Community Mental Health Journal

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 91–102

Selecting a rating scale for evaluating services to the chronically mentally Ill

  • Rex S. Green
  • Edward J. Gracely
Special Research Section

Abstract

A multi-attribute utility analysis employing ideal outcome measure criteria was applied to seven brief ratin scales in order to identify the best performing instrument. A variety of judgmental data were collected from therapists working in mental health service agencies and from evaluation research experts to contrast the performance of the seven rating scales on criteria for selecting outcome measures develped by an NIMH task force. Transformations of the performance data were weighted in accordance with priorities assigned to the criteria by the task force. Comparing the sums of the weighted scores across scales, two rating scales emerged as preferred selections for monitoring the effectiveness of programs that serve the chronically mentally ill.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association (1983).Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  2. Ciarlo, J.A., Edwards, D.W., Kiresuk, T.J., Newman, F.L., & Brown, T.R. (1981).The assessment of client/patient outcome techniques for use in mental health programs (Contract No. 278-80-0005), Washington, DC: National Institute of Mental Health.Google Scholar
  3. Cronbach, L.J., Gleser, G.C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972).The dependability of behavioral measurements: Theory of generalizability for scores and profiles. New York, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  4. Edwards, W., Guttentag, M., & Snapper, K. (1975). A decision-theoretic approach to evaluation research. In E.L. Struening & M. Guttentag (Eds.),Handbook of evaluation research (Vol. 1). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  5. Edwards, W. & Newman, J.R. (1982).Multiattribute evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  6. Ellis, R.H., Wilson, N.Z., & Foster, F.M. (1984). Statewide treatment outcome assessment in Colorado: The Colorado Client Assessment Record (CCAR).Community Mental Health Journal, 20, 72–89.Google Scholar
  7. Endicott, J., Spitzer, R.L., Fleiss, J.L., & Cohen, J. (1976). The Global Assessment Scale: A procedure for measuring the overall severity of psychiatric disturbance.Archives of General Psychiatry, 33, 766–771.Google Scholar
  8. Green, R.S., & Gracely, E.J. (1986).Graphical rating scales for personal computers (Res. Rep. No. 5). Philadelphia: Medical College of Pennsylvania, Systems Research Unit.Google Scholar
  9. Green, R.S., Nguyen, T.D., & Attkisson, C.C. (1979). Harnessing the reliability of outcome measures.Evaluation and Program Planning, 2, 137–142.Google Scholar
  10. McPheeters, H.L. (1984). Statewide mental health outcome evaluation: A perspective of two southern states.Community Mental Health Journal, 20, 44–55.Google Scholar
  11. National Institute of Mental Health. (1986).Series FN No. 9, Assessing mental health treatment outcome measurement techniques, Ciarlo, J.A., Brown, T.R., Edwards, D.W., Kiresuk, T.J., and Newman, F.L. (DHHS Publication No. ADM 86-1301). Washington, DC: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  12. Neigher, W., Ciarlo, J.A., Hoven, C., Kirkhart, K., Landsberg, G., Light, E., Newman, F.L., Struening, E.L., Williams, L., Windle, C., & Woy, J.R. (1982). Evaluation in the community mental health centers program: A bold new reproach?Evaluation and Program Planning, 5, 283–312.Google Scholar
  13. Newman, F.L. (1980). Strengths, uses, and problems of global scales as an evaluation instrument.Evaluation and Program Planning, 3, 257–268.Google Scholar
  14. Newman, F.L., Heverly, M.A., Rosen, M., Kopta, S.M., & Bedell, R. (1983). Influences on internal evaluation data dependability: Clinicans as a source of variance. In A.J. Love (Ed.),Developing effective internal evaluation: Vol. 20. New Directions for Program Evaluation (pp. 71–92). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.Google Scholar
  15. Nunnally, J.C. (1978).Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  16. Public Sector Research Group of Market Facts, Inc. (1980).Collaborative data collection and analysis for Community Support Program demonstration projects (Contract No. OP-79-0031), Washington, DC: National Institute of Mental Health.Google Scholar
  17. Tessler, R.C., & Goldman, H.H. (1982)The chronically mentally ill: Assessing community support programs. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rex S. Green
    • 1
  • Edward J. Gracely
  1. 1.The Center for Health StatisticsNJ Dept. of HealthTrenton

Personalised recommendations