Evaluation of the Computerized Assessment System for Psychotherapy Evaluation and Research (CASPER) as a measure of treatment effectiveness in an outpatient training clinic.

Abstract

This study evaluated the validity of the Computerized Assessment System for Psychotherapy Evaluation and Research (CASPER), a system that identifies target problems and monitors treatment outcomes. Preand posttreatment data were obtained from 78 clients and their therapists in an outpatient training clinic. CASPER scales were significantly correlated with the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) and with therapist ratings on the Global Assessment Scale (GAS) at both intake and posttreatment. These measures also showed significant pre-to posttreatment changes. The largest effect sizes were found on CASPER individualized outcome measures. Residual change scores and posttreatment improvement ratings derived from CASPER were significantly correlated with BSI and GAS change scores. There was moderate agreement between clients' and therapists' ratings; clients tended to rate their functioning higher than did therapists on several CASPER scales.

Evaluation of the Computerized Assessment System for Psychotherapy Evaluation and Research (CASPER) interview with a psychiatric inpatient population

“…The present study examined the use of the CASPER at a single time point during the early stage of hospitalization. Although a previous study (Farrell, 1999b) found the CASPER to be a sensitive measure of change, this research was conducted with outpatients in a training clinic. Further work is needed to determine the extent to which the CASPER is sensitive to treatment effects within an inpatient population.…”

“…Previous studies have established the reliability and validity of the CASPER as a measure of global level of functioning (Farrell, 1999b;Farrell & McCullough-Vaillant, 1996). Farrell (1999a) examined the reliability and validity of the CASPER item scales in derivation and cross-validation samples of university counseling-center clients and clients from an outpatient-training clinic.…”

“…Although the CASPER has been used in a variety of mental health settings including an outpatient-training clinic (Farrell, 1999b;Farrell et al, 1987), university counseling centers (Farrell, 1999a;Heppner et al, 1994), and a residential drug-treatment program (Farrell, Li, Auerbach, & May, 1998), no previous studies have examined its use with an inpatient population. This is ironic in that the items included in the CASPER interview were originally derived from research on psychiatric inpatients (McCullough, Farrell, & Longabaugh, 1986).…”

Changes in Patient Measures as Predictors of Therapists’ Ratings of Treatment Collaboration and Change in Eating Disorder Subgroups

“…This shift toward multiple perspectives is important for two reasons: the first is providing insight into what constitutes change from different perspectives and the second is that patient–therapist discrepancies may influence patients’ motivation, attendance, and alliance—all considered significant, relevant parameters for treatment outcomes (Barber, Connolly, Crits-Cristoph, Gladis, & Siqueland, 2000). Several studies have shown that comparisons of patient and therapist viewpoints on psychotherapy outcomes yield only small to moderate levels of agreement (Farrell, 1999; Pekarik & Wolff, 1996). In psychodynamically oriented therapies, a source of discrepancies between patients and therapists may relate to the optimal focus of psychotherapy: Should it focus on symptomatic relief and conscious personality changes, or should it be geared toward changes in the patient’s inner world and deep-rooted personality organization?…”

Evaluation of the Computerized Assessment System for Psychotherapy Evaluation and Research (CASPER) as a Measure of Treatment Effectiveness With Psychiatric Inpatients

“…Subsequent ratings of target problems are used to monitor treatment progress and to evaluate outcome. This approach represents a compromise between a nomothetic approach to assessment in which all patients respond to the same fixed set of questions regardless of their relevance and an idiographic approach in which measures are developed specifically for a given patient (Farrell, 1999). In contrast to traditional methods of assessing target problems, the fact that patients select problems from an established list makes it possible to aggregate data across patients.…”