The factor structure and psychometric properties of the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - Outcome Measure (CORE-OM) in Norwegian clinical and non-clinical samples

BMC Psychiatry

Volumn 13, Issue , 2013, Pages

  Skre, Ingunn ^a   Friborg, Oddgeir ^a,d   Elgarøy, Sigmund ^b   Evans, Chris ^c   Myklebust, Lars Henrik ^d,e   Lillevoll, Kjersti ^a   Sørgaard, Knut ^a,e   Hansen, Vidje ^a,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TROMSØ   (Norway)

^b Finnmark health trust   (Norway)

^c NOTTINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF NORTH NORWAY   (Norway)

^e NORDLAND HOSPITAL   (Norway)

Author keywords

Confirmatory factor analysis; CORE OM; Outcome measure; Reliability; Translation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; ARTICLE; CLINICAL OUTCOMES IN ROUTINE EVALUATION OUTCOME MEASURE; CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISTRESS SYNDROME; ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; FAMILY; FEMALE; FRIEND; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HUMAN; INTERNAL CONSISTENCY; LANGUAGE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; MENTAL FUNCTION; MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE; MENTAL STRESS; NORMAL HUMAN; NORWAY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PSYCHIATRIST; PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL BEING; PSYCHOMETRY; RISK FACTOR; SAMPLE SIZE; SCORING SYSTEM; SEX DIFFERENCE;

ADULT; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; MALE; MENTAL DISORDERS; MIDDLE AGED; NORWAY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); OUTPATIENTS; PERSONAL SATISFACTION; PSYCHOMETRICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84875190055     PISSN: None     EISSN: 1471244X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-244X-13-99     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Barkham M, Evans C, Margison F, McGrath G, Mellor-Clark J, Milne D, Connell J. The rationale for developing and implementing core outcome batteries for routine use in service settings and psychotherapy outcome research. J Ment Heal 1998, 7:35-47.
2. Lambert M. Prevention of Treatment Failure: The Use of Measuring, Monitoring, and Feedback in Clinical Practice 2010, Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
3. International Test Commission Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests http://www.intestcom.org.
4. Evans C, Mellor-Clark J, Margison F, Barkham M, Audin K, Connell J, McGrath G. CORE: Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation. J Ment Heal 2000, 9:247-255.
5. Barkham M, Mellor-Clark J, Connell J, Cahill J. A CORE approach to practice-based evidence: A brief history of the origins and applications of the CORE-OM and CORE System. Couns Psychother Res 2006, 6:3-15.
6. Howard KI, Lueger RJ, Maling MS, Martinovich Z. A Phase Model of Psychotherapy Outcome: Causal Mediation of Change. J Consult Clin Psychol 1993, 61:678-685.
7. Elfström ML, Evans C, Lundgren J, Johansson B, Hakeberg M, Carlsson SG. Validation of the Swedish version of the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Outcome Measure (CORE-OM). Clin Psychol Psychother 2012, Published online ahead of publication: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.
8. Evans C, Connell J, Barkham M, Margison F, McGrath G, Mellor-Clark J, Audin K. Towards a standardised brief outcome measure: psychometric properties and utility of the CORE-OM. Br J Psychiatry 2002, 180:51-60. 10.1192/bjp.180.1.51, 11772852.
9. Lyne KJ, Barrett P, Evans C, Barkham M. Dimensions of variation on the CORE-OM. Br J Clin Psychol 2006, 45:185-203. 10.1348/014466505X39106, 16783905.
10. Bedford A, Watson R, Lyne J, Davies F, Deary IJ. Mokken scaling and principal components analyses of the CORE-OM in a large clinical sample. Clin Psychol Psychother 2010, 17:51-62.
11. Spielberger CD. Conceptual and methodological issues in anxiety research. Anxiety: Current trends in theory and research 1972, 481-492. New York: Academic Press, Spielberger CD.
12. Palmieri G, Evans C, Hansen V, Brancaleoni G, Ferrari S, Porcelli P, Reitano F, Rigatelli M. Validation of the Italian version of the clinical outcomes in routine evaluation outcome measure (CORE-OM). Clin Psychol Psychother 2009, 16:444-449. 10.1002/cpp.646, 19701881.
13. Uji M, Sakamoto A, Adachi K, Kitamura T. Psychometric properties of the Japanese version of the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - Outcome Measure. Compr Psychiatry 2012, 53:600-608. 10.1016/j.comppsych.2011.09.006, 22113152.
14. Connell J, Barkham M, Stiles WB, Twigg E, Singleton N, Evans O, Miles JNV. Distribution of CORE-OM scores in a general population, clinical cut-off points, and comparison with the CIS-R. Br J Psychiatry 2007, 190:69-74. 10.1192/bjp.bp.105.017657, 17197659.
15. Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D. LISREL 8.80 for Windows [Computer Software] 2006, Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
16. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 1999, 6(1):1-55.
17. Marsh HW, Hau KT, Wen Z. In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Struct Equ Modeling 2004, 11(3):320-341.
18. Jacobson NS, Truax P. Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol 1991, 59(1):12-19.