Denoting treatment outcome in child and adolescent psychiatry: a comparison of continuous and categorical outcomes
- 237 Downloads
Various approaches have been proposed to denote treatment outcome, such as the effect size of the pre-to-posttest change, percentage improvement, statistically reliable change, and clinical significant change. The aim of the study is to compare these approaches and evaluate their aptitude to differentiate among child and adolescent mental healthcare providers regarding their treatment outcome. Comparing outcomes according to continuous and categorical outcome indicators using real-life data of seven mental healthcare providers, three using the Child Behavior Checklist and four using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire as primary outcome measure. Within each dataset consistent differences were found between providers and the various methods led to comparable rankings of providers. Statistical considerations designate continuous outcomes as the optimal choice. Change scores have more statistical power and allow for a ranking of providers at first glance. Expressing providers’ performance in proportions of recovered, changed, unchanged, or deteriorated patients has supplementary value, as it denotes outcome in a manner more easily interpreted and appreciated by clinicians, managerial staff, and, last but not least, by patients or their parents.
KeywordsTreatment outcome research Effect size (ES) Reliable change index (RCI) Percentage improvement (PI) Benchmarking
The authors are grateful to the following mental health providers for allowing us to use their outcome data: De Viersprong, Mentaal Beter, Mutsaersstichting, OCNR, Praktijk Buitenpost, Yorneo, and Yulius.
Conflict of interest
No conflicts declared.
- 1.Achenbach TM (1991) Manual for the child behavior checklist 4–18 and 1991 profiles. Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
- 2.American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders IV. Author, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 7.Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
- 8.de Beurs E, den Hollander-Gijsman ME, van Rood YR, van der Wee NJ, Giltay EJ, van Noorden MS, van der Lem R, van Fenema E, Zitman FG (2011) Routine outcome monitoring in the Netherlands: practical experiences with a web-based strategy for the assessment of treatment outcome in clinical practice. Clin Psychol Psychother 18:1–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Fleiss JL (1973) Statistical methods for rates and proportions. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 21.Klugh HE (2006) Normalized T Scores. In: Kotz S, Read CB, Balakrishnan N, Vidakovic B (eds) Encyclopedia of statistical sciences, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 24.Lambert M (2007) Presidential address: what we have learned from a decade of research aimed at improving psychotherapy outcome in routine care. Psych Res 17:1–14Google Scholar
- 29.Porter ME, Teisberg EO (2006) Redefining healthcare: creating value-based competition on results. Harvard Business Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- 30.Russel M (2000) Summarizing change in test scores: shortcomings of three common methods. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 7Google Scholar
- 33.Verhulst FC, Van der Ende J, Koot HM (1996) Handleiding voor de CBCL/4-18 [Dutch manual for the CBCL/4-18]. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Erasmus University, Sophia Children’s Hospital, RotterdamGoogle Scholar