| Submitted By: | Jeb Brown |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Center for Clinical Informatics & the ACORN Collaboration |
| Contact: | https://acorncollaboration.org/contact-1/ |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | Monthly user fee per organization/agency. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | This is a 16 item questionnaire. Primary scales are Global Distress (11 items), Substance Abuse (2 items), and Alliance (3 items). The Global Distress scale has a reliability (coefficient alpha) of .9, and correlates highly with other similar measures of symptom severity including the PHQ-9, GAD-7, OQ-45, Outcome Rating Scale and other widely used adult outcome measures. Person r concurrent correlations with similar questionnaires average approximately .8. The scale was designed to be as brief as possible while still assessing a range of symptoms & problems and exhibiting high levels of reliability and validity. The Substance Abuse scale (a separate factor) assesses problematic use of substances. The Alliance Scale is used as a clinical tool to elicit session by session feedback, and is not intended as a measure of performance or outcome. The validity of the scale is only as strong as the clinician's ability to elicit honest feedback. |
| Population: | This measure is intended for a general outpatient population across a wide range of diagnoses. While the measure does correlate highly with diagnostic specific measures such as the PHQ-9 and GAD-7, this is due to the fact that items on these measures all load on a common factor, generally referred to as Global Distress. |
| Program Setting: | The measure is widely used in outpatient individual and group psychotherapy as well as medication management. The normative sample exceeds 332,000 patients in outpatient care. |
| Age Range: | 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Each contact |
| Administration Time: | Less than 3 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | Scored as the mean of the completed items on each of the sub-scales. Manual scoring can be completed in 2-3 minutes. Electronic scoring available |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | Questionnaire can be completed on paper forms. For those choosing to utilize the ACORN Collaboration Toolkit, questionnaires may be administered via any internet enabled device with a browser. There is an option to fax completed form to a secure fax server for low cost data entry. The Toolkit is a secure state of the art comprehensive clinical information system. Use of the Toolkit enables real time scoring and application of sophisticated clinical algorithms for decision support. The Toolkit uses multivariate predictive modeling to identify risk indicators and generate clinical messages. All analyses are updated every 15 minutes, using the entire normative sample. The ACORN database for all questionnaires exceed 900,000 patients and 2.8 million completed questionnaires. Approximately 2000 newly completed questionnaires are submitted daily via web enabled devices or by faxing to a secure HIPAA compliant system for automated data capture (with human verification) and image archiving for rapid retrieval. The questionnaire is available in several languages, with more translations being added as needed. Use of this questionnaire combined with regular review of results using the ACORN Toolkit has been demonstrated to increase effect sizes over a two year period. |
| Publications: |
A Collaborative Outcomes Resource Network (ACORN): Tools for increasing the value of psychotherapy http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-54465-004 Are you any good… as a therapist? http://societyforpsychotherapy.org/are-you-any-good-as-a-therapist/ To view normative data on expected outcome (effect size) for this and other ACORN measures visit: https://www.cci-acorn.org/summarydata.asp |
| Keywords: | adult outcomes, alliance, data analytics, effect size, psychometrics, questionnaire, substance abuse |
| Submitted By: | Ashley Simon |
|---|---|
| Developer: | The ACORN Collaboration |
| Contact: | https://acorncollaboration.org/contact-1/ |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | Monthly user fee per organization/agency. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Parent/Guardian |
| Description: | This is an 18 item questionnaire. Primary scales are Global Distress (15 items) and Alliance (3 items). The Global Distress scale has a reliability (coefficient alpha) of .9, and correlates highly with other similar measures of symptom severity including the PHQ-9, GAD-7, OQ-45, Outcome Rating Scale and other widely used adult outcome measures. Person r concurrent correlations with similar questionnaires average approximately .8. The scale was designed to be as brief as possible while still assessing a range of symptoms & problems and exhibiting high levels of reliability and validity. The Alliance Scale is used as a clinical tool to elicit session by session feedback, and is not intended as a measure of performance or outcome. The validity of the scale is only as strong as the clinician's ability to elicit honest feedback. |
| Population: | This measure is intended for a general child outpatient population across a wide range of diagnoses. While the measure does correlate highly with diagnostic specific measures such as the PHQ-9 and GAD-7, this is due to the fact that items on those measures all load on a common factor, generally referred to as Global Distress. |
| Program Setting: | The measure is widely used in outpatient individual and group psychotherapy as well as medication management. The normative sample exceeds 37,100 patients in outpatient care. |
| Age Range: | 5-12 |
| Administration Frequency: | Each contact |
| Administration Time: | Less than 3 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | Scored as the mean of the completed items on each of the sub-scales. Manual scoring can be completed in 2-3 minutes. Electronic scoring available. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | Questionnaire can be completed on paper forms. For those choosing to utilize the ACORN Collaboration Toolkit, questionnaires may be administered via any internet enabled device with a browser. There is an option to fax completed form to a secure fax server for low cost data entry. The Toolkit is a secure state of the art comprehensive clinical information system. Use of the Toolkit enables real time scoring and application of sophisticated clinical algorithms for decision support. The Toolkit uses multivariate predictive modeling to identify risk indicators and generate clinical messages. All analyses are updated every 15 minutes, using the entire normative sample. The ACORN database for all questionnaires exceed 900,000 patients and 2.8 million completed questionnaires. Approximately 2000 newly completed questionnaires are submitted daily via web enabled devices or by faxing to a secure HIPPA compliant system for automated data capture (with human verification) and image archiving for rapid retrieval. The questionnaire is available in several languages, with more translations being added as needed. Use of this questionnaire combined with regular review of results using the ACORN Toolkit has been demonstrated to increase effect sizes over a two year period. |
| Publications: | A Collaborative Outcomes Resource Network (ACORN): Tools for increasing the value of psychotherapy http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-54465-004 Are you any good… as a therapist? http://societyforpsychotherapy.org/are-you-any-good-as-a-therapist/ To view normative data on expected outcome (effect size) for this and other ACORN measures visit: https://www.cci-acorn.org/summarydata.asp |
| Keywords: | alliance, child outcomes, data analytics, effect size, psychometrics, questionnaire, substance abuse |
| Submitted By: | Ashley Simon |
|---|---|
| Developer: | The ACORN Collaboration |
| Contact: | https://acorncollaboration.org/contact-1/ |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | Monthly user fee per organization/agency. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | This is an 18-item questionnaire. Primary scales are Eating Disorder Symptoms (8 items), Global Distress (6 items), Substance Abuse (1 item), and Alliance (3 items). The Global Distress scale has a reliability (coefficient alpha) of .9, and correlates highly with other similar measures of symptom severity including the PHQ-9, GAD-7, OQ-45, Outcome Rating Scale and other widely used adult outcome measures. Person r concurrent correlations with similar questionnaires average approximately .8. The scale was designed to be as brief as possible while still assessing a range of symptoms & problems and exhibiting high levels of reliability and validity. The Eating Disorder scale asks about a range of ED symptoms including binging, purging, food avoidance, guilt about eating, weight preoccupation, and exercise habits. The Alliance Scale is used as a clinical tool to elicit session by session feedback, and is not intended as a measure of performance or outcome. The validity of the scale is only as strong as the clinician's ability to elicit honest feedback. The Substance Abuse scale (a separate factor) assesses problematic use of substances. |
| Population: | This measure is intended for an adult or youth population experiencing Eating Disorder symptoms across a wide range of diagnoses and settings, including group therapy and residential treatment settings. |
| Program Setting: | The measure is widely used in individual psychotherapy. The normative sample exceeds 500 patients in outpatient care. |
| Age Range: | 12-18, 18-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Each contact |
| Administration Time: | Less than 3 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | Scored as the mean of the completed items on each of the sub-scales. Manual scoring can be completed in 2-3 minutes. Electronic scoring available. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Administration Options: | Questionnaire can be completed on paper forms. For those choosing to utilize the ACORN Collaboration Toolkit, questionnaires may be administered via any internet enabled device with a browser. There is an option to fax completed form to a secure fax server for low cost data entry. The Toolkit is a secure state of the art comprehensive clinical information system. Use of the Toolkit enables real time scoring and application of sophisticated clinical algorithms for decision support. The Toolkit uses multivariate predictive modeling to identify risk indicators and generate clinical messages. All analyses are updated every 15 minutes, using the entire normative sample. The ACORN database for all questionnaires exceed 900,000 patients and 2.8 million completed questionnaires. Approximately 2000 newly completed questionnaires are submitted daily via web enabled devices or by faxing to a secure HIPAA compliant system for automated data capture (with human verification) and image archiving for rapid retrieval. The questionnaire is available in several languages, with more translations being added as needed. Use of this questionnaire combined with regular review of results using the ACORN Toolkit has been demonstrated to increase effect sizes over a two year period. |
| Publications: | Uses many of the same psychometric items that are addressed in: A Collaborative Outcomes Resource Network (ACORN): Tools for increasing the value of psychotherapy http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-54465-004 Are you any good… as a therapist? http://societyforpsychotherapy.org/are-you-any-good-as-a-therapist/ To view normative data on expected outcome (effect size) for this and other ACORN measures visit: https://www.cci-acorn.org/summarydata.asp |
| Keywords: | alliance, data analytics, eating disorders, effect size, group therapy, psychometrics, questionnaire, substance abuse |
| Submitted By: | Ashley Simon |
|---|---|
| Developer: | The ACORN Collaboration |
| Contact: | https://acorncollaboration.org/contact-1/ |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | Monthly user fee per organization/agency. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | This is a 19-item questionnaire. Primary scales are Global Distress (12 items), Substance Abuse (3 items), and Alliance (4 items). The Global Distress scale has a reliability (coefficient alpha) of .9, and correlates highly with other similar measures of symptom severity including the PHQ-9, GAD-7, OQ-45, Outcome Rating Scale and other widely used adult outcome measures. Person r concurrent correlations with similar questionnaires average approximately .8. The scale was designed to be as brief as possible while still assessing a range of symptoms & problems and exhibiting high levels of reliability and validity. The Alliance Scale is used as a clinical tool to elicit session by session feedback, and is not intended as a measure of performance or outcome. The validity of the scale is only as strong as the clinician's ability to elicit honest feedback. The Substance Abuse scale (a separate factor) assesses problematic use of substances. |
| Population: | This measure is intended for a recovery adult population across a wide range of diagnoses and settings, including group therapy. |
| Program Setting: | The measure is widely used in individual and group psychotherapy as well as medication management. The normative sample exceeds 32,500 patients in outpatient and inpatient/residential care. |
| Age Range: | 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Each contact |
| Administration Time: | Less than 3 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | Scored as the mean of the completed items on each of the sub-scales. Manual scoring can be completed in 2-3 minutes. Electronic scoring available. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Administration Options: | Questionnaire can be completed on paper forms. For those choosing to utilize the ACORN Collaboration Toolkit, questionnaires may be administered via any internet enabled device with a browser. There is an option to fax completed form to a secure fax server for low cost data entry. The Toolkit is a secure state of the art comprehensive clinical information system. Use of the Toolkit enables real time scoring and application of sophisticated clinical algorithms for decision support. The Toolkit uses multivariate predictive modeling to identify risk indicators and generate clinical messages. All analyses are updated every 15 minutes, using the entire normative sample. The ACORN database for all questionnaires exceed 900,000 patients and 2.8 million completed questionnaires. Approximately 2000 newly completed questionnaires are submitted daily via web enabled devices or by faxing to a secure HIPAA compliant system for automated data capture (with human verification) and image archiving for rapid retrieval. The questionnaire is available in several languages, with more translations being added as needed. Use of this questionnaire combined with regular review of results using the ACORN Toolkit has been demonstrated to increase effect sizes over a two year period. |
| Publications: | Uses many of the same psychometric items that are addressed in: A Collaborative Outcomes Resource Network (ACORN): Tools for increasing the value of psychotherapy http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-54465-004 Are you any good… as a therapist? http://societyforpsychotherapy.org/are-you-any-good-as-a-therapist/ To view normative data on expected outcome (effect size) for this and other ACORN measures visit: https://www.cci-acorn.org/summarydata.asp |
| Keywords: | alliance, data analytics, effect size, group therapy, psychometrics, questionnaire, recovery questionnaire, substance abuse |
| Submitted By: | Ashley Simon |
|---|---|
| Developer: | The ACORN Collaboration |
| Contact: | https://acorncollaboration.org/contact-1/ |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | Monthly user fee per organization/agency. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Parent/Guardian |
| Description: | This is a 22 item questionnaire. Primary scales are Global Distress (17 items), Substance Abuse (2 items), and Alliance (3 items). The Global Distress scale has a reliability (coefficient alpha) of .9, and correlates highly with other similar measures of symptom severity including the PHQ-9, GAD-7, OQ-45, Outcome Rating Scale and other widely used adult outcome measures. Person r concurrent correlations with similar questionnaires average approximately .8. The scale was designed to be as brief as possible while still assessing a range of symptoms & problems and exhibiting high levels of reliability and validity. The Substance Abuse scale (a separate factor) assesses problematic use of substances. The Alliance Scale is used as a clinical tool to elicit session by session feedback, and is not intended as a measure of performance or outcome. The validity of the scale is only as strong as the clinician's ability to elicit honest feedback. |
| Population: | This measure is intended for a general youth outpatient population across a wide range of diagnoses. While the measure does correlate highly with diagnostic specific measures such as the PHQ-9 and GAD-7, this is due to the fact that items on those measures all load on a common factor, generally referred to as Global Distress. |
| Program Setting: | The measure is widely used in outpatient individual and group psychotherapy as well as medication management. The normative sample exceeds 280,700 questionnaires for youth patients in outpatient care with options for self-report or caregiver/parent report. |
| Age Range: | 12-18 |
| Administration Frequency: | Each contact |
| Administration Time: | Less than 3 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | Scored as the mean of the completed items on each of the sub-scales. Manual scoring can be completed in 2-3 minutes. Electronic scoring available. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | Questionnaire can be completed on paper forms. For those choosing to utilize the ACORN Collaboration Toolkit, questionnaires may be administered via any internet enabled device with a browser. There is an option to fax completed form to a secure fax server for low cost data entry. The Toolkit is a secure state of the art comprehensive clinical information system. Use of the Toolkit enables real time scoring and application of sophisticated clinical algorithms for decision support. The Toolkit uses multivariate predictive modeling to identify risk indicators and generate clinical messages. All analyses are updated every 15 minutes, using the entire normative sample. The ACORN database for all questionnaires exceed 900,000 patients and 2.8 million completed questionnaires. Approximately 2000 newly completed questionnaires are submitted daily via web enabled devices or by faxing to a secure HIPPA compliant system for automated data capture (with human verification) and image archiving for rapid retrieval. The questionnaire is available in several languages, with more translations being added as needed. Use of this questionnaire combined with regular review of results using the ACORN Toolkit has been demonstrated to increase effect sizes over a two year period. |
| Publications: | A Collaborative Outcomes Resource Network (ACORN): Tools for increasing the value of psychotherapy http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2015-54465-004 Are you any good… as a therapist? http://societyforpsychotherapy.org/are-you-any-good-as-a-therapist/ To view normative data on expected outcome (effect size) for this and other ACORN measures visit: https://www.cci-acorn.org/summarydata.asp |
| Keywords: | alliance, data analytics, effect size, psychometrics, questionnaire, substance abuse, youth outcomes |
| Submitted By: | One Step |
|---|---|
| Developer: | One Step |
| Contact: | info@onestepsoftware.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | Service and tools are available to paying subscribers |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Direct Provider (working directly with individual) |
| Description: | One Step provides facilities with various outcomes measurement tools that can be sent to patients to fill out to meet the Joint Commission requirements. Some outcomes tools provided are: PHQ-9, GAD-7, CISS and many others. Once the patient fills out the surveys/forms, their scores are recorded, as well as a percentage increase or decrease so clinicians can see the patients' progress. Facilities can also see aggregate level statistics and data based on the total of completed standardized outcomes surveys. |
| Population: | One Step is used by over 500 facilities to engage their patients and track outcomes using standardized outcomes tools. |
| Program Setting: | All - IOP, OP, Residential, Detox |
| Age Range: | 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Customizable |
| Administration Time: | Customizable |
| Scoring Time: | Automated |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Keywords: | GAD-7, PHQ-9, Acorn, BAM, Outcomes, Patient Engagement, Standardized Outcomes Tools |
| Submitted By: | Cecil Reynolds |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Pearson Clinical Assessment/Cecil R. Reynolds |
| Contact: | crrh@earthlink.net |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument requires users to pay a per use fee for scoring the instrument online. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Parent/Guardian, Teacher |
| Description: | The BASC-3 Flex Monitor can be used to monitor behavioral and emotional functioning over a desired period of time. Users have the ability to: Choose an existing monitoring form. Create a form using a nationally normed item bank for ages 6 years through 18 years. Choose a rater (teacher, parent, or student). Administer digital or paper forms. Set up recurring administrations over a specified time period. Generate monitoring reports to evaluate change over time. |
| Population: | Heavily used in special education, but applicable in any setting where behavior change is of interest, including clinics, private practice settings, etc. who deal with emotional and behavioral disorders of children and youth ages 6 through 18 years. |
| Program Setting: | Heavily used in special education, but applicable in any setting where behavior change is of interest, including clinics, private practice settings, etc. who deal with emotional and behavioral disorders of children and youth ages 6 through 18 years. |
| Age Range: | 5-12, 12-18 |
| Administration Frequency: | Variable--monthly recomended |
| Administration Time: | Less than 5 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | Digital online scoring, takes 1-2 minutes |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | Available in English and in a fully equated Spanish version for Parent or Student--Spanish not available for teacher version. Paper and pencil or online admin and scoring. Provides grpahic as well as tabular display of results, computes reliable change and related statistics as part of automated report. |
| Publications: | Many listed in Manual. |
| Keywords: | change management, emotional disorders |
| Submitted By: | Kelly Scott |
|---|---|
| Developer: | BH-Works/mdlogix; Dr. Allen Tien, MD, MHS |
| Contact: | Allen Tien; allen@mdlogix.com; (443)224-8429 |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | Instrument available to use with paid licensing of the BH-Works platform. The instrument requires a licensing fee per organization. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Direct Provider (working directly with individual) |
| Description: | The BHS is a multidimensional screening tool that provides a more complete patient profile and helps clinicians reduce missed diagnoses. The BHS assesses patients across 14 domains of mental health including substance misuse, depression, anxiety, suicidality, self-harm, trauma, sexuality, safety, demographics, education, family, nutrition, eating habits, independence, and access to medical care. When a patient completes this screen, the BH-Works platform generates a “Screen Results” report which provides a summary of the patient scales (scores), critical items, possible risk behaviors, as well as patient strengths. Following the summary section, the system provides a detailed section of each question and response for the screen. BH-Works goes beyond most screening tools by offering a comprehensive psychosocial assessment on a self-report, web-based system that instantly scores the data for busy clinicians. |
