Measuring feedback from clients: The psychometric properties of the dutch outcome rating scale and session rating scale

European Journal of Psychological Assessment

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 86-92

  Janse, Pauline ^a,d   Boezen Hilberdink, Liesbeth ^b   Van Dijk, Maarten K ^a   Verbraak, Marc J P M ^a,c   Hutschemaekers, Giel J M ^c  

^a HSK Group   (Netherlands)

^b Diaconessenhuis Meppel   (Netherlands)

^c RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

^d Department HSK Utrecht HSK Group   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Client feedback; Outcome Rating Scale (ORS); Reliability; Session Rating Scale (SRS); Validity

Indexed keywords

EID: 84898468318     PISSN: 10155759     EISSN: 21512426     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000172     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Anker, M., Duncan, B. L., &Sparks, J. A. (2009). Using client feedback to improve couple outcomes: A randomized clinical trial in a naturalistic setting. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 693-804.
2. Arrindell, W. A., &Ettema, J. H. M. (2003). SCL-90, Handleiding bij een multidimensionele psychopathologie indicator. [SCL-90, Manual for a multidimensional indicator of psychopathology]. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets &Zeitlinger.
3. Asmus, F., Crouzen, M., &van Oenen, F. J. (2004). Outcome Rating Scale. Retrieved from http://scottdmiller.com/ purchase-individual-or-group- licenses
4. Campbell, A., &Hemsley, S. (2009). Outcome Rating Scale and Session Rating Scale in psychological practice. Clinical utility of ultra-brief measures. Clinical Psychologist, 13, 1-9.
5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Beljouw van, I. M. J., &Verhaak, P. F. M. (2010). Geschikte uitkomstmaten voor routinematige registratie door eerstelijnspsychologen [Appropriate outcome measures for routine registration by primary care psychologists]. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Nivel.
7. Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research &Practice, 16, 252-260.
8. De Jong, K., Nugter, M. A., Polak, M. G., Wagenborg, J. E. A., Spinhoven, Ph., &Heiser, W. J. (2007). The outcome questionnaire (OQ-45) in a Dutch population: A crosscultural validation. Clinical Psychology &Psychotherapy, 14, 288-301.
9. Derogatis, L. R. (1994). Symptom Checklist 90-R: Administration, scoring, and procedures manual (3rd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
10. Duncan, B. L., Miller, S. D., Sparks, J. A., Claud, D. A., Reynolds, L. R., Brown, J., &Johnson, L. D. (2003). The session rating scale: Preliminary psychometric properties of a working alliance measure. Journal of Brief Therapy, 3, 3-12.
11. Hafkenscheid, A., Duncan, B. L., &Miller, S. D. (2010). The Outcome and Session Rating Scales: A cross-cultural examination of the psychometric properties of the Dutch translation. Journal of Brief Therapy, 7, 1-12.
12. Hannan, C., Lambert, M. J., Harmon, C., Nielsen, S. L., Smart, D. W., Shimokowa, K., &Sutton, S. (2005). A lab test and algorithms for identifying clients at risk for treatment failure. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 155-163.
13. Hasson, D., &Arnetz, B. B. (2005). Validation and findings comparing VAS vs. Likert scales for psychosocial measurements. International Electronic Journal of Health Education, 8, 178-192.
14. Horvath, A. O., &Bedi, R. P. (2002). The alliance. In J. Norcross (Ed.), Psychotherapy relationships that work: Therapist contributions and responsiveness to patients (pp. 37-70). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
15. Jacobson, N. S., &Truax, P. (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 12-19.
16. Lambert, M. J., Hansen, N. B., Umphress, V. J., Lunnen, K., Okiishi, J., Burlingame, G., Huefner, J. C., &Reisinger, C. W. (1996). Administration and scoring manual for the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ 45.2). Wilmington, DE: American Professional Credentialing Services.
17. Lambert, M. J., &Shimokawa, K. (2011). Collecting client feedback. Psychotherapy, 48, 72-79.
18. Martin, D. J., Garske, J. P., &Davis, M. K. (2000). Relation of the therapeutic alliance with outcome and other variables: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 438-450.
19. Miller, S. D., Duncan, B. L., Brown, J., Sparks, J., &Claud, D. (2003). The outcome rating scale: A preliminary study of the reliability, validity, and feasibility of a brief visual analogue measure. Journal of Brief Therapy, 2, 91-100.
20. Miller, S. D., &Duncan, B. L. (2004). The outcome and session rating scale. Administration and scoring manual. Chicago, IL: Institute for the Study of Therapeutic Change.
21. Miller, S. D., Duncan, B. L., Brown, J., Sorrell, R., &Chalk, M. B. (2006). Using formal client feedback to improve retention and outcome: Making ongoing, real time assessment feasible. Journal of Brief Therapy, 5, 5-22.
22. Reese, R. J., Norsworthy, L. A., &Rowlands, S. R. (2009). Does a continuous feedback system improve psychotherapy outcome- Psychotherapy theory, research, practice, training, 46, 418-431.
23. Reese, R. J., Toland, M. D., Slone, N. C., &Norsworthy, L. A. (2010). Effect of client feedback on couple psychotherapy outcomes. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 47, 616-630.
24. Stinckens, N., Ulburghs, A., &Claes, L. (2009). De werkalliantievragenlijst als sleutelelement in therapiegebeuren. Meting met behulp van de WAV-12, de Nederlandstalige verkorte versie van de Working Alliance Inventory. [The working alliance questionnaire as a key element in therapy. Measurement using the WAV-12, the Dutch shortened version of the Working Alliance Inventory]. Tijdschrift voor Klinische Psychologie, 39, 44-60.