Community Mental Health Journal

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 149–160 | Cite as

Do Consumers Who Have a Choice of Treatment Have Better Outcomes?

  • Robert J. Calsyn
  • Joel P. Winter
  • Gary A. Morse


This study used a non-equivalent control group design to investigate the effect of consumer choice of treatment on both process and outcome variables. All study participants suffered from severe mental illness, were homeless at baseline, and were enrolled in a modified Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) program. Consumers in the choice condition had selected the ACT program from a menu of five treatment programs; clients in the no-choice condition were simply assigned to the ACT program by an intake worker. Results found that consumers in the choice condition visited the ACT staff at their offices more than consumers in the no-choice condition, but there were no significant differences between groups on the other treatment process variables. Although consumers in the choice condition increased their income more than consumers in the no-choice condition, there were no significant differences between groups on the other outcome variables (stable housing, psychotic symptoms, depression, and substance abuse).


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beard, J., Propst, R., & Malamud, T. (1982). The Fountain House model of psychiatric rehabilitation. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, 5, 47-53.Google Scholar
  2. Brigham, T. (1979). Some effects of choice on academic performance. In L.C. Perlmuter and R.A. Monty (Eds.), Choice and Perceived Control. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Burns, B.J., & Santos, A.B. (1995). Assertive community treatment: an update of randomized trials. Psychiatric Service, 46, 669-675.Google Scholar
  4. Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Rand-McNally College Publishing Company, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  5. Cooper, J. (1980). Reducing fears and increasing assertiveness: The role of dissonance reduction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 199-213.Google Scholar
  6. Devine, D., & Fernald, P. (1973). Outcome effects of receiving a preferred, randomly assigned, or non-preferred therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 104-107.Google Scholar
  7. Kehoe, J.F. (1979). Choice time and aspects of choice alternatives. In L.C. Perlmuter and R.A. Monty (Eds.), Choice and Perceived Control. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Kissen, B., Platz, A., & Su, W. (1971). Selective factors in treatment choice and outcome in alcoholics. In N.K. Mello & J.H. Mendelson (Eds.), Recent Advances in Studies of Alcoholism (pp. 781-802). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  9. Langer, E., & Rodin, J. (1976). The effects of choice and enhanced personal responsibility for the aged: A field experiment in an institutional setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 191-198.Google Scholar
  10. McLellan, A.T., Luborsky, L., Woody, G.E., & O'Brien, C.P. (1980). An improved diagnostic evaluation instrument for substance abuse patients: The Addiction Severity Index. Journal of Nervous Mental Disorders, 168, 26-33.Google Scholar
  11. Mendonca, P.J., & Brehm, S.S. (1983). Effects of choice on behavioral treatment of overweight children. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1, 343-358.Google Scholar
  12. Morse, G.A., Calsyn, R.J., Allen, G., Tempelhoff, B., & Smith, R. (1992). Experimental comparison of the effects of three treatment programs for homeless mentally ill people. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 43, 1005-1010.Google Scholar
  13. Morse, G.A., Calsyn, R.J., Miller, J., Rosenberg, P., West, L., & Gilliland, J. (1996). Outreach to homeless mentally ill people: Conceptual and clinical considerations. Community Mental Health Journal, 32, 261-274.Google Scholar
  14. Morse, G.A., Calsyn, R.J., Klinkenberg, W.D., Trusty, M.L., Gerber, F., Smith, R., Tempelhoff, B., & Ahmad, L. (1997). An experimental comparison of three types of case management for homeless mentally ill persons. Psychiatric Services, 48, 497-503.Google Scholar
  15. Randolph, F.L. (1995). Improving systems through systems integration: the ACCESS program. American Rehabilitation, 21, 36-38.Google Scholar
  16. Robins, L.N., Helzer, J.E., & Croughan, J. (1981). The National Institute of Mental Health Diagnostic Interview Schedule. Archives of General Psychiatry, 38, 381-389.Google Scholar
  17. Stevens, J. (1986). Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Sandall, H., Hawley, T., & Gordon, G. (1975). The St. Louis Community Homes Program: Graduated support for long-term care. American Journal of Psychiatry, 132, 617-622.Google Scholar
  19. Steiner, I.D. (1979). Three kinds of reported choice. In L.C. Perlmuter & R.A. Monty (Eds.), Choice and Perceived Control. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Sterling, R.C., Gottheil, E., Glassman, S.D., Weinstein, S.P., Serota, R.D. (1997). Patient treatment choice and compliance. The American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry, 6, 168-176.Google Scholar
  21. Thompson, C.E., & Wankel, L.M., (1980). The effects of perceived activity choice upon frequency of exercise behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 10, 436-443.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert J. Calsyn
    • 1
  • Joel P. Winter
    • 2
  • Gary A. Morse
    • 3
  1. 1.University of Missouri-St. LouisSt. Louis
  2. 2.University of Missouri-St. LouisUSA
  3. 3.Community AlternativesUniversity of Missouri-St. LouisSt. Louis

Personalised recommendations