| Population: | The clinical utility and value of BH-Works in practice has been strongly endorsed by a series of evaluations and funding awards from prominent health care organizations. In 2007, HRSA supported testing of BH-Works in the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) Emergency Department. In 2008, the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) selected BH-Works for their suicide prevention application to SAMHSA, and SAMHSA awarded funding. Since 2008, the BHS has been used in over 800 schools to screen students for behavioral health conditions. In 2010, The Joint Commission strongly commended CHOP for established use of BH-Works in their ED. DHS expanded use of BH-Works in 2011 and won another round of funding from SAMHSA. Then in 2014, DHS and the Delaware Department of Health both chose BH-Works for expanded proposals to SAMHSA which were also funded. In 2015 the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Quality Improvement Organization Program (QIO Program) awarded a primary care behavioral health integration proposal in which BH-Works has a major role in a five-state network consisting of Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama. In 2017, Bon Secours began using BH-Works to screen patients considered to be high ED utilizers in their Baltimore health system. |
| Program Setting: | Since its inception in 2005, BH-Works has been validated at multiple levels for screening adolescent and adult patients ages 12 and up, making it ideal to use across a variety of healthcare settings. The system is currently used in thousands of sites across the country. Multiple versions have been developed for use in emergency departments, primary care settings, schools, and corporate employer settings. Patients can complete the screen themselves via a web browser within the primary care office or from the privacy of a patient screening room. The primary care version takes 7 to 10 minutes to complete and the emergency department version takes 3 to 5 minutes. It is available in English and Spanish and includes resources for improving the referral process and support for billing codes. Data is securely stored in a HIPAA-compliant web hosting center and can be analyzed at the level of patient, practice, hospital, state, or region |
| Age Range: | 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Varies by health care setting |
| Administration Time: | 7-10 minutes standard version; 3-5 minutes ED version |
| Scoring Time: | Scoring and reporting available immediately |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | The BHS is included with licensing of the BH-Works platform. This platform provides web-based tools for measurement, care coordination, analytics, and reporting. The platform supports implementation of collaborative care models such as Chronic Care Management (CCM) and the Psychiatric Collaborative Care Model (CoCM). |
| Publications: | 1. Diamond, G., J. Herres, E. Ewing, T. Atte, S. Scott, M. Wintersteen, and R. Gallop, Comprehensive Screening for Suicide Risk in Primary Care. American Journal of Preventive Medicine., in press. 2. Kodish, T., J. Herres, A. Shearer, T. Atte, J. Fein, and G. Diamond, Bullying, Depression, and Suicide Risk in a Pediatric Primary Care Sample. Crisis, 2016. 37(3): p. 241-6. 3. Herres, J., T. Kodish, J. Fein, and G. Diamond, Screening to Identify Groups of Pediatric Emergency Department Patients Using Latent Class Analysis of Reported Suicidal Ideation and Behavior and Non-Suicidal Self-Injury. Arch Suicide Res, 2017. |
| Keywords: | ED Diversion, SDOH, adolescents, adults, alcohol, anxiety, bullying, depression, eating disorders, emergency departments, employers, inpatient, medical, multi-dimensional, opioid, outpatient, population health, primary care, psychosis, psychosocial risk factors, risk factors, safety, scales, schools, self-harm, smoking, social determinants of health, substance misuse, suicidality, suicide prevention, trauma |
| Submitted By: | Kelly Scott |
|---|---|
| Developer: | BH-Works/mdlogix; Dr. Allen Tien, MD, MHS |
| Contact: | Allen Tien; allen@mdlogix.com;(443)224-8429 |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The BHS is provided with licensing of the BH-Works platform. The platform requires a licensing agreement per organization. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Direct Provider (working directly with individual) |
| Description: | The BHS is a multidimensional screen which gives clinicians a more complete patient profile and reduces missed diagnoses. The assessment covers 14 domains of mental health including substance misuse, depression, anxiety, suicidality, self-harm, trauma, sexuality, safety, demographics, education, family, nutrition, eating habits, independence, and access to medical care. When a patient completes this screen, the BH-Works platform generates a “Screen Results” report which provides a summary of the patient scales (scores), critical items, possible risk behaviors, as well as patient strengths. Following the summary section, the system provides a detailed section of each question and response for the screen. BH-Works goes beyond most screening tools by offering a comprehensive psychosocial assessment on a self-report, web-based system that scores the data instantly for busy clinicians. Providers wishing to implement Measurement-Based Care can routinely screen patients and track changes in patient scales through the BH-Works portal. |
| Population: | The clinical utility and value of BH-Works in practice has been strongly endorsed by a series of evaluations and funding awards from prominent health care organizations. In 2007, HRSA supported testing of BH-Works in the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) Emergency Department. In 2008, the Pennsylvania Department Human Services (DHS) selected BH-Works for their suicide prevention application to SAMHSA, and SAMHSA awarded funding. Since 2008, the BHS has been used in over 800 schools to screen students for behavioral health conditions. In 2010, The Joint Commission strongly commended CHOP for established use of BH-Works in their ED. DHS expanded use of BH-Works in 2011 and won another round of funding from SAMHSA. Then in 2014, DHS and the Delaware Department of Health both chose BH-Works for expanded proposals to SAMHSA which were also funded. In 2015 the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Quality Improvement Organization Program (QIO Program) awarded a primary care behavioral health integration proposal in which BH-Works has a major role in a five-state network consisting of Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama. In 2017, Bon Secours initiated use of BH-Works to assess patients considered high ED- utilizers in its Baltimore health system. |
| Program Setting: | Bh-Works and the BHS have been validated at multiple levels for screening adolescent and adult patients ages 12 and up, making it ideal to use across a variety of health care settings. The system is currently used in thousands of sites across the country. Multiple versions have been developed for use in emergency departments, primary care settings, schools, and corporate employer settings. Patients can complete the screen themselves via a web browser within the primary care office or from the privacy of a patient screening room. The primary care version takes 7 to 10 minutes to complete and the emergency department version takes 3 to 5 minutes. It is available in English and Spanish and includes resources for improving the referral process and support for billing codes. Data is securely stored in a HIPAA-compliant web hosting center and can be analyzed at the level of patient, practice, hospital, state, or region. |
| Age Range: | 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | weekly, montly, annually (depending on provider) |
| Administration Time: | 3-5 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | Instant electronic scoring and reporting |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | The BHS is included with licensing of the BH-Works platform. This platform provides web-based tools for measurement, care coordination, analytics, and reporting. The platform supports implementation of collaborative care models such as Chronic Care Management (CCM) and the Psychiatric Collaborative Care Model (CoCM). Providers can use this screening tool routinely to provide Measurement-Based Care to their patients. Changes in patients scales are recorded in a patient management system that can be accessed through the BH-Works portal. |
| Publications: | Kodish, T., J. Herres, A. Shearer, T. Atte, J. Fein, and G. Diamond, Bullying, Depression, and Suicide Risk in a Pediatric Primary Care Sample. Crisis, 2016. 37(3): p. 241-6. Herres, J., T. Kodish, J. Fein, and G. Diamond, Screening to Identify Groups of Pediatric Emergency Department Patients Using Latent Class Analysis of Reported Suicidal Ideation and Behavior and Non-Suicidal Self-Injury. Arch Suicide Res, 2017. Diamond, G., J. Herres, E. Ewing, T. Atte, S. Scott, M. Wintersteen, and R. Gallop, Comprehensive Screening for Suicide Risk in Primary Care. American Journal of Preventive Medicine., in press. |
| Keywords: | ED, Emergency Department, PTSD, SDOH, abuse, adolescents, adults, anxiety, bullying, crisis, depression, eating disorders, gun access, hospital, inpatient, instant, medical, multidimensional, nutrition, opioid, outpatient, overdose, primary care, reporting, safety, self-harm, self-report, sexuality, social determinants, substance misuse, suicidality, suicide prevention, trauma, violence |
| Submitted By: | Kelly Scott |
|---|---|
| Developer: | BH-Works/mdlogix; Dr. Allen Tien, MD, MHS |
| Contact: | Allen Tien; allen@mdlogix.com;(443)224-8429 |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The BHS is provided with licensing of the BH-Works platform. The platform requires a licensing agreement per organization. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Direct Provider (working directly with individual) |
| Description: | The BHS is a validated, multidimensional screen which gives clinicians a more complete patient profile and helps reduce missed diagnoses. The assessment covers 14 domains of mental health and psychosocial risk factors including substance misuse, depression, anxiety, suicidality, self-harm, trauma, sexuality, gun access, exposure to violence, demographics, education, family, nutrition, eating habits, independence, and access to medical care. When a patient completes this screen, the BH-Works platform generates a “Screen Results” report which provides a summary of the patient scales (scores), critical items, possible risk behaviors, as well as patient strengths. Following the summary section, the system provides a detailed section of each question and response for the screen. BH-Works goes beyond most screening tools by offering a comprehensive psychosocial assessment on a self-report, web-based system that scores the data instantly for busy clinicians. Providers wishing to implement Measurement-Based Care can routinely screen patients and track changes in patient scales through the BH-Works portal. |
| Population: | The clinical utility and value of BH-Works in practice has been strongly endorsed by a series of evaluations and funding awards from prominent health care organizations. In 2007, HRSA supported testing of BH-Works in the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) Emergency Department. In 2008, the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) selected BH-Works for their suicide prevention application to SAMHSA, and SAMHSA awarded funding. Since 2008, the BHS has been used in over 800 schools to screen students for behavioral health conditions. In 2010, The Joint Commission strongly commended CHOP for established use of BH-Works in their ED. DHS expanded use of BH-Works in 2011 and won another round of funding from SAMHSA. Then in 2014, DHS and the Delaware Department of Health both chose BH-Works for expanded proposals to SAMHSA which were also funded. In 2015 the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Quality Improvement Organization Program (QIO Program) awarded a primary care behavioral health integration proposal in which BH-Works has a major role in a five-state network consisting of Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama. In 2017, Bon Secours initiated use of BH-Works to assess patients considered high ED- utilizers in its Baltimore health system. |
| Program Setting: | BH-Works and the BHS have been validated at multiple levels for screening adolescent and adult patients ages 12 and up, making it ideal to use across a variety of health care settings. The system is currently used in thousands of sites across the country. Multiple versions have been developed for use in emergency departments, primary care settings, schools, and corporate employer settings. Patients can complete the screen themselves via a web browser within the primary care office or from the privacy of a patient screening room. The primary care version takes 7 to 10 minutes to complete and the emergency department version takes 3 to 5 minutes. It is available in English and Spanish and includes resources for improving the referral process and support for billing codes. Data is securely stored in a HIPAA-compliant web hosting center and can be analyzed at the level of patient, practice, hospital, state, or region. |
| Age Range: | 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Varies by setting; screen routinely to implement Measurement-Based Care; screen periodically for triage and referral purposes |
| Administration Time: | Standard version 7-10 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | Instant electronic scoring and reporting |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | The BHS is included with licensing of the BH-Works platform. This platform provides web-based tools for measurement, care coordination, analytics, and reporting. The platform supports implementation of Measurement-Based Care and collaborative care models such as Chronic Care Management (CCM) and the Psychiatric Collaborative Care Model (CoCM). |
| Publications: | Kodish, T., J. Herres, A. Shearer, T. Atte, J. Fein, and G. Diamond, Bullying, Depression, and Suicide Risk in a Pediatric Primary Care Sample. Crisis, 2016. 37(3): p. 241-6. Herres, J., T. Kodish, J. Fein, and G. Diamond, Screening to Identify Groups of Pediatric Emergency Department Patients Using Latent Class Analysis of Reported Suicidal Ideation and Behavior and Non-Suicidal Self-Injury. Arch Suicide Res, 2017. Diamond, G., J. Herres, E. Ewing, T. Atte, S. Scott, M. Wintersteen, and R. Gallop, Comprehensive Screening for Suicide Risk in Primary Care. American Journal of Preventive Medicine., in press. |
| Keywords: | CCM, Care plan, CoCM, MBC, PTSD, Psychiatric Collaborative Care, SDOH, abuse, adolescents, anxiety, care manager, chronic care management, crisis, depression, eating disorders, hospitals, inpatient, measurement based care, medical, multidimensional, outpatient, primary care, primary care, psychosis, psychosocial, safety, schools, self-harm, sexual, social determinants, substance abuse, substance misuse, suicidality, suicide prevention, trauma |
| Submitted By: | Kelly Scott |
|---|---|
| Developer: | BH-Works/mdlogix; Dr. Allen Tien, MD, MHS |
| Contact: | Allen Tien; allen@mdlogix.com;(443)224-8429 |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The BHS is provided with licensing of the BH-Works platform. The platform requires a licensing agreement per organization. |
| Reporter: | Parent/Guardian |
| Description: | The BHS is a validated, multidimensional screen which gives clinicians a more complete patient profile and helps reduce missed diagnoses. The assessment covers 14 domains of mental health and psychosocial risk factors including substance misuse, depression, anxiety, suicidality, self-harm, trauma, gun access, exposure to violence, demographics, education, family, nutrition, eating habits, ADHD, autism, disruptive conduct, sleep, and access to medical care. When a parent/gaurdian completes the screen, the BH-Works platform generates a “Screen Results” report which provides a summary of the patient scales (scores), critical items, possible risk behaviors, as well as patient strengths. Following the summary section, the system provides a detailed section of each question and response for the screen. BH-Works goes beyond most screening tools by offering a comprehensive psychosocial assessment on a self-report, web-based system that scores the data instantly for busy clinicians. Providers wishing to implement Measurement-Based Care can routinely screen patients and track changes in patient scales through the BH-Works portal. |
| Population: | The clinical utility and value of BH-Works in practice has been strongly endorsed by a series of evaluations and funding awards from prominent health care organizations. In 2007, HRSA supported testing of BH-Works in the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) Emergency Department. In 2008, the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) selected BH-Works for their suicide prevention application to SAMHSA, and SAMHSA awarded funding. Since 2008, the BHS has been used in over 800 schools to screen students for behavioral health conditions. In 2010, The Joint Commission strongly commended CHOP for established use of BH-Works in their ED. DHS expanded use of BH-Works in 2011 and won another round of funding from SAMHSA. Then in 2014, DHS and the Delaware Department of Health both chose BH-Works for expanded proposals to SAMHSA which were also funded. In 2015 the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Quality Improvement Organization Program (QIO Program) awarded a primary care behavioral health integration proposal in which BH-Works has a major role in a five-state network consisting of Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama. In 2017, Bon Secours initiated use of BH-Works to assess patients considered high ED- utilizers in its Baltimore health system. |
| Program Setting: | BH-Works and the BHS have been validated at multiple levels for screening children, adolescents, and adult patients ages 6 and up, making it ideal to use across a variety of health care settings. The system is currently used in thousands of sites across the country. Multiple versions have been developed for use in emergency departments, primary care settings, schools, and corporate employer settings. Patients can complete the screen themselves via a web browser within the primary care office or from the privacy of a patient screening room. The primary care version takes 7 to 10 minutes to complete and the emergency department version takes 3 to 5 minutes. It is available in English and Spanish and includes resources for improving the referral process and support for billing codes. Data is securely stored in a HIPAA-compliant web hosting center and can be analyzed at the level of patient, practice, hospital, state, or region. |
| Age Range: | 5-12 |
| Administration Frequency: | Varies by health care setting; can be used routinely to implement Measurement-Based Care; can be used periodically for triage and referral purposes |
| Administration Time: | 7-10 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | Instant electronic scoring and reporting |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | The BHS is included with licensing of the BH-Works platform. This platform provides web-based tools for measurement, care coordination, analytics, and reporting. The platform supports implementation of Measurement-Based Care and collaborative care models such as Chronic Care Management (CCM) and the Psychiatric Collaborative Care Model (CoCM). |
| Publications: | Kodish, T., J. Herres, A. Shearer, T. Atte, J. Fein, and G. Diamond, Bullying, Depression, and Suicide Risk in a Pediatric Primary Care Sample. Crisis, 2016. 37(3): p. 241-6. Herres, J., T. Kodish, J. Fein, and G. Diamond, Screening to Identify Groups of Pediatric Emergency Department Patients Using Latent Class Analysis of Reported Suicidal Ideation and Behavior and Non-Suicidal Self-Injury. Arch Suicide Res, 2017. Diamond, G., J. Herres, E. Ewing, T. Atte, S. Scott, M. Wintersteen, and R. Gallop, Comprehensive Screening for Suicide Risk in Primary Care. American Journal of Preventive Medicine., in press. |
| Keywords: | ADHD, ED, PTSD, SDOH, abuse, anxiety, autism, bullying, child, children, conduct, conduct disorder, crisis, depression, disruptive, eating disorders, emergency department, gun access, hospitals, inpatient, measurement based care, medical, multidimensional, outpatient, primary care, psychosis, psychosocial, safety, schools, self-harm, sleep, social determinants, substance abuse, substance misuse, suicidality, suicide prevention, trauma, validated, violence |
| Submitted By: | Shannon O Brien |
|---|---|
| Developer: | McLean Hospital, Susan V. Eisen PhD., Boston University |
| Contact: | http://ebasis.org/contact.php |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument has a copyright which requires a licensing agreement and annual fee per organization at its base service level. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | The 24-item Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale, BASIS-24®, is a leading behavioral health assessment tool designed to assess the outcome of mental health or substance abuse treatment from the client’s perspective. Typically, BASIS-24® is given at admission and discharge for inpatient or residential programs, and at intake/initiation of treatment and then periodically thereafter in partial hospital or ambulatory/outpatient care settings. Grounded in the latest scientific methods of survey development and validation, the BASIS-24® underwent extensive field testing as part of a multiyear research and development process and has been validated and found reliable in inpatient, residential, partial and outpatient settings. BASIS-24® is also validated in both Spanish and English. BASIS-24® inquires as to the degree or frequency of difficulty that the respondent has been experiencing during the past week. The 24 items are scored using a weighted average algorithm that gives an overall score as well as scores for six subscales. The 24 items assess six major areas of difficulty and/or distress including: Depression/Functioning, Relationships, Self-Harm, Emotional Lability, Psychosis, and Substance Abuse. BASIS-24® is designed for use by mental health providers, researchers, purchasers of mental health services, accreditation agencies, and internal quality assurance departments to measure the change in consumer self-reported symptom and problem difficulty over the course of treatment. BASIS-24® is not diagnosis-specific, but was designed to cut across diagnoses, acknowledging the wide range of symptoms and problems that occur across the diagnostic spectrum. |
| Population: | Adult individuals (18+) with any mental health or substance abuse diagnosis at Inpatient, Outpatient, Residential or Partial Level of Care. |
| Program Setting: | Validated and found reliable in inpatient, residential, partial and outpatient settings. Used by mental health providers, researchers, and purchasers of mental health services. |
| Age Range: | 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Administered at admission and discharge for inpatient or residential programs, and at intake/initiation of treatment and then periodically thereafter in partial hospital or ambulatory/outpatient care settings. |
| Administration Time: | 5-10 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | Scoring algorithm and item weights are provided with license. Scored as the weighted mean of the completed items on each of the sub-scales as well as all items for the overall score. Some items also require reverse coding. Online scoring and reporting available instantaneously with Webscore capability. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | Paper/Pencil. A range of electronic, mobile and web-based administration and scoring options are available through Webscore capability. |
