Search

Background: In both routine practice contexts and research studies, evidence from standardized self-report symptom measures, administered pre- and posttreatment, is predominantly used to determine whether psychotherapy has been successful. Understanding the nature of unsuccessful psychotherapy requires an ability to evaluate the credibility of outcome data generated by such techniques. An important body of research has identified discrepancies between outcomes assessed through symptom measures and those obtained from other sources. However, not enough is known about the extent to which such paradoxical outcomes exist. Objective: This study analyzes the relationship between outcomes, as assessed by a standardized self-report measure, and as assessed by ratings of young people’s descriptions of change at post-counseling interviews. Methods: Participants were 50 young people (13–16 years old) who had taken part in a trial of up to 10 weeks of school-based humanistic counseling. Our primary standardized measure was the Young Person’s CORE (YP-CORE). To assess young people’s experiences of counseling change, three independent raters scrutinized transcripts of post-counseling interviews, and scored levels of helpfulness on a 1 (Not at all helpful) to 10 (Extremely helpful) scale. Interrater reliabilities were 0.94 (Cronbach’s Alpha) and 0.96 (McDonald’s Omega). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore relationships between helpfulness ratings and other outcome measures, i.e., satisfaction with counseling (ESQ) and the Goal-Based-Outcome Tool (GBO), and process measures, i.e., the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI-S) and the Barret Lennard Relationship Inventory (BLRI). Results: Multilevel analysis indicated that helpfulness ratings were not significantly associated with changes in YP-CORE scores. Analyzed categorically, 38% of those showing reliable improvement on the standardized measure were below the median for self-described helpfulness, and 47% of those not showing reliable change were at or above the median for self-described helpfulness. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated closer correlations between helpfulness ratings and other outcome measures (ESQ and GBO), and between helpfulness ratings and process measures (WAI-S and BLRI). Discussion: Our results raise questions about reliance on symptom change outcome measures for defining treatment success and failure, given their disparity with clients’ own descriptions of the helpfulness of therapy. Implications for practice and research are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Influence from bias is unavoidable in clinical decision-making, and mental health assessment seems particularly vulnerable. Individuals with intellectual disabilities have increased risk of developing co-occurring mental disorder. Due to the inherent difficulties associated with intellectual disabilities, assessment of mental health in this population often relies on a different set of strategies, and it is unclear how these may affect risk of bias. In this theoretical paper, we apply recent conceptualisations of bias in clinical decision-making to the specific challenges and strategies in mental health assessment in intellectual disabilities. We suggest that clinical decision-making in these assessments is particularly vulnerable to bias, including sources of bias present in mental health assessment in the general population, as well as potential sources of bias which may be specific to assessments in this population. It follows that to manage potential bias, triangulating information from multi-informant, multi-method, interdisciplinary assessment strategies is likely to be necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability (ID) are at increased risk of potentially traumatic events and may be at increased risk of post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, knowledge regarding identification of PTSD in this population is limited. The aim of this study was to investigate clinical experience regarding PTSD and trauma assessment in individuals with co‐occurring ASD and ID. Method: Interpretative phenomenological analysis was used to explore experiences of identifying PTSD in this population among 18 mental health clinicians working with ASD and ID. Results: Informants viewed PTSD in individuals with ASD and ID as equivalent to PTSD in the general population, but with causes and expressions potentially differing. Several factors were described to contribute to challenges in identification. Conclusions: Trauma may have severe impact in individuals with ASD and ID. Multidimensional, individualized assessment strategies seem necessary to recognize PTSD or trauma‐related symptoms in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and intellectual disability (ID) seem to be at increased risk for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but knowledge is sparse regarding its identification in this population. Previous research indicates that certain symptoms of PTSD may be more easily recognized, and that identifying reexperiencing and avoidance is particularly challenging. Interpretative phenomenological analysis was used to explore 18 experienced clinicians' perceptions of PTSD symptom expression in ASD and ID through individual, qualitative interviews. Informants provided examples from all symptom groups, but these differed in how frequently they were described. Recognition of reexperiencing may rely on knowledge about individuals' trauma experience. Avoidance may present in a wider range of ways. Development of reexperiencing and avoidance may follow different trajectories in this population, contributing to challenges in recognition. Reexperiencing may be more severe in ASD/ID. Implications are discussed in light of current diagnostic criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]