The CORE-OM in an older adult population: Psychometric status, acceptability, and feasibility

Abstract

There is a need to extend and test the feasibility and acceptability of mental health outcome measures in the older population (i.e., aged 65-100). We present data on the CORE-OM (Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure) on a sample of 118 people aged 65-97 presenting for mental health treatment and 214 people aged 65-94 drawn from a non-clinical population. Results show the CORE-OM to be a reliable measure in both samples when the overall mean item is used but the reliability is not as high for the specific domains as psychometrically stable structures. The CORE-OM showed large overall differences between the non-clinical and clinical samples indicating that it is equally as sensitive to these differing populations across this older age band as with working-age adults. However, the norms for the clinical sample were consistently lower than the equivalent clinical norms for a working-age sample. These findings suggest that the collection and compilation of age-specific norms is crucial in ensuring that appropriately referenced norms are used rather than assuming that norms are generalizable across the whole adult life-span.

Assessing Interpersonal Trauma in Older Adult Women

“…While the cross-sectional nature of this research prohibits a definitive statement about change over time in these specific women, their results do differ from the findings of Foa and colleagues (1997) in norming the instrument with a considerably younger population. This is consistent with the results of Barkham et al (2005), who recommended that different norms and cut-off scores be established for a mental health measure, based on respondents' 386 C. L. Bright and S. E. Bowland ages. These results can be interpreted in more than one way.…”

The Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms (CCAPS‐62): Acceptance, feasibility, and initial psychometric properties in a UK student population

“…The CORE-Outcome Measure (CORE-OM; Barkham et al, 2001) has been used extensively in primary care services in the UK for over a decade to provide measures of psychological functioning (Barkham, Culverwell, Spindler, & Twigg, 2005;Evans et al, 2000). The shortened 10-item version (CORE-10; Barkham et al, 2013) has also been validated against CORE-OM, has been shown to be sensitive to change, and provides a measure of general psychological functioning.…”

Confirmatory factor analysis of Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (CORE-OM) used as a measure of emotional distress in people with tinnitus

“…Model IV was the three factor model specified by Barkham et al [29] for their clinical population (which they consider to be of principal interest) with items 1, 2, 5, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 20, 23, and 27 loading onto factor one: ‘negatively worded', items 3, 4, 7, 12, 19, 21, 31 and 32 loading onto factor 2, ‘positively worded’, and items 6, 9, 16, 22, 24, 25, 26, 29, 33, and 34 loading onto factor 3, ‘risk’.…”

“…Factor loadings were moderate to high, but item 8 (“I have been troubled by aches, pains or other physical problems”) was rejected for the student group because it did not load onto any factor. Barkham et al [29] also reported a three factor solution to their data from two samples of older adults (aged 65–97); of which 118 were adults attending mental health services, and 214 were adults from the general population. However, the items were differently distributed across the factors compared with Evans et al [24] and five items were excluded as they had low factor loadings <0.4.…”