| Publications: | Eisen SV, Ranganathan G, Seal P, Spiro III A. Measuring Clinically Meaningful Change Following Mental Health Treatment. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 2007;34:272-289. Eisen, SV, Normand SLT, Belanger AJ, Spiro A, Esch D. The Revised Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale (BASIS-R): Reliability and Validity. Medical Care, 2004;42:1230–1241. Note: "BASIS-R" was the initial name of BASIS-24®, copyright McLean Hospital. Eisen, SV, Normand, SLT, Belanger AJ, Gevorkian S, Irvin EA. BASIS-32® and the Revised Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale BASIS-R. In: Maruish MM, ed. The Use of Psychological Testing for Treatment Planning and Outcome Assessment, 3rd Edition, Vol. 3. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2004:79-113. |
| Keywords: | BASIS-24, Depression, Emotional Lability, Interpersonal Relationships, Overall Scores, Psychosis, Self-Harm, Substance Abuse |
| Submitted By: | Barry Duncan |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Better Outcomes Now and Dr. Barry L. Duncan, P.A. |
| Contact: | barryduncan@betteroutcomesnow.com; 772.204.2511 |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | Better Outcomes Now (www.betteroutcomesnow.com) is the true application of the Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS) created by the developer of the clinical process of PCOMS and the organization that demonstrated its scientific credibility via 6 randomized clinical trials. The paper and pencil measures (the Outcome Rating Scale [ORS], the Child ORS, Session Rating Scale [SRS], and Child SRS) are free (with agreement to the license) for individual and research purposes at www.betteroutcomesnow.com in 28 languages. Better Outcomes Now administers the measures, collects and analyzes the data, provides at a glance views of at risk clients, and provides unlimited reporting capabilities that also include key quality improvement features for supervisors and administrators. The cost of BON varies depending on number of users and ranges from $99 to $179 per user per year. Students, trainees, and interns are $99. Subscription includes a full training eLearning curriculum for successful implementation. Sign up for a free trial at: https://betteroutcomesnow.com/psychotherapy-outcome-measurement-tool/. BON includes the measures in multiple languages and is translated in total in Norwegian and Spanish. A new PCOMS/BON Manual integrates eLearning resources, client videos, and user friendly modules based on the ten skills of PCOMS. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Parent/Guardian, Teacher, Other |
| Description: | Each of the four primary instruments that comprise the basic PCOMS measurement set, the Outcome Rating Scale (ORS), Session Rating Scale (SRS), Child ORS, and Child SRS, is a visual analogue scale consisting of four 10 cm lines. The ORS and SRS are used with adults and adolescents, aged 13-17. Children aged 6-12 use the CORS and CSRS. Adult caregivers provide feedback for their child or adolescent on either the CORS or ORS based on the child’s age. Because of the desire to create a system feasible for everyday clinical practice, PCOMS instruments are brief, generally requiring no more than 3 to 5 minutes to administer, score, and discuss. (Duncan, 2014). The four 10 centimeter lines of the ORS total to a score of 40, 3 around major domains assessed by the OQ45 (Individually, Interpersonally, and Socially) and a fourth, Overall. Individually captures client personal distress or well-being; Interpersonally, clients’ significant relationships; and Socially, clients’ work, school, friends, and other social arenas. The lower the score, the higher the distress. The CORS retains the same domains, but uses language suitable for its intended age group: Me, Family, School, and Everything, with smiley/frowny faces at either ends to aid comprehension. The ORS is given at the beginning of a session and the the SRS is given at the end of a session. Together, they identify clients at risk for no change via comparison to an expected treatment response. PCOMS was listed in SAMHSA's national registry of evidence based practices and is supported by 6 randomized clinical trials and numerous psychometric studies across populations and cultures. |
| Population: | PCOMS and Better Outcomes Now are intended to serve a broad population and are not diagnostically based. There are over 1.5 million administrations in the data base and it is used across the US and Canada, and 20 other countries. The 6 RCTs are from the US, Norway, and China. The 8 largest public behavioral health organizations in their respective states have implemented PCOMS and BON. PCOMS and BON have been implemented provincially in Saskatchewan. |
| Program Setting: | PCOMS and BON have been implemented in all of the services listed above. Our recent benchmarking publication addressing PCOMS in an acute inpatient setting demonstrating outcomes comparable to RCTs and significantly lower readmission rates (Reese, Duncan, et al., 2017). Previous benchmarking studies report comparable outcomes to RCTs with adults and youth in a public organization that had implemented PCOMS (Reese, Duncan, et al., 2014). |
| Age Range: | 5-12, 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Each contact but not over one time a week. |
| Administration Time: | Less than 5 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | The measures can be administered via paper and pencil and scored within 10 seconds. The web application of PCOMS, Better Outcomes Now, administers the PCOMS measures and scores instantly. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | The measures can be administered via paper and pencil and scored within 10 seconds. The web application of PCOMS, Better Outcomes Now, administers the PCOMS measures, providing the score and graph instantly. Better Outcomes Now (BON) ensures data integrity and reports the data for individual provider and agency improvement. BON identifies at risk clients for supervisory purposes and includes fidelity checks to ensure providers are adhering to the standards of the evidence based practice, PCOMS. The measures are translated to 28 languages in paper and pencil. BON includes the measures in multiple languages and is translated in total in Norwegian and Spanish. The full capability of BON is available remotely for consumers living in rural areas and providers delivering services via tele-health. |
| Publications: | Duncan, B. L., & Reese, R. J. (2015). The Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS): Revisiting the Client’s Frame of Reference. Psychotherapy, 52(4), 391-401. Duncan, B., & Sparks, J. (2018) The Partners for Change Outcome Management System: An integrated elearning manual for everything PCOMS. Jensen Beach, FL: Author Reese, R. J., Duncan, B. L., Bohanske, R. T., Owen, J. J., & Minami, T. (2014). Benchmarking outcomes in a public behavioral health setting: Feedback as a quality improvement strategy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol 82(4), 731-742. She, Z., Duncan, B., Reese, R., Sun, Q., Shi, Y., Jiang, G., Wu, C., & Clements, A. (2018). Client feedback in China: A randomized clinical trial in a college counseling center. Journal of Counseling Psychology. |
| Keywords: | BON, Barry Duncan, Better Outcomes Now, PCOMS, Partners for Change Outcome Management System, ROM, measurement based care, outcome measurement tools, quality improvement, standardized tool, systematic client feedback |
| Submitted By: | Russell Du Bois |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Blueprint |
| Contact: | russell@blueprint-health.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | Blueprint provides a curated list of open-source outcome and symptom assessment measures to be used across a range of health settings. Providers/clinicians are required to sign a contract with Blueprint prior to gaining access to the web portal. Fees may apply (e.g., for out-of-network providers). |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Parent/Guardian |
| Description: | Blueprint is an online platform that enables measurement-based care across a wide range of clinical settings. Providers have access to a curated list of outcome measures, daily assessments, and treatment activities that patients complete either remotely (e.g., through an app on their phone) or during office visits (e.g., through an iPad or tablet in the waiting room or during a session). All measures are automatically scored, interpreted, and reported back to the provider in real-time. Intuitive graphics and dashboards make it simple for providers to integrate results into clinical decision making. |
| Population: | Blueprint accommodates both self-report and parent-report administration formats, making it applicable to children, youth, adult, and geriatric populations. |
| Program Setting: | Blueprint offers outcome measures that cover most, if not all, clinical settings including substance use, psychiatric, private practice, group practice, partial hospital, inpatient/residential, pain management, and family/couples settings. |
| Age Range: | 5-12, 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Most assessments are weekly or bi-weekly |
| Administration Time: | Most assessments take less than 10 minutes to complete |
| Scoring Time: | Assessments are automatically scored on the Blueprint platform |
| Benchmark Data: | No |
| Psychometric Testing: | No |
| Administration Options: | Electronic administration via Smartphone application, computer, or tablet/iPad. |
| Keywords: | Remote patient monitoring |
| Submitted By: | Dominick De Philippis |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Department of Veterans Affairs; John S. Cacciola, Arthur I. Alterman, Dominick DePhilippis, Michelle L. Drapkin, Charles Valadez Jr., Natalie C. Fala, David Oslin, James R. McKay |
| Contact: | Dominick.DePhilippis@va.gov, (215) 823-5800 x6181 |
| Proprietary: | Instrument in public domain |
| Restrictions: | No restrictions, licensing, or fees for use of the BAM. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Direct Provider (working directly with individual), Independent Provider (not working directly with individual) |
| Description: | The primary purpose of the Brief Addiction Monitor (BAM) is to support individualized, measurement-based care for substance use disorders (SUD). The BAM monitors a patient’s progress in SUD care and yields reliable data that is both easy to collect and readily integrated into SUD treatment planning. The BAM is a 17-item, multidimensional questionnaire, designed to be administered as a clinical interview (in-person or telephonically) or via patient self-report, for all patients seeking or enrolled in SUD specialty care. It retrospectively assesses (past 30 days) three SUD-related domains: Risk factors for substance use, Protective factors that support sobriety, and drug and alcohol Use. Items were selected for inclusion in the BAM based on their presence in existing SUD measures and/or on empirical support for their reliable and valid assessment of SUD relapse risk and treatment outcome. Each item ranges in value from zero to 30, the Use Score ranges from zero to 90, and the Risk and Protective factor scores range from zero to 180. Two studies have been done on the psychometric properties of the BAM. The first study made use of the continuous item version of the BAM (Cacciola et al., 2012). This study found support for the factor structure, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and sensitivity to change of the BAM. BAM scores collected at intake also predicted treatment completion vs. dropout. The second study (Nelson, Young, & Chapman, 2013) used a version of the BAM with Likert-scale rather than continuous items. Although this study found that the BAM lacked a reliable factor structure, it did find some evidence supporting the use of individual BAM items. In a third study (Chih et al., 2014), BAM scores obtained weekly from a smartphone application over an 8-month period significantly predicted relapse status within the week following the assessment. End-users are strongly encouraged to attend to the item-level data (rather than the three factor scores) because they have direct implications for treatment planning. That is, they identify specific areas of need or resources the patient brings to bear in his/her recovery. The BAM is widely used in VA Medical Centers, has been selected for inclusion in the VA’s measurement based care in mental health initiative, and it is also being used in several branches of the military. |
| Population: | Adult patients (18 and older) seeking or participating in substance use disorder (SUD) specialty care. |
| Program Setting: | All substance use disorder treatment (SUD) specialty care settings including outpatient, intensive outpatient (IOP), opioid replacement (methadone and office-based buprenorphine), residential, and inpatient. |
| Age Range: | 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Monthly |
| Administration Time: | 5 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | Each BAM item can be considered a “score” on which a patient’s status can change. In <1 minute, the three factor scores (Risk, Protective, & Use) are computed as simple sums of the respective Risk, Protective, & Use items. |
| Benchmark Data: | No |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | Paper-pencil, electronic administration and scoring (via Excel-based templates). Deployment in mobile apps is under development. |
| Publications: | (1) Cacciola, JS, Alterman, AI, DePhilippis, D, Drapkin, ML, Valadez Jr, C, Fala, NC, Oslin, D, McKay, JR. (2012). Development and initial evaluation of the Brief Addiction Monitor (BAM). The Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 44(3):256–263. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2012.07.013. (2) Nelson, KG, Young, K, Chapman, H. (2013). Examining the performance of the Brief Addiction Monitor. The Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 46(4):472-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2013.07.002 (3) Chih, M-Y, Patton, T, McTavish, FM, Isham, AJ, Judkins-Fisher, CL, Atwood, AK, Gustafson, DH. (2014). Predictive modeling of addiction lapses in a mobile health application. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 46, 29-35. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2013.08.004 (4) The BAM also is among the measures included by the Kennedy Forum in its "Core Set of Outcome Measures for Behavioral Health Across Service Settings." http://thekennedyforum-dot-org.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/MBC_supplement.pdf |
| Submitted By: | Sai Narotam |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Linda Sobell and Mark Sobell |
| Contact: | sobelll@nova.edu |
| Proprietary: | Instrument in public domain |
| Restrictions: | None. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | The Brief Situational Confidence Questionnaire (BSCQ) is a psychometrically sound state dependent measure that assesses a patient’s self-confidence (self-efficacy) to resist the urge to drink heavily or use drugs in a variety of situations (Breslin, Sobell, Sobell, & Agrawal, 2000). The BSCQ is based on the 100-item version of the Situational Confidence Questionnaire (SCQ-100) that assesses self-confidence for the eight high-risk situations composing Marlatt’s relapse taxonomy (Marlatt & Donovan, 2005). For each situation, patients are asked to rate their confidence to resist using drugs or drinking heavily on scales ranging from 0% (not at all confident) to 100% (very confident). Clinically, the BSCQ is used to identify and highlight a patient’s highest risk trigger situations for substance use (i.e., situations in which patients are least confident about resisting the urge to drink heavily or use drugs). The information from the BSCQ can be used to provide personalized feedback to patients [see Session 2, Client Handout 4.7, and Session 4, Client Handout 4.9 in Sobell & Sobell 2011]. Free materials related to the BSCQ can be downloaded at http://http://www.nova.edu/gsc/forms/gsc-forms.html. A free online Excel program that prepares BSCQ graphs based on a patients’ scores from the ratings on the eight high-risk situations can also be downloaded using this link: BSCQ Color Graphing Program v6 (XLS) |
| Population: | The BSCQ can be used broadly with patients having substance use disorders or substance use concerns, as an aid in assessment and treatment planning. |
| Program Setting: | Inpatient and outpatient psychotherapy settings for individual and group treatment, and self-help online assessment. |
| Age Range: | 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Bimonthly |
| Administration Time: | 5-10 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | 10-15 minutes |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | The BSCQ first asks people to imagine themselves as they are right now in each of the eight potential relapse situations. They are then asked to indicate on a visual analog scale how confident they are at the present time (i.e., right now) that they can resist the urge to drink heavily (the definition of heavily is purposely left up to the person to define) or to use drugs in each of the situations. Each of the eight scale questions consists of a 100-mm line, anchored by 0% ("not at all confident") and 100% ("totally confident"), and patients are asked to place a mark along the line, from 0% to 100%. The intent in using the BSCQ is to identify and highlight patients’ highest risk situations (i.e., situations where they say they are least confident to resist the urge to drink heavily or use drugs). To create the graph of the eight BSCQ situations, use the Excel program or take the score (percent confidence) for each of the scales and draw them in to create a bar graph. It can be helpful to highlight for patients the three situations patients indicate as posing the greatest risk (i.e., had the lowest percentage of confidence) them in a different darker color compared to the other five situations. To see a final sample graph open the file labeled BSCQ Sample Graph at the above web link. Statistical analysis of patients’ BSCQ scores yielded six different profile types. Profile names (e.g., negative affect; good times) provide a shorthand clinical recognition of triggers for patients and therapists and can be used to help patients be more vigilant around high-risk situations between sessions. Because the BSCQ is a state measure, assessing self-efficacy at the start of and during treatment will allow for an evaluation of increases or decreases in self-efficacy as a function of the intervention. This is important because several studies have shown that patients’ self-efficacy at the end of treatment is associated with positive outcomes. Thus, a goal of therapy is to help patients have a high level of self-confidence by the end of treatment. The file labeled BSCQ Comparison Graphs displays a patient’s assessment BSCQ scores and BSCQ scores later in treatment. Such BSCQ comparison graphs can be used to provide feedback to patients about their progress in treatment. |
| Publications: | Annis, H. M., & Graham, J. M. (1988). Situational confidence questionnaire (scq 39): User's Guide. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation. Breslin, F. C., Sobell, L. C., Sobell, M. B., & Agrawal, S. (2000). A comparison of a brief and long version of the Situational Confidence Questionnaire. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38(12), 1211-1220. (Source article) Coon, G. M., Pena, D., & Illich, P. A. (1998). Self-efficacy and substance abuse: Assessment using a brief phone interview. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 385-391. Kirisci, L., & Moss, H. B. (1997). Reliability and validity of the Situational Confidence Questionnaire in an adolescent sample: Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 30(3), 146-155. Kirisci, L., Moss, H. B., & Tarter, R. E. (1996). Psychometric evaluation of the Situational Confidence Questionnaire in adolescents: Fitting a graded item response model. Addictive Behaviors, 21(3), 303-317. Marlatt, G. A., & Donovan, D. M. (Eds.). (2005). Relapse prevention: Maintenance strategies in the treatment of addictive behaviors (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Sandahl, C., Lindberg, S., & Rönnberg, S. (1990). Efficacy expectations among alcohol-dependent patients: A Swedish version of the situational confidence questionnaire. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 25, 67-73. Sklar, S. M., & Turner, N. E. (1999). A brief measure for the assessment of coping self-efficacy among alcohol and other drug users. Addiction, 723-729. DeWeert-Van Oene, G. H., Breteler, M. H. M., Schippers, G. M., & Schrijvers, A. J. P. (2000). The validity of the self-efficacy list for drug users (DELF). Addictive Behaviors, 599-605. Sobell, L. C., & Sobell, M. B. (2011). Group therapy with substance use disorders: A motivational cognitive-behavioral approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press. |
| Submitted By: | Barrett Griffith |
|---|---|
| Developer: | CarePaths Inc. |
| Contact: | info@carepaths.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument in public domain |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | CarePaths has partnered with leading psychotherapy researcher Bruce Wampold PhD to build a mobile app (CarePaths Connect) that delivers a standard protocol of publicly available instruments for adults to be completed over the course of the week. The instruments address symptoms of depression (PHQ9), anxiety (GAD7) - asked on Monday, along with medication adherence and side effects if applicable. Wednesday, they are alerted to report on wellness (WHO5) and loneliness (UCLA3). Friday is for questions regarding their confidence in the therapist (three questions) and confidence in the treatment. The therapist and client both have access to the graphs to help discuss progress. https://carepaths.com/what-to-measure-in-measurement-based-care/ |
| Population: | The instruments serve a broad adult population undergoing psychotherapy, counseling, and other mental health treatments. |
| Program Setting: | Primary settings include psychotherapy, counseling, addiction treatment, psychiatry, and medication management. |
| Age Range: | 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Weekly |
| Administration Time: | 5 minutes per week |
| Scoring Time: | Automatic |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Administration Options: | Therapy clients can self-signup with a therapist using the protocol through the app. They will get the alerts to complete the assessments every week through their mobile devices. https://carepaths.com/products/measurement-based-care-for-mental-health/ |
| Keywords: | PHQ-9, GAD-7, WHO-5 |
| Submitted By: | Dominic Guay |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Multi-Health Systems Inc. (MHS) |
| Contact: | dominic.guay@mhs.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | Pre-Paid annual or monthly uses or annual license fees |
| Reporter: | Direct Provider (working directly with individual) |
| Description: | The CAFAS® is a tool for assessing a youth's day-to-day functioning and for tracking changes in functioning over time. The CAFAS is backed by over 20 years of research supporting its validity and sensitivity to detecting change in behaviors. It is widely used to inform decisions about type and intensity of treatment, level of care, placement and need for referral. |
| Population: | Children age 5-9. |
| Program Setting: | Educational, clinical, juvenile justice setting |
| Age Range: | 5-12 |
| Administration Frequency: | At Intake and then every 3 months or more frequent if desired |
| Administration Time: | 10 Minutes |
| Scoring Time: | 5 minutes for paper and pencil. Online is instant once form is completed. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | Paper and Pencil or online |
