clinical practice, routine outcomes are also central to inform potential users and public in general (Barkham & Mellor-Clark, 2003).…”

Monitorování účinnosti v psychoterapii a poradenství

“…Je ovšem potřeba upozornit, že efekt terapie je měřen stejným nástrojem, na jehož základě je také poskytována zpětná vazba -systém tedy nezachytí oblasti změny, na něž použitý dotazník není citlivý, zatímco klinik si může všímat i jiných oblastí a jeho zhodnocení klientova stavu pak může být se standardizovaným hodnocením v rozporu. V jiné studii se ukázalo, že pozitivnější vztah k monitorování účinku mají soukromí praktikové a ti, kteří léčí hospitalizované pacienty -ve srovnání s praktiky v ambulantních zařízeních (Smits, Claes, Stinckens, & Smits, 2015).…”