Search

Background: The Relational Depth Frequency Scale (RDFS) assesses moments of profound connection in psychotherapy, associated with therapeutic benefit. To date, the RDFS has not been tested for its retest reliability, divergent and criterion validity, and measurement invariance, nor has it been tested in stratified samples of psychotherapy patients. Methods: Two stratified online samples of United Kingdom (n = 514) and United States (n = 402) psychotherapy patients filled out the RDFS, the Brief Social Desirability Scale (BSDS); and the Satisfaction with Therapy and Therapist Scale‐revised (STTS‐R). Two subsamples of patients (United Kingdom: n = 50 and United States: n = 203) filled out the RDFS again after 1 month. Results: Reliability for the six‐item RDFS were excellent in United Kingdom and United States samples (Cronbach's α = 0.91 and 0.92; retest r = 0.73 and r = 0.76). Divergent (r = 0.10 and r = 0.12) and criterion validity (r = 0.69; and r = 0.70) were good. Full scalar invariance was established across countries, genders, and time. Conclusion: This contributes important evidence to the validity of the RDFS. Future research should assess predictive validity against psychotherapy outcomes and replicate these analyses in diverse samples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective(s): To examine the psychometric properties of the idiographic Goal‐Based Outcome (GBO) tool for young people: test–retest stability, convergent validity, and sensitivity to an intervention. Methods: This measure validation study used data from a randomized controlled trial of school‐based humanistic counseling. We used multilevel analyses to assess test–retest stability, convergent validity of the GBO tool against nomothetic measures of mental wellbeing, and sensitivity to an intervention. Results: The GBO tool showed acceptable stability over a 6–24 week period; moderate convergent validity with nomothetic measures of mental well‐being, self‐esteem, and depression; and greater sensitivity to an intervention than a measure of psychological distress. Conclusions: The GBO tool shows evidence of having acceptable psychometric properties and is suitable for monitoring change on individual goals. It may also have the capacity to function as a population‐level indicator of outcomes in conjunction with the use of other measures of mental health and wellbeing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study aimed to assess the reliability, validity, and clinical utility of an idiographic, goal‐focused patient‐reported outcome measure: The Goals Form. Methods: Data were analyzed from 88 participants, across three samples, who had participated in collaborative–integrative psychotherapy at university‐based clinics in the UK. The samples were approximately 70% female with mean age of 30 years old. Results: The psychometric properties of the Goals Form were generally good. Noncompletion of individual items was low, temporal stability tended to be at target levels, and mean change scores showed moderate to good convergent validity against measures of psychological distress. The measure appeared sensitive to change in psychotherapy and was experienced by most patients as helpful. Conclusions: The Goals Form shows acceptable psychometric and clinical properties for routine outcome monitoring in psychotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Idiographic patient‐reported outcome measures (I‐PROMs) are a growing set of individualized tools for use in routine outcome monitoring (ROM) in psychological therapies. This paper presents a position statement on their conceptualization, use, and analysis, based on contemporary evidence and clinical practice. Four problem‐based, and seven goal‐based, I‐PROMs, with some evidence of psychometric evaluation and use in psychotherapy, were identified. I‐PROMs may be particularly valuable to the evaluation of psychological therapies because of their clinical utility and their alignment with a patient‐centered approach. However, there are several challenges for I‐PROMs: how to generate items in a robust manner, their measurement model, methods for establishing their reliability and validity, and the meaning of an aggregated I‐PROM score. Based on the current state of the literature, we recommend that I‐PROMs are used to complement nomothetic measures. Research recommendations are also made regarding the most appropriate methods for analyzing I‐PROM data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]