| Publications: | Abram, K. M., Choe, J. Y., Washburn, J. J., Romero, E. G., & Teplin, L. A. (2009). Functional Impairment in Youth Three Years after Detention. Journal of Adolescent Health, 44(6), 528-535. Barwick, M. A., Schmidt, J., & Hodges, K. (2004). Culturally competent evaluation: Clinical considerations for rating the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS) with Aboriginal children and youth. Toronto, ON: The Hospital for Sick Children. Boydell, K. M., Barwick, M., Ferguson, H. B., Haines, R . (2005). A feasibility study to assess service providers’ perspectives regarding the use of the child and adolescent functional assessment scale in Ontario. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 32(1), 105-109. |
| Submitted By: | Program Manager |
|---|---|
| Developer: | American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry |
| Contact: | clinical@aacap.org |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The Child and Adolescent Service Intensity Instrument (CASII) and the Early Childhood Service Intensity Instrument (ECSII) are copyrighted by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP). Purchasers of these materials are NOT authorized to: (i) copy, modify, reproduce, re-publish, sub-license, sell, upload, broadcast, post, transmit or distribute any CASII and/or ECSII materials without prior written permission; (ii) use CASII and/or ECSII materials in the provision of any other course or training whether given by AACAP or any third-party trainer without prior written permission; (iii) remove any copyright or other notice; (iv) modify, adapt, merge, translate, disassemble, decompile, or create electronic versions of the CASII and/or ECSII materials without prior permission; or (v) obtain training from non-AACAP authorized trainer. |
| Reporter: | Direct Provider (working directly with individual), Independent Provider (not working directly with individual), Teacher, Other |
| Description: | The Child and Adolescent Service Intensity Instrument (CASII) is a standardized assessment tool that provides a determination of the appropriate level of service intensity needed by a child or adolescent and his or her family. The CASII is developmentally informed and compatible with the System of Care approach with the capacity to determine service intensity need, guide treatment planning, and monitor treatment outcome in all clinical settings using six key dimensions: risk of harm (including trauma issues), functional status, co-occurring conditions, recovery environment, resiliency/response to services, and involvement in services. |
| Population: | The CASII may be used to evaluate children and adolescents from ages 6 to 18 from the general population as well as those who may presenting with psychiatric, substance use, medical and/or developmental concerns. |
| Program Setting: | The CASII may be used in a variety of settings encompassing diverse systems including primary care, mental health, child welfare, juvenile justice, developmental disabilities services, and education. The CASII is used for guidance in service or treatment planning, as an outcomes measurement tool, for service utilization review, and as a means to form a common language across various programs. |
| Age Range: | 5-12, 12-18 |
| Administration Frequency: | Varies by setting but recommended before, during, and after any intervention or service plan. |
| Administration Time: | Varies by case depending on information obtained from referrals and/or interviews with child and/or family. |
| Scoring Time: | Less than 20 minutes once necessary information for scoring is obtained. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Publications: | Fallon, T., Pumariega, A., Sowers, W., Klaehn, R., Huffine, C., Vaughan, T., . . . Grimes, K. (2006). A Level of Care Instrument for Children's Systems of Care: Construction, Reliability and Validity. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15(2), 140-152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-005-9012-y Henderson, L., Wasser, C., & Wasser, T. E. (2018). Using the Child and Adolescent Service Intensity Instrument (CASII) as an Outcome Measure. Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management, 25(4). Nakamura, B. J., Daleiden, E. L., & Mueller, C. W. (2007). Validity of Treatment Target Progress Ratings as Indicators of Youth Improvement. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16(5), 729-741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-006-9119-9 Pumariega, A.J., French, W., Millsaps, U, Moser, M., & Wade, P. (2019). Service intensity/level of care determination in a child welfare population. Journal of Child and Family Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01393-w Pumariega, A., Millsaps, U., Moser, M., & Wade, P. (2014). Matching Intervention to Need in Juvenile Justice: The CASII Level of Care Determination. Adolescent Psychiatry, 4(4), 305-313. |
| Keywords: | CASII, Child and Adolescent, Service Intensity, Wraparound, Systems of Care, Outcomes Indicator |
| Submitted By: | Kelly Posner Ph D |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Posner, K.; Brent, D.; Lucas, C.; Gould, M.; Stanley, B.; Brown, G.; Fisher, P.; Zelazny, J.; Burke, A.; Oquendo, M.; Mann, J. |
| Contact: | cssrs.columbia.edu |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument has a copyright to protect content of the standard version. Screener version does not have copyright. Public health users are granted free use. A licensing agreement is required for use in commercially-sponsored clinical trials. Licenses are issued on a per-protocol basis and cover all available versions and translations of the scale. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Direct Provider (working directly with individual), Independent Provider (not working directly with individual), Parent/Guardian, Teacher |
| Description: | The screener version (self-report and interview) asks about 5 types of suicidal ideation of increasing severity and 4 types of suicidal behavior with a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 6 questions. The standard version of the C-SSRS is a semi-structured interview administered by a rater. The standard version consists of 4 sub-scales, each scored separately. 1) The severity of suicidal ideation captures 5 types of thoughts of increasing severity, 2) intensity of ideation characterizes the most severe type of thoughts in terms of their frequency, duration and other parameters, 3) suicidal behavior asks about 4 types of suicidal behaviors and distinguishes them from non-suicidal self-injury, 4) lethality of behavior refers to actual or potential medical damage in suicide attempts and non-suicidal self-injury. Suicide risk stratification: Presence of recent ideation with any intent to die or any recent behavior indicates elevated suicide risk, regardless of context. Other evidence-based recommendations for clinical management exist to guide triage in various medical settings (e.g., primary care, ED). The scale has been tested across many medical settings and is valid and reliable instrument for suicide risk assessment and tracking of clinical change (http://cssrs.columbia.edu/documents/c-ssrs-supporting-evidence/) Training: C-SSRS users are not required to have clinical training (e.g., nursing, psychiatry). For reliable assessment by all professionals, the scale includes clear definitions and descriptive labels for each type of suicidal ideation and behavior that have been adopted by several regulatory agencies (e.g., CDC, FDA). A comprehensive set of training materials is available (in-person, webinar, video, online, scoring/administration and data analytic manuals, triage guidelines). |
| Population: | General mental health, outpatient and in-patient treatment settings, emergency departments and across all sectors of public health. The scale exists for a wide-range of clinical use (research trials, practice, screening, triage, pediatric, military, risk assessment). Setting-specific versions of the scale are available for download on the website. To date, the scale is available in 118 country-specific languages. Simpler prompts and fewer intensity items are the main differences between the children’s and the standard versions of the scale. |
| Program Setting: | Across all public health settings |
| Age Range: | 5-12, 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | The scale is used routinely at initial and all subsequent contact. |
| Administration Time: | less than 5 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | less than 5 minutes |
| Benchmark Data: | No |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | Basic paper/pencil administration and scoring are associated with the free-use license in public health. A range of electronic and web-based administration and scoring options are available through vendor contract. |
| Publications: | Posner, K., Brown, G. K., Stanley, B., Brent, D. A., Yershova, K. V., Oquendo, M. A., … & Mann, J. J. (2011). The Columbia–Suicide Severity Rating Scale: initial validity and internal consistency findings from three multisite studies with adolescents and adults. American Journal of Psychiatry, 168(12), 1266-1277. King, C. A., Berona, J., Czyz, E., Horwitz, A. G., & Gipson, P. Y. (2015). Identifying adolescents at highly elevated risk for suicidal behavior in the emergency department. Journal of child and adolescent psychopharmacology, 25(2), 100-108. For more information, please see: http://cssrs.columbia.edu/documents/c-ssrs-supporting-evidence/ |
| Keywords: | suicide risk |
| Submitted By: | Shawna Mc Guckin |
|---|---|
| Developer: | The Mental Health Center of Denver |
| Contact: | reaching.recovery@mhcd.org / 303-504-1721 / www.reachingrecovery.org |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | Annual licensing fee per organization/agency. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | The Consumer Recovery Measure (CRM) is an outcome-based clinical tool completed by the consumer to measure their perception of their own recovery. The CRM promotes the engagement and progression towards mental health recovery. It offers a rigorous, standardized methodology to evaluate strengths and barriers by using Rasch statistical modeling to ensure even small improvements in recovery are accurately captured. The outcomes data from the CRM provides clinically meaningful data for daily service delivery; tx planning; programmatic decisions; quality assurance; and organizational recovery and well-being transformation. The CRM is used in conjunction with a family of assessments called “Reaching Recovery” that include the Recovery Markers Inventory, the Recovery Needs Level, and the Promoting Recovery in Organizations(PRO) Survey. |
| Population: | The Consumer Recovery Measure (CRM) is used nationwide by adults receiving community-based mental health services throughout all levels of service intensity and treatment modalities including individuals with serious and persistent mental illness. |
| Program Setting: | Community-based/Outpatient mental or physical health settings, group homes and/or residential setting. |
| Age Range: | 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | At Intake and then every 3 months or more frequent if desired |
| Administration Time: | less than 5 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | Scoring is computed through an electronic algorithm either through a web application, consumer portal, or directly within a Netsmart CareRecord. Scores and sub-scores are provided as soon as the assessment is completed to aid in treatment planning and service delivery discussions with the individual in service and the service provider. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | The CRM is available in English and Spanish. The tool is being used directly within the clinical workflow within Netsmart CareRecords and the Netsmart Consumer Portal, myHealthPointe. The tool is also provided through a standalone web-based application for organization not on a Netsmart EHR. All electronic options include the assessment, real-time reporting, and filtering abilities to use the data to support individual’s recovery and engagement, as well as programmatic decisions. |
| Publications: | 1) Wesley Williams, Christopher McKinney, Larry Martinez & Carmela Benson (2015): Recovery outcomes of schizophrenia patients treated with paliperidone palmitate in a community setting: patient and provider perspectives on recovery, Journal of Medical Economics, DOI: 10.3111/13696998.2015.1131989 2) Kathryn KD Lusczakoski, P. Antonio Olmos-Gall, William Milnor, Christopher McKinney (2014): Measuring mental health recovery: an application of rasch modeling to the consumer recovery measure, The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, Vol 43, Issue 1, pp 104-115 3) P. Antonio Olmos-Gall, Roy Starks, Kathryn DeRoche Lusczakoski, Steve Huff, Kristi Mock (2011): Seven key strategies that work together to create recovery based transformation, Community Mental Health Journal, DOI: 10.1007/s10597-011-9441-6 4) Kate DeRoche Lusczakoski, P. Antonio Olmos-Gallo, C.J. McKinney, Roy Starks, Steve Huff (2014): Measuring recovery related outcomes: a psychometric investigation of the recovery marker inventory, Community Mental Health Journal, DOI: 10.1007/s10597-014-9728-5 |
| Keywords: | SPMI outcomes, Self assessment, behavioral health outcomes, mental health recovery, recovery research |
| Submitted By: | Willa Presmanes |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Presmanes, W., Scott, R. , MTM Services, National Council for Mental Wellbeing, Platinum Partner |
| Contact: | Annie.Jensen@MTMServices.org, (919) 387-9892 |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument is copyrighted, but it is free to use at the conclusion of certified training in accord with the MTM Services licensing agreement. Licensing agreements have varied from a single organization to state-wide contracts. Twenty software companies currently contract to validly program the tools for their clients. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Direct Provider (working directly with individual) |
| Description: | The DLA-20 is a proven, reliable, and valid, academically peer-reviewed, measurement tool, used by behavioral health providers in conjunction with a client self-report tool to assess the current status of clients' functioning in each of the 20 essential activities of daily living. Providers are trained to score on defined criteria to 'anchor' assessments from severe impairments to WNL, within normal limits. The DLA-20 7 point ratings and the composite score are based on the anchors that establish the degree to which the clients' behavior is impaired or functional in each area. The results are then used to identify strengths and target treatment to the challenges the client faces to improve symptoms and the impact on their wellness in their everyday living activities. |
| Population: | The DLA-20_Adult is intended to serve a broad population, regardless of diagnosis or level of care from 24/7 residential to outpatient. Additional versions of the adult tool are not required for validity but were researched to meet specific needs. The DLA-20_Substance Use/Alcohol/Opiates, and Moderate/Severe DD/MR capture more bio-medical issues. The youth version for clients ages 6-18 best captures the 20 areas of functioning for that population. |
| Program Setting: | In the new healthcare payment environments, CCBHCs, providers are using DLA-20 measurable outcomes to demonstrate the value of care, e.g., outpatient, residential/halfway houses, group treatment, partial hospitalization, medication management. MTM has trained over 500 provider organizations in 45 states and over 35,000 clinicians, who in turn have served more than 1 million consumers. Twenty software companies currently have DLA-20 software ready to implement after inter-rater reliable provider training. |
| Age Range: | 5-12, 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Intake and every 90 days |
| Administration Time: | Can be integrated into assessment; 20 min follow-up |
| Scoring Time: | Electronic scoring, reporting available or simple addition/averages for composite |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | Contracts with MTM Services are required but 1)In-program IT departments are eligible to program the tools for data entry, 2) Software companies program once the copyright is confirmed. Paper-pencil administration for self-report and provider scoring is still available, however, IPad self-report administration is also available. MTM Services can provide additional analysis of data in SPQM targeted packages, e.g., aggregated clinical outcomes can be analyzed by program, level of care, by costs, by service hours. |
| Publications: | Scott, Presmanes. Reliability and Validity of Daily Living Activities Scale: a functional assessment measure for severe mental disorder. Research on Social Work Practice: 11 (3) 373-389. Support: Kennedy Forum: A National Call for Measurement-Based Care in the Delivery of Behavioral Health Services. https://www.thekennedyforum.org/news/measurement-based-care-issue-brief. |
| Keywords: | Activities of Daily Living, ADLs, DLAs, functioning, behavioral health outcomes |
| Submitted By: | Justin Roskopf |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Search Institute |
| Contact: | surveys@searchinstitute.org |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument requires users to pay a fee per administration. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | The DAP is a 58-item survey for youth that provides a brief, standardized description of young people’s strengths and supports (Developmental Assets). The DAP measures the 8 categories of Developmental Assets (including external supports and internal strengths) using reliable and valid scales and provides youth perspectives across the contexts of their lives: Personal, Peers, Family, School, and Community. The DAP is typically used to monitor youth supports and strengths in programs, schools, coalitions, networks, collective impact initiatives, and other youth-serving organizations. Data may be used for planning, improvement, trend monitoring, and outcome evaluation. If individual youth data is desired, data may be used to support life planning and coaching. |
| Population: | The instrument is intended to used with a broad population of youth ages 8-18. |
| Program Setting: | There are no limitations in the types of programs, services, or settings for use beyond the ideal time frame between survey administrations (3 months or greater). |
| Age Range: | 5-12, 12-18 |
| Administration Frequency: | 3 months or longer |
| Administration Time: | 5-15 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | Electronic scoring and reporting is available from Search Institute |
| Benchmark Data: | No |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | Electronic administration or paper-pencil administration. Web-based tools and translations are available. |
| Publications: | Scales, P. C. (2011). Youth developmental assets in global perspective: Results from international adaptations of the Developmental Assets Profile. Child Indicators Research, 4(4), 619-645. doi: 10.1007/s12187-011-9112-8 Advances in Child Development and Behavior, Vol. 41, Burlington: Academic Press, 2011, pp. 197-230. ISBN: 978-0-12-386492-5 Search Institute (2005). Developmental Assets Profile User Manual. |
| Keywords: | DAP, Developmental Assets, Positive Youth Development, Social-Emotional Learning |
| Submitted By: | Eric Gremminger |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Eric Gremminger and Nick Bardoutsos |
| Contact: | ejg@erphealth.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument requires a licensing agreement per organization rather than a fee per administration. Cost depends on package selected, organization size and anticipated volume. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | ERPHealth measures depression (PHQ9), anxiety (GAD7), trauma (PCL-5), substance use (AUDIT and DAST), Adverse Childhood Experiences(ACE's), medication history and social determinants of health. The ERPHealth platform provides individual real time reports and alerts for the domains above. In addition, the ERPHealth system uses the BPS index, a proprietary composite index that provides a risk score in the biological, psychological and social domains of the patients. Clinicians are provided with a dashboard overview of the week over week progress of the patient population and can use the information to generate psychoeducational and relapse preventions groups. Following completion of the treatment episode, the ERPHealth platform allows for continued engagement with the patient through a chronic care management app and notifies the treatment centers when risk of relapse presents itself. |
| Population: | ERPHealth has been used to assess a broad population of behavioral health patients and has been used in the following settings: Primary Care, Primary SUD centers (Detox, Residential, PHP, IOP, OP) Primary Mental Health Centers (Residential, PHP, IOP, OP), Adolescent Mental Health Centers, Recovery Homes and Recovery Community Organizations. |
| Program Setting: | ERPHealth has been used in a wide variety of care settings with a range of treatment modalities, including outpatient mental health, intensive-outpatient mental health (MH) , residential programs, inpatient MH, short-term acute care, medication management, group therapy, and primary care offices among others. |
| Age Range: | 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | An Intake assessment is completed at the first visit and Updates are given throughout the course of treatment at intervals determined by the customer to meet their needs. |
| Administration Time: | Intake- Baseline 10- 15 minutes; Weekly follow-up’s 5-8 minutes. |
| Scoring Time: | The assessment is scored electronically in real time with reports immediately available to providers. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | The assessments are given and scored electronically using tablets. There is also an SMS option where the assessments can be taken on the patient’s phones. Responses are scored in real time. Results are shown on detailed reports that include alerts and clinical decision support, which can be used immediately by providers during the clinical session. |
| Publications: | Aboraya, A., Nasrallah, H. A., Elswick, D. E., Ahmed, E., Estephan, N., Aboraya, D., Berzingi, S., Chumbers, J., Berzingi, S., Justice, J., Zafar, J., & Dohar, S. (2018). Measurement-based Care in Psychiatry-Past, Present, and Future. Innovations in clinical neuroscience, 15(11-12), 13–26 |
| Keywords: | EMR integration, measurement based care, accreditation, Outcomes, Feedback Informed Treatment, Patient Engagement, patient reported outcome measures |
| Submitted By: | Program Manager |
|---|---|
| Developer: | American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry |
| Contact: | clinical@aacap.org |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The Child and Adolescent Service Intensity Instrument (CASII) and the Early Childhood Service Intensity Instrument (ECSII) are copyrighted by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP). Purchasers of these materials are NOT authorized to: (i) copy, modify, reproduce, re-publish, sub-license, sell, upload, broadcast, post, transmit or distribute any CASII and/or ECSII materials without prior written permission; (ii) use CASII and/or ECSII materials in the provision of any other course or training whether given by AACAP or any third-party trainer without prior written permission; (iii) remove any copyright or other notice; (iv) modify, adapt, merge, translate, disassemble, decompile, or create electronic versions of the CASII and/or ECSII materials without prior permission; or (v) obtain training from non-AACAP authorized trainer. |
| Reporter: | Direct Provider (working directly with individual), Independent Provider (not working directly with individual), Teacher, Other |
| Description: | The Early Childhood Service Intensity Instrument (ECSII) is a standardized assessment tool that determines intensity of service need for infants, toddlers, and children. The ECSII is developmentally informed and compatible with the Systems of Care approach with the capacity to determine service intensity need, guide treatment planning, and monitor treatment outcome in all clinical settings using six key domains: Degree of Safety, Child-Caregiver Relationships, Caregiving Environment, Functional/Developmental Status, Impact of the Child’s Condition, and a Services Profile Fit. |
