Mokken scales for testing both pre- and postintervention: An analysis of the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure (CORE-OM) before and after counseling

Psychological Assessment

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 1196-1204

  Murray, Aja L ^a   McKenzie, Karen ^b   Murray, Kara R ^a   Richelieu, Marc ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^b NHS LOTHIAN   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

CORE OM; Invariant item ordering; Item response theory; Mokken; Therapy

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ANXIETY; ARTICLE; AUTOMUTILATION; CLINICAL OUTCOMES IN ROUTINE EVALUATION OUTCOME MEASURE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GENETIC ALGORITHM; GUILT; HUMAN; ILLNESS TRAJECTORY; MALE; MOKKEN SCALE; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT COUNSELING; PSYCHOLOGIC TEST; PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL BEING; SOCIAL ISOLATION; SYMPTOM ASSESSMENT; TREATMENT RESPONSE; COUNSELING; MENTAL DISORDERS; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGICAL RATING SCALE; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; COUNSELING; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MALE; MENTAL DISORDERS; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PSYCHIATRIC STATUS RATING SCALES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84925862403     PISSN: 10403590     EISSN: 1939134X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/pas0000015     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Association of University and College Counselling. (2004). Annual survey of counselling in further and higher education 2002/03. Rugby, England: British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy.
2. Association of University and College Counselling Categorisation System. (2009). IAUCC categorisation of client concerns. Retrieved from http:// iaucc.ie/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/IAUCC-Categories-3rdEdn- Sept09.pdf
3. Bedford, A., Watson, R., Lyne, J., Tibbles, J., Davies, F., & Deary, I. J. (2010). Mokken scaling and principal components analyses of the CORE-OM in a large clinical sample. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 17(1), 51-62. doi:10.1002/cpp.649
4. Mental Health Foundation and CORE System Group. (n.d.). Clinical Outcome in Routine Evaluation (CORE): CORE system user manual. Leeds, England: Author.
5. Connell, J., Barkham, M., & Mellor-Clark, J. (2008). The effectiveness of UK student counselling services: An analysis using the CORE System. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 36(1), 1-18. doi:10.1080/ 03069880701715655
6. Deary, I. J., Watson, R., Booth, T., & Gale, C. R. (2013). Does cognitive ability influence responses to the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well- Being Scale? Psychological Assessment, 25, 313-318. doi:10.1037/ a0030834
7. Egberink, I. J., & Meijer, R. R. (2011). An item response theory analysis of Harter's Self-Perception Profile for Children or why strong clinical scales should be distrusted. Assessment, 18(2), 201-212. doi:10.1177/ 1073191110367778
8. Evans, C., Connell, J., Barkham, M., Margison, F.,McGrath, G., Mellor- Clark, J., & Audin, J. (2002). Towards a standardised brief outcome measure: Psychometric properties and utility of the CORE-OM. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 180, 51-60. doi:10.1192/bjp.180.1.51
9. Evans, C. E., Mellor-Clark, J., Margison, F., Barkham, M., Audin, K., Connell, J., & McGrath, G. (2000). CORE: Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation. Journal of Mental Health, 9, 247-255.
10. Guttman, L. (1950). The basis for scalogram analysis. In S. A. Stouffer, L. Guttman, E. A. Suchman, P. F. Lazarsfeld, S. A. Star, & J. A. Clausen (Eds.), Measurement and prediction: Studies in social psychology in World War II (Vol. 4, pp. 60-90). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11. Kingston, A., Collerton, J., Davies, K., Bond, J., Robinson, L., & Jagger, C. (2012). Losing the ability in activities of daily living in the oldest old: A hierarchic disability scale from the Newcastle 85+ study. PLOS One, 7(2), e31665. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0031665
12. Kuijpers, R. E., Van der Ark, L. A., & Croon, M. A. (2013). Standard errors and confidence intervals for scalability coefficients in Mokken scale analysis using marginal models. Sociological Methodology, 43(1), 42-69. doi:10.1177/0081175013481958
13. Ligtvoet, R., van der Ark, L. A., te Marvelde, J. M., & Sijtsma, K. (2010). Investigating an invariant item ordering for polytomously scored items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 578 -595. doi: 10.1177/0013164409355697
14. Loevinger, J. (1948). The technic of homogeneous tests compared with some aspects of "scale analysis" and factor analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 45, 507-529. doi:10.1037/h0055827
15. Meijer, R. R., & Egberink, I. J. (2012). Investigating invariant item ordering in personality and clinical scales: Some empirical findings and a discussion. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72, 589- 607. doi:10.1177/0013164411429344
16. Mokken, R. J. (1971). A theory and procedure of scale analysis: With applications in political research. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110813203
17. Molenaar, P. (2008). On the implications of the classical ergodic theorems: Analysis of developmental processes has to focus on intra-individual variation. Developmental Psychobiology, 50(1), 60-69. doi:10.1002/dev.20262
18. Murray, A. L., & Johnson, W. (2013). The limitations of model fit in comparing the bifactor versus higher-order models of human cognitive ability structure. Intelligence, 41, 407-422. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2013.06.004
19. Murray, A. L., & McKenzie, K. (2013). Estimating the severity of intellectual disability in adults: A Mokken scaling analysis of the Learning Disability Screening Questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 25, 1002-1006. doi: 10.1037/a0032369
20. R Core Team. (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
21. Sijtsma, K., Meijer, R. R., & van der Ark, L. A. (2011). Mokken scale analysis as time goes by: An update for scaling practitioners. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 31-37. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.08.016
22. Skre, I., Friborg, O., Elgarøy, S., Evans, C., Myklebust, L. H., Lillevoll, K., Hansen, V. (2013). 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, 13(1), 99. doi:10.1186/1471-244X-13-99
23. Smits, I. A., Timmerman, M. E., & Meijer, R. R. (2012). Exploratory Mokken scale analysis as a dimensionality assessment tool: Why scalability does not imply unidimensionality. Applied Psychological Measurement, 36, 516-539. doi:10.1177/0146621612451050
24. Stochl, J., Jones, P. B., & Croudace, T. J. (2012). Mokken scale analysis of mental health and well-being questionnaire item responses: A nonparametric IRT method in empirical research for applied health researchers. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12, 74. doi:10.1186/1471- 2288-12-74
25. Straat, J. H. (2012). Using scalability coefficients and conditional association to assess monotone homogeneity. Ridderkerk, The Netherlands: Ridderprint BV.
26. Straat, J. H., Van der Ark, L. A., & Sijtsma, K. (2013). Comparing optimization algorithms for item selection in Mokken scale analysis. Journal of Classification, 30(1), 75-99.
27. van der Ark, L. A. (2007). Mokken scale analysis in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 20(11), 1-19.
28. van der Ark, L. A. (2012). New developments in Mokken scale analysis in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(5), 1-27.
29. van Schuur, W. H. (2003). Mokken scale analysis: Between the Guttman scale and parametric item response theory. Political Analysis, 11(2), 139-163. doi:10.1093/pan/mpg002
30. Watson, R., van der Ark, L. A., Lin, L. C., Fieo, R., Deary, I. J., & Meijer, R. R. (2012). Item response theory: How Mokken scaling can be used in clinical practice. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 21, 2736-2746. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03893.x