Measuring Feedback From Clients

Abstract

Treatment results can be improved by obtaining feedback from clients concerning their progress during therapy and the quality of the therapeutic relationship. This feedback can be rated using short instruments such as the Outcome Rating Scale (ORS) and the Session Rating Scale (SRS), which are being increasingly used in many countries. This study investigates the validity and reliability of the Dutch ORS and SRS in a large sample of subjects (N = 587) drawn from the clients of an outpatient mental healthcare organization. The results are compared to those of previous Dutch and American studies. While both the ORS and the SRS exhibited adequate test-retest reliability and internal consistency, their concurrent validity was limited (more for the SRS than for the ORS). New standards are proposed for the Dutch ORS and SRS. The scores obtained with these standards are interpreted differently than those obtained using American standards. The clinical implications of the limited validity of the ORS and the SRS are discussed, as is the use of different standards in conjunction with these instruments.

Psychometric Properties of the Outcome Rating Scale (ORS) in a Spanish Clinical Sample

“…Their properties in the sample were described, comparing them to the properties of other instruments already standardized in the country. Analyzing our results, the total score of the ORS at first administration are similar to those found in other clinical samples at the intake (Anker et al, 2009;Anker et al, 2010;Biescad & Timulak, 2014;Hafkenscheid et al, 2010;Janse et al, 2014;Miller et al, 2003;. Total scores of the CORE-OM at intake are consistent with the scores of the clinical sample in the study of Trujillo et al (2016) at the same point administration (Non-risk items, M = 1.86 SD =.78 CI = .84, 1.05; All items, M = 1.62 SD = .71 CI = .75, .94).…”

Therapeutic alliance—not therapist competence or group cohesion—contributes to reduction of psychological distress in group‐based mindfulness‐based cognitive therapy for cancer patients

“…Items were scored on a 5‐point scale ranging from rarely to always (Hatcher & Gillaspy, ; Stinckens Ulburghs, & Claes, ). The 12‐item inventory was validated in a Dutch‐speaking sample, showing an internal consistency of >0.80 for all separate subscales and 0.87 for the total scale (Janse, Boezen‐Hilberdink, van Dijk, Verbraak, & Hutschemaekers, et al, ). Internal consistency of the total scale of the version used in this study was 0.87.…”

Client concealment and disclosure of secrets in outpatient psychotherapy

“…The measure has been found to correlate with therapist-rated outcome (r = .38), client and therapist ratings of the real relationship (r = .49 and .29 respectively), and client secure attachment to therapist (r = .59) (Fuertes et al, 2007;Gelso et al, 2012). Internal consistency for the present study was .90. functioning, and the mark is rounded to the closest millimeter to determine the numerical response to each item (range from 0-10) (Janse et al, 2013). Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) has been demonstrated to be .90, and test-retest reliability was been shown to be .66 (Campbell & Hemsley, 2009).…”