| Population: | The ECSII may be used to evaluate infants, toddlers, and children from ages 0 to 5 from the general population as well as those presenting with emotional, behavioral, and/or developmental needs including those who are experiencing environmental stressors that may put them at risk for such problems. |
| Program Setting: | The ECSII may be used in a variety of settings encompassing diverse systems including primary care, mental health, child welfare, juvenile justice, developmental disabilities services, and education. The ECSII is used for guidance in service or treatment planning, as an outcomes measurement tool, for service utilization review, and as a means to form a common language across various programs. |
| Age Range: | 0-2, 2-5 |
| Administration Frequency: | Varies by setting but recommended before, during, and after any intervention or service plan. |
| Administration Time: | Varies by case depending on information obtained from referrals and/or interviews with child and/or family. |
| Scoring Time: | Less than 20 minutes once necessary information for scoring is obtained. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Keywords: | ECSII, Infants, Toddlers, Children, Service Intensity, Wraparound, Systems of Care, Outcomes Indicator |
| Submitted By: | Katherine Ingram |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Fairburn and Beglin |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The EDE-Q is under copyright, but freely available to use for non-commerical research use only and no permission need to be sought. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | The Eating Disorder Examination (EDE) provides a measure of the range and severity of eating disorder features. The Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) is a self-reported questionnaire based on the EDE interview. |
| Population: | Used across eating disorder patients. Researchers have developed community norms and an amended scoring structure for use of the EDE for adolescent boys and girls aged 14+, the EDE-A. |
| Program Setting: | Residential treatment, IOP, PHP and OP. |
| Age Range: | 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | weekly |
| Administration Time: | 10 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | add up scores, 10 minutes |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | electronic administration and paper-pencil administration. |
| Publications: | Psychometric Properties of the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) and Norms for Rural and Urban Adolescent Males and Females in Mexico Penelo E, Negrete A, Portell M, Raich RM (2013) Psychometric Properties of the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) and Norms for Rural and Urban Adolescent Males and Females in Mexico. PLOS ONE 8(12): e83245. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083245 Goldschmidt, A. B., Doyle, A. C., & Wilfley, D. E. (2007). Assessment of binge eating in overweight youth using a questionnaire version of the Child Eating Disorder Examination with Instructions. The International journal of eating disorders, 40(5), 460–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.20387 de Jong, M., Schoorl, M., & Hoek, H. W. (2018). Enhanced cognitive behavioural therapy for patients with eating disorders: a systematic review. Current opinion in psychiatry, 31(6), 436–444. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0000000000000452 |
| Keywords: | EDE-Q |
| Submitted By: | Katharine Zeglen |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Carla A. Mazefsky, PhD, Professor, University of Pittsburgh |
| Contact: | zeglenkn2@upmc.edu |
| Proprietary: | Instrument in public domain |
| Reporter: | Direct Provider (working directly with individual), Parent/Guardian, Teacher |
| Description: | The Emotion Dysregulation Inventory (EDI) is an informant questionnaire developed based on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) Scientific Standards and refined through factor analyses and item response theory (IRT) analyses. It it was developed to improve measurement of emotion dysregulation in autistic individuals. The EDI has two scales: Reactivity and Dysphoria, and is an efficient and precise measure of emotion dysregulation. |
| Population: | The EDI is designed for use in general community and clinical samples as well as samples of autistic youth and adults. It is intended to be used for individuals age 6+ through adulthood. |
| Program Setting: | The EDI is designed to be used to measure emotion dysregulation in any program provided that there is an available parent/guardian or direct provider reporter. |
| Age Range: | 5-12, 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | The interval can be as frequently as weekly |
| Administration Time: | 5-15 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | Average scoring time is 5-15 minutes. First, raw scores are created by summing the items for each index (Reactivity and Dysphoria) using the following scale: Not at all = 0, Mild = 1, Moderate = 2, Severe = 3, Very Severe = 4. Next, raw scores can be converted into t-scores or theta scores using the conversion table that matches the EDI items that were administered. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | Paper-pencil administration scoring. Can be programmed online for electronic administration. |
| Publications: | Mazefsky CA, Yu L, Pilkonis P. Psychometric properties of the Emotion Dysregulation Inventory in a nationally representative sample of youth. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2020 Jan 7;1-13. PMCID: PMC7781089 Mazefsky, CA., Day, T. N., Siegel, M., White, S. W., Yu, L., & Pilkonis, P. A. Development of the Emotion Dysregulation Inventory: A PROMIS®ing Method for Creating Sensitive and Unbiased Questionnaires for Autism Spectrum Disorder. J Autism Dev Disord. 2018 Nov;48(11): 3736-3746. PMCID: PMC5378674 Mazefsky, CA, Yu, L., White, S. W., Siegel, M., & Pilkonis, P. A. The Emotion Dysregulation Inventory: Psychometric properties and item response theory calibration in an autism spectrum disorder sample. Autism Research. 2018 Jun; 11(6), 928-941. PMCID: PMC6026073 DOI: 10.1002/aur.1947 |
| Keywords: | emotion regulation, emotion dysregulation, reactivity, dysphoria, measure development, outcomes, autism, informant questionnaire, validated, clinical |
| Submitted By: | Matthew Miclette |
|---|---|
| Developer: | The GAD-7 was developed by Drs. Robert L. Spitzer, Janet B.W. Williams, Kurt Kroenke and colleagues, with an educational grant from Pfizer Inc. |
| Contact: | https://www.phqscreeners.com/select-screener |
| Proprietary: | Instrument in public domain |
| Restrictions: | No permission required to reproduce, translate, display or distribute. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | The GAD-7 is a 7-item scale to identify and monitor anxiety disorders. Each question is score between 0-3 and a composite score of each item determines the overall score. This is a valid and efficient tool for screening and assessing the severity of general anxiety disorder in clinical practice and research. Cut-off point was identified with a sensitivity of 89% and sensitivity of 82% (Spitzer, Kroenke, Williams, Lowe, 2006). The GAD-2 includes two questions of the full GAD-7 that is validated to screen well for general anxiety disorder, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder. A score above 3 on the GAD-2 identifies further assessment is needed (Kroenke, Spitzer, Williams, Monahan, & Löwe, 2007). |
| Population: | The most rigorous testing of the GAD-7 is in the primary care setting. However, the GAD-7 is one of the most commonly used screening tools for anxiety across broad populations in specialty care and research settings. |
| Program Setting: | Screening, medication management, long-term care, short-term acute care, outpatient |
| Age Range: | 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Two weeks |
| Administration Time: | 2-5 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | Electronic scoring is available as a free resources; Manual scoring takes 1 minute |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | The GAD-7 is available in pen and paper or with a variety of electronic administration methods across multiple languages. |
| Publications: | Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Monahan PO, Löwe B. (2007). Anxiety disorders in primary care: prevalence, impairment, comorbidity, and detection. Ann Intern Med;146:317-25. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-146-5-200703060-00004 Plummer F, Manea L, Trepel D, McMillan D. (2016). Screening for anxiety disorders with the GAD-7 and GAD-2: A systematic review and diagnostic metaanalysis. Gen Hosp Psychiatry, 39: 24-31. 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2015.11.005 |
| Keywords: | anxiety, screening |
| Submitted By: | Simon Weisz |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Greenspace Mental Health Ltd. |
| Proprietary: | Instrument in public domain |
| Restrictions: | Greenspace is a technology platform that supports the implementation of measurement-based care. The platform is agnostic to the assessments tools used by providers and organizations, which can be both in the both public domain and with copyright. As a starting point for providers and organizations, a core set of 50+ validated assessments are made available as a starting point. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Direct Provider (working directly with individual), Parent/Guardian, Teacher |
| Description: | Greenspace is a technology platform that supports providers and organizations with measurement-based care. The platform allows for automation of the measurement process, provides multiple options for delivery/completion of assessments, and can engage clients directly. |
| Program Setting: | Outpatient, Case Management, Intensive Outpatient, Residential, School-Based, Inpatient. |
| Age Range: | 5-12, 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Weekly, Monthly, and/or Each Contact |
| Administration Time: | Less than 5 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | Electronic automated scoring |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Keywords: | Greenspace, PHQ-9, GAD-7, PCL-5, Trauma, Electronic, Automated, PROMS |
| Submitted By: | Paei Vang |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Owner/Developer of Cloud-based Web Application – Jonathan Hoistad, PhD, Natalis Outcomes LLC. Authors - Stephen Saunders, PhD and James Wojcik, PhD |
| Contact: | Paei Vang, MBA-HCM Director Healthcare Management – Direct: 612-505-0068, paei.vang@natalisoutcomes.org, www.natalisoutcomes.org |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Parent/Guardian |
| Description: | The HDI is implemented through a HIPAA-compliant, proprietary, cloud-based web application. This mental health screener and recurring assessment utilizes a highly sensitive scoring range of 1-100. It is a normed tool. |
| Population: | This tool is being used as a routine outcome measure for populations with mental health symptoms of depression, anxiety, attention problems, psychosis, eating disorders, substance abuse, and behavior problems. and is intended to get a general picture of a client’s current mental health symptoms. It is intended to serve populations with the symptoms mentioned above. |
| Program Setting: | The HDI can be used in a variety of mental health settings to assess progress and response to treatment, short-term acute care, long-term inpatient, psychotherapy, medication management, partial hospitalization, outpatient, residential, group treatment. |
| Age Range: | 2-5, 5-12, 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Typical interval of administrations is based on programs and prescribed treatment plans. These programs and treatment plans vary widely from weekly to yearly administration. |
| Administration Time: | Most respondents will be able to complete the assessment between 10-15 minutes. |
| Scoring Time: | Electronic scoring of the assessment and the analysis reporting is automated. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Administration Options: | The assessment has special features including an electronic administrative dashboard, electronic administration and scoring, cloud-based web application, and accessibility through a variety of browsers and devices in multiple translated languages. Administration of the assessment produces a resulting report with various data representation through graphs, charts, and colors to highlight concerns, critical items, and progress in treatment. |
| Publications: | Bein LA, Petrik ML, Saunders SM, Wojcik JV. Discrepancy between parents and children in reporting of distress and impairment: Association with critical symptoms. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2015 Jul;20(3):515-24. doi: 10.1177/1359104514532185. Epub 2014 Apr 23. PMID: 24763969. Jenkins, J. A. (2005). [Test review of Health Dynamics Inventory]. In R. A. Spies & B. S. Plake (Eds.), The sixteenth mental measurements yearbook. Retrieved from http://marketplace.unl.edu/buros/ Saunders, S.M., Wojcik, J.V. The Reliability and Validity of a Brief Self-Report Questionnaire to Screen for Mental Health Problems: The Health Dynamics Inventory. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings 11, 233–241 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOCS.0000037617.04463.e1 |
| Keywords: | Health Dynamics Inventory |
| Submitted By: | Joanna Conti |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Vista Research Group, Inc. |
| Contact: | www.vista-research-group.com; (410) 757-2811; jconti@vista-research-group.net |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | Organizations pay a monthly licensing fee |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | INSIGHT Addiction™ is a HIPAA-compliant web-based software program that makes collection and analysis of patient-reported data easy. The system monitors addiction treatment patients for depression, anxiety, trauma, eating disorders, suicidal thoughts and self-harming behaviors, cravings, quality of relationships, drug and alcohol use, treatment attendance and satisfaction with treatment. As part of the Intake Questionnaire, patients are asked screening questions to determine which co-occurring disorders they may be affected by. Patients who answer one of the screening questions positively are then taken to a commonly-used, academically-validated scale for that condition such as the PHQ-9 or GAD-7. Results are immediately displayed in easy-to-understand color-coded graphs for individuals as well as groups of patients. INSIGHT alerts clinicians and managers by text or email when patients have submitted new information, and emails or texts patients links to follow-up surveys they can take from any internet-connected device. INSIGHT data is also aggregated across clients so a center can determine if they are improving over time. For programs that also want post-treatment effectiveness data, INSIGHT Addiction integrates with Vista’s RECOVERY 20/20™ outcomes research. |
| Population: | Patients receiving substance use disorder treatment |
| Program Setting: | Any residential or outpatient addiction treatment setting, including detox and partial hospitalization |
| Age Range: | 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Up to the treatment provider. Vista recommends that new patients be monitored weekly, changing to every 2 weeks once the patient has stabilized |
| Administration Time: | Intake survey takes about 20 minutes to complete. Weekly surveys average 3 to 5 minutes. |
| Scoring Time: | Instantaneous |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | Surveys are submitted securely via a computer or mobile device. Clinicians and managers access the results via a secure online web portal. |
| Publications: | Conti, Joanna. Using Personalized Evidence-Based Treatment to Improve Outcomes & Your Bottom Line. 2017; 1-29. www.outcomes-eBook.com Case Study: Patient-Reported Research Leads to Better Treatment of Depression & Eating Disorders. 2017; 1-4. www.improving-outcomes.com |
| Keywords: | progress monitoring, measurement-based care, outcome measure |
| Submitted By: | Joanna Conti |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Vista Research Group, Inc. |
| Contact: | www.vista-research-group.com, (410) 757-2811, jconti@vista-research-group.net |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | Organizations pay a monthly licensing fee |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | INSIGHT Behavioral™ is a HIPAA-compliant web-based software program that makes collection and analysis of patient-reported data easy. The system monitors behavioral healthcare patients for depression, anxiety, trauma, eating disorders, suicidal thoughts and self-harming behaviors, quality of relationships, treatment attendance, satisfaction with treatment and other measures. As part of the Intake Questionnaire, patients are asked screening questions to determine which co-occurring disorders they may be affected by. Patients who answer one of the screening questions positively are then taken to a commonly-used, academically-validated scale for that condition such as the PHQ-9 or GAD-7. Results are immediately displayed in easy-to-understand color-coded graphs for individuals as well as groups of patients. INSIGHT alerts clinicians and managers by text or email when patients have submitted new information, and emails or texts patients links to follow-up surveys they can take from any internet-connected device. INSIGHT data is also aggregated across clients so a center can determine if they are improving over time. For programs that also want post-treatment effectiveness data, INSIGHT Behavioral integrates with Vista’s RECOVERY 20/20™ outcomes research. |
| Population: | Patients in behavioral health treatment |
| Program Setting: | Any residential or outpatient behavioral healthcare setting, including psychotherapy or group treatment |
| Age Range: | 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Up to the treatment provider. Vista recommends that new patients be monitored weekly, changing to every 2 weeks once the patient has stabilized |
| Administration Time: | Intake survey takes about 20 minutes to complete. Weekly surveys average 3 to 5 minutes. |
| Scoring Time: | Instantaneous |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | Surveys are submitted securely via a computer or mobile device. Clinicians and managers access the results via a secure online web portal. |
| Publications: | Conti, Joanna. Using Personalized Evidence-Based Treatment to Improve Outcomes & Your Bottom Line. 2017; 1-29. www.outcomes-eBook.com |
| Keywords: | behavioral, progress monitoring, measurement-based care, outcome measure |
| Submitted By: | Joanna Conti |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Vista Research Group, Inc. |
| Contact: | www.vista-research-group.com; (800) 215-3201 ext. 1; jconti@vista-research-group.net |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | Organizations pay a monthly licensing fee |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | INSIGHT Detox™ is a HIPAA-compliant web-based software program that makes collection and analysis of patient-reported data easy. INSIGHT Detox monitors patients in acute withdrawal for emotional and physical withdrawal symptoms as well as cravings, suicidal thoughts, self-harming behaviors, and satisfaction with treatment. Results are immediately displayed in easy-to-understand color-coded graphs for individuals as well as groups of patients. INSIGHT alerts clinicians and managers by text or email when patients have submitted new information. INSIGHT data is also aggregated across patients so a center can determine if they are improving over time. Once patients are through acute withdrawal, they can be switched to INSIGHT Addiction™ or INSIGHT Behavioral™. For programs that also want post-treatment effectiveness data, all of the INSIGHT products integrate with Vista's RECOVERY 20/20™ outcomes research. |
| Population: | Patients in acute withdrawal |
| Program Setting: | Any residential or outpatient detox treatment setting |
| Age Range: | 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Up to the treatment provider. Vista recommends that new patients be monitored daily while they are in acute withdrawal |
| Administration Time: | Intake survey takes about 10 minutes to complete. Update surveys take about 2 minutes. |
| Scoring Time: | Instantaneous |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Administration Options: | Surveys are submitted securely via a computer or mobile device. Clinicians and managers access the results via a secure online web portal. |
| Publications: | Conti, Joanna. Using Outcome Measures to Improve Your Addiction Treatment Results and Bottom Line. 2017; 1-33. www.outcomes-eBook.com Case Study: Patient-Reported Research Leads to Better Treatment of Depression & Eating Disorders. 2017;1-4. www.improving-outcomes.com |
| Keywords: | detox, measurement-based care; outcome measures, progress monitoring |
| Submitted By: | William Emmet |
|---|---|
| Developer: | M-3 Information, LLC |
| Contact: | www.m3information.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | Reproduction of the M-3 Checklist is not permitted without the express written permission of M-3 Information, LLC |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | The evidence-based, multi-condition M3 Checklist empowers providers by detecting, measuring, and organizing symptoms of several common mental health conditions: depression, anxiety disorders, bipolar disorders, and PTSD. Consisting of 27 questions, the patient-engaging web and mobile assessment is completed during office visits, in the waiting or exam room, or remotely in three to five minutes. Once the assessment is completed, the M3 Checklist calculates metrics, including the M3 score (a single number for overall mental health symptom burden) and Diagnostic Risk levels and Symptom Severity Subscores across each of the four conditions, in addition to scores for drug and alcohol use and functional status. These metrics can be viewed in real time, used to trigger clinical support at the point of care, and monitored for population health management. |
| Population: | Primary care patients, general mental health inpatients and outpatients |
| Program Setting: | Primary care settings, specialty care settings, integrated delivery networks, accountable care organizations, mental health inpatient and outpatient settings, employee assistance programs |
| Age Range: | 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Each contact or as directed |
| Administration Time: | 3-5 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | Immediate. Electronic scoring and reporting available and preferred. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | Electronic and web-based administration and scoring available through laboratory vendor. Spanish language version available. |
| Publications: | Gaynes BN, DeVeaugh-Geiss J, Weir S, Gu H, MacPherson C, Schulberg HC, Culpepper L, Rubinow DR. Feasibility and Diagnostic Validity of the M-3 Checklist: A Brief, Self-Rated Screen for Depressive, Bipolar, Anxiety, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorders in Primary Care. Annals of Family Medicine. 2010; 8:160-169. Ball K, MacPherson C, Hurowitz G, Settles-Reaves B, DeVeaugh-Geiss J, Weir S, Schulberg HC, Lawson WB, Gaynes BN. M3 Checklist and SF-12 Correlation Study. Best Practices in Mental Health, Volume 11, Number 1, Spring 2015, pp. 83-89(7) |
| Keywords: | CQM, CoCM., EHR, EMR, GAD, GAD-7, HL7, MBC, OCD, PHQ-9, PTSD, alcohol, anxiety, assessment, bipolar, brief, collaborative care, depression, drug, function, impairment, measurement-based care, multi-condition, multidimensional, online, panic, quick, screen, screening, social, substance, test, tool, web, workflow |
| Submitted By: | Tom Kimball |
|---|---|
| Developer: | MAP Health Management |
| Contact: | tomk@thisismap.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | This instrument can only be used within the MAP Health Management Environment or with permission from MAP Health Management. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Direct Provider (working directly with individual) |
| Description: | Over several years, MAP has refined its method of collecting data as well as the questions Peer Recovery Support Specialists (PRSSs) ask Persons in Recovery (PIRs). The initial design of MAP questions, starting in 2011, was asked to assess a PIR’s risk of relapse. The refining, culling, and narrowing process revealed several items/questions predictive of a PIR’s likely success in engaging in the MAP program as well as maintaining their recovery. This refining process also revealed the importance of PIRs developing “Recovery Capital” and the importance of the quality of the connection/relationship a PIR has with their PRSS as being predictive of success. MAP has created a measure of recovery capital; MAP’s Brief Recovery Capital Assessment (MCS BRCA). This 12 item measure is informed by past MAP question sets and analyses, the recovery literature specifically related to recovery capital and social capital, experts within MAP, and feedback from MAP’s PRSSs. The psychometrics of the instrument was initially established with 1477 persons in recovery (N=1477) who were part of MAP Health Management’s recovery support program during a telehealth/telephonic session. Upon analyses, the MCS-BRCA is a reliable and valid instrument of recovery capital. In regards to Reliability, Internal Consistency, and Inter-Item Correlation: The BRCA shows strong internal consistency for the overall instrument (Cronbach’s Alpha .874 as well as for the two factors/domains revealed in the factor analysis (i.e., the Cronbach Alpha for Domain #1 Social, Human, and Physical Capital was high at .827 as well as for Domain #2 Recovery Program Capital at .747). A Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was conducted on the data. Informed by the factor loadings, Eigenvalues as well as the Scree Plot, two distinct factors emerged based on the Rotated Component Matrix. Overall, the BRCA and its factors show correlation with a quality of life instrument (the WHOQOL-BREF) including being correlated to the WHOQUL-BREF total score, 4 domain scores, as well as the quality of life and satisfaction with health questions. |
| Population: | The instrument is a measure of recovery capital specific for those who identify in recovery from substance use disorders. |
| Program Setting: | Typically administered via telehealth in a long term recovery support aftercare environment. |
| Age Range: | 12-18, 18-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | each contact (at least monthly) |
| Administration Time: | less than 5 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | Electronic scoring and reporting. Scoring time is under 2 minutes |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Administration Options: | Web-based tools, electronic administration and scoring, and/or paper-pencil administration. |
| Publications: | Best, D. & Laudet, A.B. (2010). The Potential of Recovery Capital. RSA Projects. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. The WHOQOL Group. (1998) Psychol Med, 28(3), 551-558. Cloud, W., Granfield, W. (2009). Conceptualizing recovery capital: Expansion of a theoretical construct. Substance Use and Misuse, 42, 12/13, 1971-1986 Hennessy, E.A. (2017). Recovery capital: A systematic review of the literature. Addiction Research and Theory. 25(5), 349-360. Skevington, S. Lotfy, M. & O'Connell, K.A.. (2004). The World Health Organization's WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: Psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. A Report from the WHOQOL Group. Quality of life research: an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation. 13. 299-310. 10.1023/B:QURE.0000018486.91360.00. |
| Keywords: | recovery, recovery capital, recovery outcome, peer recovery support |
| Submitted By: | Matt Kastantin |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Mirah, Inc. |
| Contact: | Phone: 800-957-6769; Email: info@mirah.com http://www.mirah.com/accreditation |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | Mirah's Measurement Based Care (MBC) solution includes both public domain and proprietary instruments. Purchase of the solution is on a subscription basis which enables low upfront costs and continuous support. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Direct Provider (working directly with individual), Independent Provider (not working directly with individual), Parent/Guardian, Teacher, Employer, Other |
| Description: | Mirah's HIPAA-compliant solution provides everything medium-to-large healthcare organizations (i.e., 500+ patients per year) need to quickly and cost-effectively integrate measurement based care (MBC) into routine health practice, including: * Bringing evidence-based practice into clinical operations * Providing clinical training and on-going practice support * Managing instrument administration and scoring * Integrating with EHR systems * Providing clinician-, practice- and organization-level analytics and reporting * Maximizing reimbursement revenue opportunities * Mitigating compliance risk while increasing practice transparency Mirah's MBC solution combines a highly intuitive software platform of leading measures with expert clinical training, systems integration and change management support. |
| Population: | Mirah's MBC solution includes a variety of behavioral health instruments. Our core adult and child measures are designed for routine, broad-based evaluation. Mirah's measure library includes instruments tailored for both specialized care and general practice settings. |
| Program Setting: | Mirah's MBC solution is intended to be used across the behavioral health continuum of care (e.g., inpatient, outpatient, etc.). |
| Age Range: | 5-12, 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Each contact |
| Administration Time: | 5-15 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | Instantaneous |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Administration Options: | Mirah's solution includes a comprehensive, web-based measurement feedback system through which treatment-targeted measures are administered to the patient via computer, tablet or smart-phone. Measures can be completed before or during treatment sessions. Responses are scored and normalized in real-time to provide immediate insights to better inform treatment during and after sessions. Mirah's solution can be used for clinical decision support, primary care integration, and automated compliance monitoring. |
| Publications: | N/A |
| Keywords: | accreditation, change management, evidence-based practice, measurement based care, measurement feedback system, routine outcomes monitoring |
| Submitted By: | Cindy Hansen |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Scott D. Miller, Ph.D; Barry L. Duncan, Psy.D |
| Contact: | Farida Contractor: faridacontractor@myoutcomes.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | MyOutcomes®, the Gold Standard in ultra-brief, session-by-session progress tracking is available by annual subscription, ranging from $104 to $229 per license. MyOutcomes® can be purchased online for up to 20 providers or by custom quote. The MyOutcomes® subscription includes the license to administer the Outcome Rating Scale (ORS), Child Outcome Rating Scale (CORS), Session Rating Scale (SRS), Child Session Rating Scale (CSRS), and Group Session Rating Scale (GSRS) in 30+ languages. MyOutcomes® subscription also includes access to a variety of evidence-based performance metrics and predictive algorithms. Since 2007, MyOutcomes® has served as the licensed vendor of the original web-based version of the Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS) and is the only North American Performance Metrics Web-Services and Single Sign-On API vendor. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Independent Provider (not working directly with individual), Parent/Guardian, Teacher, Employer |
| Description: | MyOutcomes®, a full-service quality improvement platform, established in 2007, offers 30-minute consultations and one-month evaluation accounts. MyOutcomes® includes implementation support and state of the art training in Feedback-Informed Treatment® (FIT) with Scott D. Miller, Ph.D. MyOutcomes® was launched as the first Web-based version of the Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS). Each of the five primary instruments that comprise the basic PCOMS measurement set, the Outcome Rating Scale (ORS), Session Rating Scale (SRS), Child Outcome Rating Scale (CORS), Child Session Rating Scale (SRS), and Group Session Rating Scale GSRS) are visual analogue scales consisting of four 10 cm lines. The ORS, SRS and GSRS are used with adults and adolescents, aged 13-17. Children aged 6-12 use the CORS and CSRS. A child or adolescent can be administered either the CORS or ORS. Younger children can draw on the Young Child Session Rating Scale or Young Child Session Rating Scale. Session notes can be added to capture any additional feedback. MyOutcomes® is the only PCOMS software listed in the National Registry of Evidenced-Based Programs and Practices. The validity and reliability of the PCOMS Measures has been assessed and reviewed in numerous clinical trials and over 25 psychometric studies across divergent clinical populations and cultures.Because of the desire to create a system feasible for everyday clinical practice, PCOMS instruments are brief, generally requiring no more than 1 to 3 minutes to administer, review and discuss feedback. The four 10 cm lines on the paper version of the ORS total to a score of 40. Three of the scales assess major domains (Individually, Interpersonally, and Socially) also measured by Michael Lambert’s OQ-45, Individually captures a client’s personal assessment of their distress or well-being; Interpersonally, clients’ significant relationships; and Socially, clients’ work, school, friends, and other social arenas. The fourth, Overall, captures anything else contributing to the client’s estimation of distress/wellbeing. The CORS retains the same domains but uses language suitable for its intended age group: Me, Family, School, and Everything, with smiley/frowny faces at either ends to aid comprehension. The ORS/CORS is given at the beginning of a session and the SRS/CSRS is given at the end of a session. MyOutcomes®’ SRS/CSRS is a four-item scale that enables the therapist to get a quantitative measure of the client’s view of the therapeutic alliance. Specifically, the SRS asks the client to use a sliding scale to assess their relationship with the therapist, whether the client feels they covered the goals and topics they need, how well the therapist’s approach fits for the client’s, and an overall general assessment of the most recent session. Based upon the composite and sub scale scores, and using a red, yellow and green signalling system, the therapist can determine whether the alliance is threatened. MyOutcomes® offers multilevel access and advanced client outcome management tools for administrators, supervisors, and clinicians. MyOutcomes® features: innovative outcome-tracking tools provide real-time granular analysis of client improvement, intuitive consoles and dashboards offer at-a-glance identification of at-risk cases, interactive graphs allow for comparison of multiple clients at once. MyOutcomes® Web-Services and Single Sign-On API enables users to access digital administration of the PCOMS Measures and Performance Metrics reporting. The user administers the ORS and SRS in digital format through an iFrame. MyOutcomes® calculates results, predictive scores and sends reports back to the original system. |
| Population: | MyOutcomes® has an international client base that includes divisions of the U.S military, government-funded agencies, and some of the world’s largest behavioral-health organizations. There are over 1.5 million documented administrations and it is in use across the United States of America, Canada, and in over 20 other countries. |
| Program Setting: | MyOutcomes® has been successfully implemented in a wide variety of service settings, with broad and diverse clinical populations, all over the world. PCOMS serves a broad population and is not diagnostically based. The PCOMS Measures are appropriate for use in inpatient, outpatient, voluntary and involuntary mental and behavioral health program settings. |
| Age Range: | 5-12, 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Each contact |
| Administration Time: | Less than 5 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | Paper and pencil administration uses a metric based ruler can take 5 minutes to hand score and chart. The digital versions provide instant results. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | The PCOMS measures have been translated into 30+ different languages. Paper and Pencil scores can be added manually to the system. Digital administration options include: email, smartphones, tablets, computers and hand scored paper administrations can be manually entering. MyOutcomes® Mobile for phones and tablets offers client self-administration options and included an offline mode. |
| Publications: | Bringhurst, D.L., Watson, C.W., Miller, S.D. & Duncan, B.L. (2006). The reliability and validity of the Outcome Rating Scale: A replication study of a brief clinical measure. Journal of Brief Therapy, 5, 1, 23-30. Duncan, B., Miller, S., Sparks, J., Reynolds, J., Claud, D., Brown, J., & Johnson, L. (2003). The session rating scale: Psychometric properties of a “working” alliance scale. Journal of Brief Therapy, 3(1), 3-12. Quirk, K., Miller, S.D., Duncan, B.L., & Owen, J. (2012). The Group Session Ratings Scale: Preliminary Psychometrics. Counseling and Psychotherapy Research, 1-7, iFirst Article. |
| Keywords: | Feedback-Informed Treatment®, MyOutcomes®, ORS/CORS, PCOMS, SRS/CSRS/GSRS |
| Submitted By: | Matthew Miclette |
|---|---|
| Developer: | NeuroFlow, Inc |
| Contact: | info@neuroflow.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | NeuroFlow is a cloud-based software solution that complies with HIPAA regulations, SOC2 / HITRUST certified. The system can be fully integrated with the majority of widely-used electronic medical record (EMR) systems. As a web-based service, NeuroFlow automates processes and provides separate access portals for patients, clinicians, and clinic or hospital administrators. The software includes features for clinical decision support. The included instruments include licensed and public domain assessments that are are available for use. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Direct Provider (working directly with individual), Independent Provider (not working directly with individual) |
| Description: | NeuroFlow's platform supports measurement-based care (MBC) by enabling the continuous monitoring of patient symptoms and outcomes using a comprehensive suite of tools and assessments. At the core of NeuroFlow's MBC capabilities is the NeuroFlow Severity Score, a proprietary algorithm that synthesizes data from multiple sources, including clinically validated assessments, ecological momentary assessments (EMA), and passive data collection, to provide a holistic view of a patient's mental health status. The NeuroFlow Severity Score is highly sensitive to change and has been validated against gold-standard measures, ensuring its accuracy and reliability in tracking patient progress over time. NeuroFlow's platform also features a robust alert system that notifies providers of significant changes in a patient's condition, allowing for timely intervention and adjustments to treatment plans. These alerts are triggered based on pre-defined thresholds and can be customized to meet the specific needs of each organization. Additionally, NeuroFlow's EMA tools enable patients to track their symptoms and experiences in real-time, providing valuable insights into the daily fluctuations of their mental health. By combining these various data points, NeuroFlow's MBC capabilities offer a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of a patient's mental health journey, empowering providers to deliver feedback informed care. |
| Population: | NeuroFlow's measurement-based care platform serves a broad population across the continuum of care, supporting patients with a wide range of mental health conditions and co-occuring conditions. The platform's comprehensive suite of assessments and tools is designed to be flexible and adaptable, allowing tailored measures to the specific needs and customization available at the organization, clinical site, and patient level. While the platform can be used to monitor outcomes for discrete diagnostic categories, such as depression or anxiety disorders, it is primarily intended to support the overall mental well-being of a diverse patient population in risk bearing organizations. |
| Program Setting: | The platform's flexible architecture enables integration with existing clinical workflows and electronic health record systems, making it a valuable tool for enhancing measurement-based care practices in any treatment setting. Use cases include behavioral health, primary care, specialty care, and population health settings. |
| Age Range: | 5-12, 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | The frequency of administration for NeuroFlow's measurement-based care tools varies depending on the specific needs of each patient and the treatment setting. |
| Administration Time: | NeuroFlow's assessments and tools are designed to be quick and easy to complete, minimizing the burden on patients and providers. The average time needed for a patient to complete a typical assessment is less than 5 minutes, although some assessments may take slightly longer (5-15 minutes) depending on the complexity of the measure and the patient's individual circumstances. |
| Scoring Time: | NeuroFlow's platform features automated scoring and reporting capabilities, eliminating the need for manual scoring and reducing the time burden on providers. Assessments are scored instantaneously upon completion, with results immediately available for review within the platform's clinical dashboard. The platform's advanced analytics engine also generates actionable insights and recommendations based on the assessment data, further streamlining the interpretation and use of the results to inform clinical decision-making. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | NeuroFlow's measurement-based care platform offers a range of administration options to support diverse clinical workflows and patient needs. The platform features electronic administration and scoring capabilities, allowing patients to complete assessments via web-based tools, mobile applications, SMS text, and in-clinic workflows with tablets. The platform's clinical decision support tools provide real-time feedback and recommendations based on assessment results. NeuroFlow's platform is also designed to be fully accessible and compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), ensuring that all patients can benefit. Additionally, the platform offers translated versions of its assessments and tools to support diverse patient populations and promote health equity. |
| Publications: | Pardes, A., Lynch, W., Miclette, M., McGeoch, E., Daly, B. Use of a Mobile Health (mHealth) Platform for Remote Assessment of Suicidal Ideation, Depression, and Anxiety: A Longitudinal Retrospective Study. Innovations in Digital Health, Diagnostics, and Biomarkers 1 January 2022; 2 (2022): 8–15. doi: https://doi.org/10.36401/IDDB-21-03 For the most update to date research, visit www.neuroflow.com/research |
| Keywords: | MBC, collaborative care, population health, risk factors, social determinants |
| Submitted By: | Sue Jenkins |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Michael J. Lambert, Ph.D., Gary M. Burlingame, Ph.D. and OQ Measures LLC. |
| Contact: | oqmeasures.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument has a copyright to protect content. Organizations interested in use are required to pay fee based on type of license. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | The Outcome contains risk assessment items for suicide potential and substance abuse. The OQ®-30.2 Outcome Questionnaire is sensitive to what happens during any session. It should be administered prior to, or at the very beginning of any therapeutic visit. Answers about the past week, taken immediately after a clinical intervention may be influenced by this intervention. |
| Population: | General mental health for clients over the age of 18. |
| Program Setting: | Our measures have been used in a variety of settings including outpatient, inpatient, residential, educational, case/medication management, wilderness, juvenile justice settings, and the military. Relevant findings and norms germane to these different populations can be found in the Administration and Scoring Manuals. |
| Age Range: | 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Weekly or each contact |
| Administration Time: | 3-5 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | 1-2 minutes. Electronic scoring and reporting is available. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | A range of electronic, web-based and paper-pencil administration and scoring options are available and through licensing. |
| Publications: | Bybee, T. S., Lambert, M. J., & Eggett, D. (2007). Curves of expected recovery and their predictive validity for identifying treatment failure. Tijdschrift voor Psychotherapie (The Dutch Journal of Psychotherapy), 33, 6, 419-434. Ellsworth, J. R., Lambert, M. J., & Johnson, J. (2006). A Comparison of the Outcome Questionnaire-45 and Outcome Questionnaire-30 in classification and prediction of treatment outcome. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy,13, 380-391. Lambert, M. J., Vermeersch, D. A., Brown, G. S., Burlingame, G. M. (2005). Administration and scoring manual of the OQ-30. OQMeasures, Salt Lake City, UT |
| Keywords: | OQ 30.2 30 OQ measures instruments outcome Lambert Burlingame |
| Submitted By: | Sue Jenkins |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Michael J. Lambert, Ph.D., Gary M. Burlingame, Ph.D. |
| Contact: | oqmeasures.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument has a copyright to protect content. Organizations interested in use are required to pay fee based on type of license. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | The OQ®-30.2 TA is a measure that includes the OQ®-30.2 as well as additional questions that identify and assess the therapeutic alliance (TA) between the client and the clinician. By assessing the therapeutic alliance, the clinician may open new channels of dialogue and assess methods of treatment to help grow and maintain the relationship between the client and the clinician. The Outcome contains risk assessment items for suicide potential and substance abuse. The OQ®-30.2 Outcome Questionnaire is sensitive to what happens during any session. It should be administered prior to, or at the very beginning of any therapeutic visit. Answers about the past week, taken immediately after a clinical intervention may be influenced by this intervention. |
| Population: | General mental health for clients over the age of 18 |
| Program Setting: | Our measures have been used in a variety of settings including outpatient, inpatient, residential, educational, case/medication management, wilderness, juvenile justice settings, and the military. Relevant findings and norms germane to these different populations can be found in the Administration and Scoring Manuals. |
| Age Range: | 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Weekly or each contact as needed |
| Administration Time: | 5-7 Minutes |
| Scoring Time: | 1-2 minutes. Electronic scoring and reporting is available. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | A range of electronic, web-based and paper-pencil administration and scoring options are available and through licensing. |
| Publications: | Harmon, S. C., Lambert, M. J., Smart, D. W., Hawkins, E. J., Nielsen, S. L., Slade K., & Lutz, W. (2007). Methods of enhancing patient outcome for potential treatment failures: The use of therapist/client feedback and Clinical Support Tools. Psychotherapy Research, 17, 379-392. White, M., Lambert, M. J., Bailey, R. J., McLaughlin, S.B., & Ogles, B. M. (2015). Understanding the Assessment for Signal Clients as a feedback tool for reducing treatment failure. Psychotherapy Research, 25,6, 724-734. DOI:10.1080/10503307.2015.1009862 |
| Keywords: | OQ30 TA therapeutic alliance measures outcome instruments adult OQ |
| Submitted By: | Sue Jenkins |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Michael J. Lambert, Ph.D., Gary M. Burlingame, Ph.D. and OQ Measures LLC. |
| Contact: | oqmeasures.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument has a copyright to protect content. Organizations interested in use are required to pay fee based on type of license. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | A product of over two decades of research by Dr. Michael Lambert, the OQ®-45.2 is a self-report Outcome Measure designed for repeated measurement of client progress while in therapy and following termination. The OQ®-45.2 measures three subscales: 1. Symptom Distress (depression and anxiety) 2.Interpersonal Relationships (loneliness, conflict with others and marriage and family difficulties) 3. Social Role (difficulties in the workplace, school or home duties) You can use the subscale scores to identify and target particularly problematic areas as a focus of treatment. |
| Population: | General mental health for clients over the age of 18 |
| Program Setting: | Our measures have been used in a variety of settings including outpatient, inpatient, residential, educational, case/medication management, wilderness, juvenile justice settings, and the military. Relevant findings and norms germane to these different populations can be found in the Administration and Scoring Manuals. |
| Age Range: | 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Weekly or each contact |
| Administration Time: | 5-7 Minutes |
| Scoring Time: | 1-2 minutes. Electronic scoring and reporting is available. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | A range of electronic, web-based and paper-pencil administration and scoring options are available and through licensing. |
| Publications: | Lambert, M. J. (2017). Maximizing psychotherapy outcome beyond evidence-based medicine. Psychotherapy & Psychosomatics,86, 80-89. http://www.Karger.com doi:10.1159/000455170 Probst, T., Lambert M. J., Loew, T., Dahlbender, R., Göllner, R., & Tritt, K. (2013). Feedback on patient progress and clinical support tools for therapists: Improved outcome for patients at risk of treatment failure in in-patient therapy under the conditions of routine practice. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 75, 255-261. Simon, W., Lambert, M. J., Busath, G., Vazquez, A., Berkeljon, A., Hyer, K., Granley, M., & Berrett, M. (2013). Effects of providing patient progress feedback and Clinical Support Tools to psychotherapists in an inpatient eating disorders treatment program: A randomized controlled study. Psychotherapy Research, 23, 287-300. |
| Keywords: | OQ 45 measures instruments adult outcome lambert burlingame 45.2 |
| Submitted By: | Sue Jenkins |
|---|---|
| Developer: | OQ Measures, Michael J. Lambert, Ph.D., Gary M. Burlingame, Ph.D. |
| Contact: | oqmeasures.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument has a copyright to protect content. Organizations interested in use are required to pay fee based on type of license. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | The OQ®-45.2 TA is a measure that includes the OQ®-45.2 as well as additional questions that identify and assess the therapeutic alliance (TA) between the client and the clinician. By assessing the therapeutic alliance, the clinician may open new channels of dialogue and assess methods of treatment to help grow and maintain the relationship between the client and the clinician. A product of over two decades of research by Dr. Michael Lambert, the OQ®-45.2 is a self-report Outcome Measure designed for repeated measurement of client progress while in therapy and following termination. The OQ®-45.2 measures three subscales: 1. Symptom Distress (depression and anxiety) 2.Interpersonal Relationships (loneliness, conflict with others and marriage and family difficulties) 3. Social Role (difficulties in the workplace, school or home duties) You can use the subscale scores to identify and target particularly problematic areas as a focus of treatment. |
| Population: | General mental health for clients over the age of 18 |
| Program Setting: | Our measures have been used in a variety of settings including outpatient, inpatient, residential, educational, case/medication management, wilderness, juvenile justice settings, and the military. Relevant findings and norms germane to these different populations can be found in the Administration and Scoring Manuals. |
| Age Range: | 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Weekly or each contact as needed |
| Administration Time: | 5-7 Minutes |
| Scoring Time: | 1-2 minutes. Electronic scoring and reporting is available. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | A range of electronic, web-based and paper-pencil administration and scoring options are available and through licensing. |
| Publications: | Whipple, J. L., Lambert, M. J., Vermeersch, D. A., Smart, D. W., Nielsen, S. L., & Hawkins, E. J. (2003). Improving the effects of psychotherapy: The use of early identification of treatment failure and problem solving strategies in routine practice. Journal of Counseling Psychology,50, 59-68. Slade, K., Lambert, M. J., Harmon, S. C., Smart, D. W., & Bailey, R. (2008). Improving psychotherapy outcome: The use of immediate electronic feedback and revised clinical support tools. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 15, 287-303. Harmon, S. C., Lambert, M. J., Smart, D. W., Hawkins, E. J., Nielsen, S. L., Slade K., & Lutz, W. (2007). Methods of enhancing patient outcome for potential treatment failures: The use of therapist/client feedback and Clinical Support Tools. Psychotherapy Research, 17, 379-392. |
| Keywords: | OQ45 45.2 45 OQ OQ45TA TA therapeutic alliance outcome measures instruments michael lambert gary burlingame adult |
| Submitted By: | Sue Jenkins |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Michael J. Lambert, Ph.D. and OQ Measures LLC. |
| Contact: | oqmeasures.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument has a copyright to protect content. Organizations interested in use are required to pay fee based on type of license. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | The OQ®-ASC will provide more insight into clients that are not progressing as you expected. The adult Clinical Support Tool, OQ®-ASC (Assessment for Signal Clients) measures Therapeutic Alliance, Social Support, Motivation for Therapy and Life Events. The OQ®-ASC is used in conjunction with the OQ®-45.2, OQ®-45.2 TA, OQ®-30.2, and S-OQ® 2.0 to give the clinician more information on clients that are not-on-track. Many clients respond well to therapy, but for some, the process of understanding, change and recovery is not easy. There are many reasons why some clients respond better to therapy than others. Research suggests the following factors are particularly important in bringing about a positive outcome for patients whose positive response to therapy is in doubt: the alliance between client and therapist the client's degree of motivation to change the client's social support network stressful life events, which are among the most important. The feedback from the OQ®-ASC allows you to make treatment decisions based on your client's progress rather than a fixed treatment protocol, theory of change or mandated policies regarding treatment length. |
| Population: | General mental health for clients over the age of 18 |
| Program Setting: | Our measures have been used in a variety of settings including outpatient, inpatient, residential, educational, case/medication management, wilderness, juvenile justice settings, and the military. |
| Age Range: | 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Case-by-case basis |
| Administration Time: | 5-7 Minutes |
| Scoring Time: | 1-2 minutes. Electronic scoring and reporting is available. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | A range of electronic, web-based and paper-pencil administration and scoring options are available and through licensing. |
| Publications: | Shimokawa, K., Lambert, M. J., & Smart, D. W. (2010). Enhancing treatment outcome of patients at risk of treatment failure: Meta-Analytic and mega-analytic review of a psychotherapy quality assurance system. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 78, 298-311. White, M., Lambert, M. J., Bailey, R. J., McLaughlin, S.B., & Ogles, B. M. (2015). Understanding the Assessment for Signal Clients as a feedback tool for reducing treatment failure. Psychotherapy Research, 25,6, 724-734. DOI:10.1080/10503307.2015.1009862 |
| Keywords: | OQasc ASC Lambert measures instrument instruments OQ electronic paper outcome outcomes |
| Submitted By: | Sue Jenkins |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Gary M. Burlingame, Ph.D. JulieAnn Krogel Ph.D and Jennifer Johson Ph.D |
| Contact: | oqmeasures.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument has a copyright to protect content. Organizations interested in use are required to pay fee based on type of license. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | The OQ®-GQ identifies how members perceive the relationship they have with the group-as-a-whole, other members and the leader on three salient qualities of the therapeutic relationship: 1. Is there a positive affective bond present? 2. Is the client accomplishing the work for which they came to the group? 3. Is there empathic failure with the leader, conflict in the group, or potentially negative member exchanges that are not being handled well? The OQ®-GQ highlights patterns of change in these three key quality dimensions of the therapeutic relationship in the group; e.g. are things getting better or worse? The OQ®-GQ measures three domains: 1 Positive Bonding – is defined as the sense of belonging or attraction that a member has to the group, its members and its leader(s) that creates a positive atmosphere which allows members to feel genuinely understood and appreciated. 2 Positive Working – is defined as the ability of the group to agree upon and work toward treatment goals in an effective manner. 3 Negative Relationship – is defined as lack of trust, genuineness, and understanding as well as friction and distance that might exist between the group, its members or its leaders. |
| Population: | General mental health and therapeutic alliance of individuals within a group setting. |
| Program Setting: | Our measures have been used in a variety of settings including outpatient, inpatient, residential, educational, case/medication management, wilderness, juvenile justice settings, and the military. Relevant findings and norms germane to these different populations can be found in the Administration and Scoring Manuals. |
| Age Range: | 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Weekly or each contact |
| Administration Time: | 5-7 Minutes |
| Scoring Time: | 1-2 minutes. Electronic scoring and reporting is available. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | A range of electronic, web-based and paper-pencil administration and scoring options are available and through licensing. |
| Publications: | Burlingame, G. M., et al. ( in Press). The effects of relationship and progress feedback in group psychotherapy using the GQ and OQ-45: A randomized clinical trial. Psychotherapy, Davies, D. R., Burlingame, G. M., Johnson, J. E., Barlow, S. H. & Gleave, R. L. (2008). The effects of a feedback intervention on group process and outcome. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12 (2), 141-154 Fuhriman, A., Drescher, S., Hanson, E. & Rybicki, W. (1986). Refining the measurement of curativeness: An empirical approach, Small Group Research, 17(2), 186-201. Krogel, J., Burlingame, G., Chapman, C., Renshaw, T., Gleave, R., Beecher, M., & MacNair-Semands, R. (2013). The Group Questionnaire: A clinical and empirically derived measure of group relationship. Psychotherapy Research, 23(3), 344-354. |
| Keywords: | group groups outcome measures measuregary burlingame michael lambert instruments instrument |
| Submitted By: | Brendan J Madden |
|---|---|
| Developer: | ACE Health Innovations |
| Contact: | brendan.madden@acehealth.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | Organizations may purchase a license via www.openfitapp.com. The OpenFIT software license includes access to a variety of evidence-based outcome measurement instruments, performance metrics and predictive algorithms. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Independent Provider (not working directly with individual), Parent/Guardian, Teacher, Employer, Other |
| Description: | OpenFIT is a smartphone and tablet enabled system for implementing outcomes feedback in behavioral health and substance abuse services. It provides electronic data collection scoring on tablets and laptops and provides access to validated outcome measurement tools including the Outcome Rating Scale (ORS), PHQ- and GAD-7(other outcome tools can be incorporated on request.) The ORS is a brief, client rated, four-item visual analogue scale measuring the client’s experience of well-being in his or her individual, interpersonal, and social functioning. Versions are available for adults, children, and young children. Detailed information regarding the scales psychometric properties can be found in a series of manuals. The PHQ-9 is a popular tool for assessing and monitoring depression severity and the GAD-7 is widely used for assessing and monitoring anxiety disorders. |
| Population: | The ORS is a transdiagnostic and transtheoretical outcome measure. The measure was reviewed and, together with an alliance tool known as the Session Rating Scale (SRS), listed on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services (SAMHSA) website: http://legacy.nreppadmin.net/ViewIntervention.aspx?id=249. The PHQ and GAD-7 can be used to establish provisional diagnoses for selected DSM-IV disorders. |
| Program Setting: | Inpatient, outpatient, voluntary and involuntary mental and physical mental health settings. |
| Age Range: | 5-12, 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Each contact or weekly |
| Administration Time: | Less than 1 minute |
| Scoring Time: | Less than 20 seconds electronically |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | OpenFIT provides electronic administration, scoring, and evidence-based feedback in real time of the ORS, PHQ and GAD-7. ORS is available in 20 different languages. The PHQ and GAD-7 are available in 4 languages. |
| Publications: | Michael, S., Seltzer, R., Miller, S.D., & Wampold, B.E. (2012). Assessing counselor effects on quit rates and life satisfaction scores at a tobacco quitline. Journal of Smoking Cessation, 7, 1¸1-4. Quirk, K., Miller, S.D., Duncan, B., & Owens, J. (2012). Group session rating scale: Preliminary psychometrics in substance abuse interventions. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 12, 4, 1-7. Hafkenscheid, A., Duncan, B.L., & Miller, S.D. (2010). Outcome Rating Scale (ORS) and Session Rating Scale (SRS): Psychometric findings with the Dutch translation. Journal of Brief Therapy, 7, 1-2 Bringhurst, D.L., Watson, C.S., Miller, S.D., & Duncan, B.L. (2006). The reliability and validity of the outcome rating scale: A replication study of a brief clinical measure. Journal of Brief Therapy, 5(1), 23-29. Miller, S.D., Duncan, B.L., Sorrell, R., Brown, G.S., & Chalk, M.B. (2006). Using outcome to inform therapy practice. Journal of Brief Therapy, 5(1), 5-22. Miller, S.D., Duncan, B.L., Sorrell, R., & Brown, G.S. (February, 2005). The Partners for Change Outcome Management System. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(2), 199-208. An ultra-brief screening scale for anxiety and depression: the PHQ-4. Psychosomatics 2009;50:613-621 14. Kroenke K, Strine TW, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Berry JT, Mokdad AH. The PHQ-8 as a measure of current depression in the general population. J Affective Disorders 2009;114:163-173. 15. Löwe B, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Mussell M, Schellberg D, Kroenke K. Depression, anxiety, and somatization in primary care: syndrome overlap and functional impairment. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2008;30:191-199. 16. Dube P, Kroenke K, Bair MJ, Theobald D, Williams L. The P4 screener: a brief measure for assessing potential suicidal risk. J Clin Psychiatry Primary Care Companion 2010 (in press). [Algorithm for following up on positive responses to 9th item of PHQ-9] |
| Keywords: | Depression, Feedback Informed Treatment, Generalised Anxiety, Outcome Rating Scale, Performance Measurement, Substance Abuse |
| Submitted By: | Scott Miller |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Scott D. Miller, Barry L.Duncan Performance Metrics |
| Contact: | info@scottdmiller.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | Individual practitioners may obtain a free license to use the tool by registering at: https://scott-d-miller-ph-d.myshopify.com/collections/performance-metrics/products/performance-metrics-licenses-for-the-ors-and-srs. Organizations may purchase a license via the same weblink or use one of the approved electronic vendors: http://www.scottdmiller.com/fit-software-tools/. The latter include access to a variety of evidence-based performance metrics and predictive algorithms. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Independent Provider (not working directly with individual), Parent/Guardian, Teacher, Employer |
| Description: | The Outcome Rating Scale (ORS) is a brief, client rated, four-item visual analogue scale measuring the client’s experience of well-being in his or her individual, interpersonal, and social functioning. Versions are available for adults, children, and young children. Detailed information regarding the scales psychometric properties can be found in a series of Manuals (https://scott-d-miller-ph-d.myshopify.com/collections/fit-manuals), as well as online (https://www.slideshare.net/scottdmiller/measures-and-feedback-2016) |
| Population: | The ORS is a transdiagnostic and transtheoretical outcome measure. The measure was reviewed and, together with an alliance tool known as the Session Rating Scale (SRS), listed on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services (SAMHSA) website: http://legacy.nreppadmin.net/ViewIntervention.aspx?id=249. |
| Program Setting: | Inpatient, outpatient, voluntary and involuntary mental and physical mental health settings. |
| Age Range: | 5-12, 12-18, 18-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Each contact |
| Administration Time: | 1 minute |
| Scoring Time: | Electronic scoring is available. Paper and pencil administration uses a metric based ruler. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | The ORS has been translated into 28 different languages available for download at: https://scott-d-miller-ph-d.myshopify.com/collections/performance-metrics/products/performance-metrics-licenses-for-the-ors-and-srs. Three vendors provide electronic administration, scoring, and evidence-based feedback in real time. |
| Publications: | Michael, S., Seltzer, R., Miller, S.D., & Wampold, B.E. (2012). Assessing counselor effects on quit rates and life satisfaction scores at a tobacco quitline. Journal of Smoking Cessation, 7, 1¸1-4. Quirk, K., Miller, S.D., Duncan, B., & Owens, J. (2012). Group session rating scale: Preliminary psychometrics in substance abuse interventions. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 12, 4, 1-7. Hafkenscheid, A., Duncan, B.L., & Miller, S.D. (2010). Outcome Rating Scale (ORS) and Session Rating Scale (SRS): Psychometric findings with the Dutch translation. Journal of Brief Therapy, 7, 1-2. Bringhurst, D.L., Watson, C.S., Miller, S.D., & Duncan, B.L. (2006). The reliability and validity of the outcome rating scale: A replication study of a brief clinical measure. Journal of Brief Therapy, 5(1), 23-29. Miller, S.D., Duncan, B.L., Sorrell, R., Brown, G.S., & Chalk, M.B. (2006). Using outcome to inform therapy practice. Journal of Brief Therapy, 5(1), 5-22. Miller, S.D., Duncan, B.L., Sorrell, R., & Brown, G.S. (February, 2005). The Partners for Change Outcome Management System. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(2), 199-208. |
| Keywords: | Outcome Rating Scale |
| Submitted By: | Kristen Francom |
|---|---|
| Developer: | BestNotes |
| Contact: | team@bestnotes.com, 208-543-6646, http://www.bestnotes.com/questionnaire-library/ |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | Service and tools are available to paying subscribers |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Direct Provider (working directly with individual), Independent Provider (not working directly with individual), Parent/Guardian, Teacher, Employer, Other |
| Description: | OutcomeTools by BestNotes provides electronic administration, scoring, and reporting of assessments to meet Joint Commission requirements. Organizations use many types of outcome measures provided by a growing list of copyright owners and open sources, including: PHQ-9, GAD-7, Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) and OQ Measures. Custom surveys can also be created and added to an organization’s database. The system provides real-time feedback to increase the engagement of participants and staff. Smart automation frees providers to focus on aligning participant responses with treatment and service plans. A full list of assessments can be found here: http://www.bestnotes.com/questionnaire-library/ |
| Population: | OutcomeTools has a library of instruments covering a wide range of populations and diagnoses. |
| Program Setting: | All types |
| Age Range: | 0-2, 2-5, 5-12, 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Customizable per instrument |
| Administration Time: | N/A |
| Scoring Time: | N/A - automatic scoring by system |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Administration Options: | OutcomeTools is a web based system. Surveys can be completed on any device with web access. |
| Keywords: | CSSRS, GAD-7, OQ, OQ Measures, PHQ-9, YOQ, anxiety, custom, depression, outcome measures, progress monitoring, tool, web based |
| Submitted By: | Todd Lowdon |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Mental Health Data Services, Inc. |
| Contact: | www.owlinsights.com, 800.910.6769, demo@owlinsights.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | Owl Insights curates a collection of leading evidence based measures to assess for various types of disorders and conditions. Some are available in the public domain, while many are proprietary. The Owl platform is flexible and can accommodate new instruments, or replace existing ones, as necessary. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Direct Provider (working directly with individual), Parent/Guardian, Teacher |
| Description: | Owl Insight's measurement-based care solution enables healthcare providers to easily screen patients for behavioral health issues and monitor their treatment progress using a library of digitized patient-reported outcome measures. Our HIPAA-compliant, cloud-based application allows patients, clinicians and administrators access from any web-enabled device. "The Owl" automates clinical workflows and measure selection, making it easy for patients to report outcomes, clinicians to engage in collaborative care and administrators to implement and track progress across their organizations. It automatically selects, schedules, administers, scores and charts PROs throughout the course of care, and may be fully integrated with electronic medical records systems (EMRs), such as Epic, or used as a stand-alone application. |
| Population: | Owl Insights has been used to help treat children, adolescents, and adults with a wide range of behavioral health conditions. It is also used to screen for and track co-morbid behavioral health conditions in chronic disease patient populations. |
| Program Setting: | Owl Insights is used to help improve outcomes in dedicated ambulatory behavioral health clinics, academic training centers, and major integrated delivery networks with large behavioral health patient populations. It is also used to screen for and track co-morbid behavioral health conditions in chronic disease treatment centers. |
| Age Range: | 2-5, 5-12, 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | weekly |
| Administration Time: | 2-4 minutes for most measures |
| Scoring Time: | Scoring of measures is electronic and instantaneous |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | Owl Insights is a HIPAA compliant, cloud-based software solution. It can be fully integrated with most major electronic medical record (EMR) systems, and is an automated, web-based service. The Owl provides access portals for patients, for clinicians, and for clinic or hospital administrators, as well as clinical decision support. |
| Publications: | A Tipping Point for Measurement-Based Care, John C. Fortney, Ph.D., Jürgen Unützer, M.D., M.P.H., et al. Measurement-Based Care Versus Standard Care for Major Depression: A Randomized Controlled Trial With Blind Raters, Tong Guo, M.D., Yu-Tao Xiang, M.D., Ph.D., et al. |
| Keywords: | EMR integration, MBC, MFS, PRO, ROM, analytics, automated scoring, dashboard, evidence-based measures, intake, measurement based care, measurement feedback system, outcome monitoring, patient progress chart, patient-reported outcomes, reporting, screening, workflow |
| Submitted By: | Barry Duncan |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Barry Duncan and Scott Miller; the Heart and Soul of Change Project |
| Contact: | Barry Duncan: barrylduncan@comcast.net; 561.239.3640 |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instruments of PCOMS are free for individual and research uses at https://heartandsoulofchange.com. There is small fee for group or organizational use. The web application of PCOMS, Better Outcomes Now, which includes the license, ranges in cost from $179 to $99 per user per year. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Parent/Guardian, Teacher |
| Description: | Each of the four primary instruments that comprise the basic PCOMS measurement set, the Outcome Rating Scale (ORS), Session Rating Scale (SRS), Child ORS, and Child SRS, is a visual analogue scale consisting of four 10 cm lines. The ORS and SRS are used with adults and adolescents, aged 13-17. Children aged 6-12 use the CORS and CSRS. Adult caregivers provide feedback for their child or adolescent on either the CORS or ORS based on the child’s age. Because of the desire to create a system feasible for everyday clinical practice, PCOMS instruments are brief, generally requiring no more than 3 to 5 minutes to administer, score, and discuss. (Duncan, 2014). The four 10 centimeter lines of the ORS total to a score of 40, 3 around major domains assessed by the OQ45 (Individually, Interpersonally, and Socially) and a fourth, Overall. Individually captures client personal distress or well-being; Interpersonally, clients’ significant relationships; and Socially, clients’ work, school, friends, and other social arenas. The lower the score, the higher the distress. The CORS retains the same domains, but uses language suitable for its intended age group: Me, Family, School, and Everything, with smiley/frowny faces at either ends to aid comprehension. The ORS is given at the beginning of a session and the the SRS is given at the end of a session. Together, they identify clients at risk for no change via comparison to an expected treatment response. PCOMS is listed in the SAMHSA directory of evidence based practices and supported by 6 randomized clinical trials and numerous psychometric studies across populations and cultures. |
| Population: | PCOMS is intended to serve a broad population and is not diagnostically based. There are over 1.5 million administrations in the data based and it is used in across the US and Canada, and 20 other countries. The 6 RCTs are from the US, Norway, and China. The 8 largest public behavioral health organizations in their respective states have implemented PCOMS. |
| Program Setting: | PCOMS has been implemented in all of the services listed above. Our recent benchmarking publication addressing PCOMS in an acute inpatient setting demonstrated outcomes comparable to RCTs and significantly lower readmission rates (Reese, Duncan, et al., 2017).Previous benchmarking studies report comparable outcomes to RCTs with adults and youth in a public organization that had implemented PCOMS (Reese, Duncan, et al., 2014). |
| Age Range: | 5-12, 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Each contact but not over one time a week. |
| Administration Time: | less than 5 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | 10 seconds; electronic scoring is available |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | The measures can administered via paper and pencil. A web application of PCOMS, Better Outcomes Now administers the PCOMS measures and ensures fidelity as well as analyzes and reports the data for individual provider improvement and agency quality assurance and improvement. |
| Publications: | An overview of the research support:Duncan, B. L., & Reese, R. J. (2015). The Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS): Revisiting the Client’s Frame of Reference. Psychotherapy, 52(4), 391-401. Reese, R. J., Duncan, B. L., Bohanske, R. T., Owen, J. J., & Minami, T. (2014). Benchmarking outcomes in a public behavioral health setting: Feedback as a quality improvement strategy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol 82(4), 731-742. Anker, M. G., Duncan, B. L., & Sparks, J. A. (2009). Using client feedback to improve couple therapy outcomes: A randomized clinical trial in a naturalistic setting. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(4), 693-704. |
| Keywords: | PCOMS, ROM, partners for change outcome management system, systematic client feedback |
| Submitted By: | Vanessa Guzman |
|---|---|
| Developer: | PRIME-MD, developed by Drs. Robert L. Spitzer, Janet B.W. Williams, Kurt Kroenke, and colleagues with an educational grant from Pfizer Inc. |
| Contact: | http://www.phqscreeners.com/select-screener/36 |
| Proprietary: | Instrument in public domain |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Direct Provider (working directly with individual), Independent Provider (not working directly with individual) |
| Description: | The Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders (PRIME-MD) was an instrument developed and validated in the early 1990s to efficiently diagnose five of the most common types of mental disorders presenting in medical populations: depressive, anxiety, somatoform, alcohol, and eating disorders.[1] Patients first completed a one-page 27-item screener and, for those disorders for which they screened positive, were asked additional questions by the clinician using a structured interview guide. However, this 2-stage process took an average of 5-6 minutes of clinician time in patients without a mental disorder diagnosis and 11-12 minutes in patients with a diagnosis. This proved to be a barrier to use given the competing demands in busy clinical practice settings. Therefore, in two large studies enrolling 6000 patients (3000 from general internal medicine and family practice clinics and 3000 from obstetrics-gynecology clinics), a self-administered version of the PRIME-MD called the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) was developed and validated.[2,3] In the past decade, the PHQ in general and the PHQ-9 depression scale in particular [4-6] have gained increasing use in both research and practice. The original PRIME-MD is now largely of historical interest and seldom used except in a few types of research studies. Given the popularity of the PHQ-9 for assessing and monitoring depression severity, a new 7-item anxiety scale using a response set similar to the PHQ-9 was initially developed to diagnose generalized anxiety disorder (hence its name, the GAD-7) and validated in 2740 primary care patients. Though originally developed to diagnose generalized anxiety disorder, the GAD-7 also proved to have good sensitivity and specificity as a screener for panic, social anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder. Finally, the PHQ-15 was derived from the original PHQ studies and is increasingly used to assess somatic symptom severity and the potential presence of somatization and somatoform disorders. Each PHQ module can be used alone (e.g. the PHQ-9 if depression is the condition of interest), together with other modules, or as part of the full PHQ. Also, alternative or abbreviated versions of the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 are sometimes used in certain screening or research settings [10-14] Although the PHQ was originally developed to detect five disorders, the depression, anxiety, and somatoform modules (in that order) have turned out to be the most popular.[10] Also, most primary care patients with depressive or anxiety disorders present with somatic complaints and cooccurrence of somatic, anxiety, and depressive symptoms (the SAD triad) is exceptionally common. This is the rationale behind the PHQ-SADS screener.[15] The other measures are principally used to derive severity scores (PHQ-9 and PHQ-8 for depressive symptom severity; GAD-7 for anxiety symptom severity; PHQ-15 for somatic symptom severity) or as ultra-brief screeners (PHQ-2, GAD-2, PHQ-4). An example in which the PHQ depression module can be used as both a diagnostic module as well as a depression severity score (PHQ-9 score) is shown in Table 3, page 5. Over time, the severity scores have been a particularly popular use of the measures, and are now used much more commonly than the provisional diagnoses. For example, cutpoints of 5, 10, and 15 represent mild, moderate, and severe levels of depressive, anxiety, and somatic symptoms, on the PHQ-9, GAD-7, and PHQ-15 respectively. Also, a cutpoint of 10 or greater is considered a ―yellow flag‖ on all 3 measures (i.e., drawing attention to a possible clinically significant condition), while a cutpoint of 15 is a ―red flag‖ on all 3 measures (i.e., targeting individuals in whom active treatment is probably warranted). For the ultra-brief measures (PHQ-2 and GAD-2), a score of 3 or greater should prompt administration of the full PHQ-9 and/or GAD-7, as well as a clinical interview to determine whether a mental disorder is present. The final question on the PHQ (and some of its abbreviated versions) asks the patients to report ―how difficult have these problems made it for you to do your work, take care of things at home, or get along with other people?‖ This single patient-rated difficulty item is not used in calculating any PHQ score or diagnosis but rather represents the patient‘s global impression of symptom-related impairment. It may be useful in decisions regarding initiation of or adjustments to treatment since it is strongly associated with both psychiatric symptom severity as well as multiple measures of impairment and health-related quality of life. A particularly important question is how to assess suicide risk in individuals who answer positively to the 9th question of the PHQ-9. A four-item screener has been developed that may assist in positive responses to this 9th question [16], although a final decision about the actual risk of self-harm requires a clinical interview. For research information, contact Dr. Spitzer at rls@columbia.edu. |
| Population: | The full PHQ, Brief PHQ, and PHQ for Adolescents (PHQ-A) can be used to establish provisional diagnoses for selected DSM-IV disorders. |
| Program Setting: | Across primary and behavioral health care settings |
| Age Range: | 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Each contact. |
| Administration Time: | 5-10 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | Electronic scoring and reporting is available. Scoring takes less than 5 minutes |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | please refer to this link: for administration and scoring methodology: https://phqscreeners.pfizer.edrupalgardens.com/sites/g/files/g10016261/f/201412/instructions.pdf |
| Publications: | Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Kroenke K, Linzer M, deGruy FV, Hahn SR, Brody D, Johnson JG. Utility of a new procedure for diagnosing mental disorders in primary care: The PRIME-MD 1000 study. JAMA 1994;272:1749-1756. 2. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, for the Patient Health Questionnaire Primary Care Study Group. Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ Primary Care Study. JAMA 1999;282:1737-1744. 3. Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Kroenke K, et al. Validity and utility of the Patient Health Questionnaire in assessment of 3000 obstetrics-gynecologic patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 183:759-769. 4. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW. The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med 2001;16:606-613. 5. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL. The PHQ-9: a new depression diagnostic and severity measure. Psychiatric Annals 2002;32:509-521. [also includes validation data on PHQ-8]. 6. Löwe B, Unutzer J, Callahan CM, Perkins AJ, Kroenke K. Monitoring depression treatment outcomes with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Med Care 2004;42:1194-1201. 7. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, Löwe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med 2006;166:1092-1097. 8. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Monahan PO, Löwe B. Anxiety disorders in primary care: prevalence, impairment, comorbidity, and detection. Ann Intern Med 2007;146:317- 325. [validation data on GAD-7 and GAD-2 in detecting 4 common anxiety disorders)] 9. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW. The PHQ-15: Validity of a new measure for evaluating somatic symptom severity. Psychosom Med 2002;64:258-266. 10. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Löwe B. The Patient Health Questionnaire somatic, anxiety, and depressive symptom scales: a systematic review. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2010 (in press). 11. Johnson JG, Harris ES, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW. The Patient Health Questionnaire for Adolescents: Validation of an instrument for the assessment of mental disorders among adolescent primary care patients. J Adolescent Health. 2002;30:196-204. 12. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW. The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: validity of a two-item depression screener. Med Care 2003; 41:1284-1292. 13. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Löwe B. An ultra-brief screening scale for anxiety and depression: the PHQ-4. Psychosomatics 2009;50:613-621. 14. Kroenke K, Strine TW, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Berry JT, Mokdad AH. The PHQ-8 as a measure of current depression in the general population. J Affective Disorders 2009;114:163-173. 15. Löwe B, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Mussell M, Schellberg D, Kroenke K. Depression, anxiety, and somatization in primary care: syndrome overlap and functional impairment. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2008;30:191-199. 16. Dube P, Kroenke K, Bair MJ, Theobald D, Williams L. The P4 screener: a brief measure for assessing potential suicidal risk. J Clin Psychiatry Primary Care Companion 2010 (in press). [Algorithm for following up on positive responses to 9th item of PHQ-9] |
| Submitted By: | Robert Cummins |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Deakin University - Professor Robert A. Cummins |
| Contact: | robert.cummins@deakin.edu.au |
| Proprietary: | Instrument in public domain |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | The PWI-A is a seven-item, self-report scale used to measure subjective wellbeing. It is theoretically embedded, such that the items represent the first-level deconstruction of 'satisfaction with life as a whole', and is empirically established as a valid and reliable measure of the subjective wellbeing construct. Detail of its construction, performance and normative values are provided in the scale manual http://www.acqol.com.au/instruments#measures. |
| Population: | The PWI-A is a generic instrument and has been used as a routine outcome measure for the efficacy of interventions, and as a social indicator. It has been cited over 18,000 times in the literature. |
| Program Setting: | Any and all of the above. |
| Age Range: | 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | The interval is at the discretion of the user |
| Administration Time: | about one minute |
| Scoring Time: | Scoring is described in the scale manual |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | All of the above. |
| Publications: | The PWI-A has been recommended for use to measure subjective wellbeing by both the WHO (WHO Regional Office for Europe 2012) and the OECD (2013). WHO Regional Office for Europe. (2012). Measurement of and target-setting for well-being; Second meeting of the expert group, Paris, 25-26 June 2012. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe. OECD. (2013). How’s life? 2013. Measuring Well-being. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. http://www.oecd.org/statistics/how-s-life-23089679.htm. The PWI-A has very strong normative data for Australia. See the most recent edition of the Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Report at http://www.acqol.com.au/projects#reports. |
| Keywords: | Personal Wellbeing Index |
| Submitted By: | Robert Cummins |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Robert Cummins and Anna Lau, Deakin University |
| Contact: | robert.cummins@deakin.edu.au |
| Proprietary: | Instrument in public domain |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | The PWI-ID has the same basic construction as the PWI-Adult. However, both the item wording and the response scale has been simplified. Additionally, a pre-test is provided to establish that the respondent is able to validly respond to the type of questions and response scales. A full description is provided in the scale manual at http://www.acqol.com.au/instruments#measures |
| Population: | The PWI-ID is a generic instrument to measure the subjective wellbeing of people with an intellectual or a cognitive disability. |
| Program Setting: | The PWI-ID can be used in any situation. |
| Age Range: | 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | As determined by the administrator |
| Administration Time: | If the pre-test is not used, 5 minutes. If the pre-test is used it can take up to 30 minutes. |
| Scoring Time: | As described in the scale manual |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | The special administrative instructions are provided in the manual |
| Publications: | Verri, A. P., Cummins, R. A., Petito, F., Vallero, E., Monteath, S., Gerosa, E., & Nappi, G. (1999). An Italian-Australian comparison of life quality among intellectually disabled people living in the community. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 43, 513-522. Cummins, R. A. (2005). Instruments assessing quality of life. In: J. Hogg & A. Langa (Eds.), Assessing adults with intellectual disabilities: A service provider’s guide (pp. 118-137). London: Blackwell Publishing. McGillivray, J. A., Lau, A. L. D., Cummins, R. A., & Davey, G. (2009). The utility of the Personal Wellbeing Index Intellectual Disability Scale (PWI-ID) in an Australian sample. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disability 22, 276-286. Cummins, R. A., Lau, A. L. D., Davey, G., & McGillivray, J. (2010). Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: The Personal Wellbeing Index – Intellectual Disability. In: R. Kober (Ed.), Enhancing the quality of life of people with intellectual disability: From theory to practice (pp. 33 - 46). New York: Springer. Cummins, R. A. (2016). Quality of life. In: N. N. Singh. Clinical Handbook of Evidence-Based Practices for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities. (pp. 169-227). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-26583-4_8. |
| Keywords: | Personal Wellbeing Index - Intellectual Disability |
| Submitted By: | Robert Cummins |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Robert Cummins and Anna Lau, Deakin University |
| Contact: | robert.cummins@deakin.edu.au |
| Proprietary: | Instrument in public domain |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | The PWI-SC is a somewhat simplified version of the PWI-Adult. The items have a simplified wording and the response scale uses a rating of 'happy' rather than 'satisfied'. However, the basic construction of the scale is the same as for the PWI-A. The full instrument description is found in the PWI-SC manual at http://www.acqol.com.au/instruments#measures |
| Population: | The PWI-SC is a generic instrument to measure the subjective wellbeing of adolescents. |
| Program Setting: | The PWI-SC can be used with adolescents in all settings. |
| Age Range: | 12-18 |
| Administration Frequency: | As determined by the administrator. |
| Administration Time: | Two minutes |
| Scoring Time: | See the manual |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | No special administrative features. |
| Publications: | Tomyn, A. J., & Cummins, R. A. (2011b). The subjective wellbeing of high-school students: Validating the Personal Wellbeing Index-School Children. Social Indicators Research, 101, 405-418. doi:10.1007/s11205-010-9668-6. Tomyn, A. J., Fuller Tyszkiewicz, M. D., & Cummins, R. A. (2013). The personal wellbeing index: psychometric equivalence for adults and school children. Social Indicators Research, 110(3), 913-924. doi:10.1007/s11205-011-9964-9. Tomyn, A. J., Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M. D., Cummins, R. A., & Norrish, J. M. (2017a). The Validity of Subjective Wellbeing Measurement for Children: Evidence Using the Personal Wellbeing Index—School Children. Journal of Happiness Studies, DOI:10.1007/s10902-016-9804-3. |
| Keywords: | Personal Wellbeing Index - School Children |
| Submitted By: | Holly Wilson |
|---|---|
| Developer: | The digital assessment that the Proem platform uses to set the behavioral health baseline and the monitors and severity measurement tools that it uses to measure outcomes are proprietary and exclusively licensed to nView Health, Inc. (d.b.a. Proem Behavioral Health). They were authored by Dr. David Sheehan. |
| Contact: | Holly Wilson, hwilson@nview.com, www.nview.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument requires a licensing agreement per organization or a fee per administration depending on the use and organization type. For licensing information, contact Holly Wilson at hwilson@nview.com or visit the nView website at www.nview.com and submit a "Contact Us" form. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Direct Provider (working directly with individual), Parent/Guardian |
| Description: | The Proem platform is a clinical workflow engine that helps healthcare providers create a digital behavioral health baseline on the most diagnosed DSM-5 adult and pediatric conditions and then measure treatment outcomes. The platform includes structured interviews and monitors that the provider can administer at regular time intervals to measure a patient’s progress for measurement-based care and to adjust treatment plans when outcomes aren’t as expected. The interviews and monitors are built from the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.) adult and kid versions, which have been referenced over 100,000 times and validated against the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID). In addition, the Proem platform includes the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), which is used to measure the frequency and severity of the impact a patient’s conditions have on their work, school, home and social lives. See validation studies referenced below. |
| Population: | The Proem instrument has been used in clinical practice to measure outcomes for children, adolescents, young adults, adults, and seniors. It is intended to serve a broad population. |
| Program Setting: | The Proem instrument can be used by a wide range of healthcare providers and settings including but not limited to primary care provider offices, pediatrician offices, long-term and short-term inpatient treatment facilities, hospitals, psychotherapy clinics, group treatment facilities, substance use disorder clinics, and home healthcare. |
| Age Range: | 5-12, 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Frequency is dependent on the provider but can be administered with each contact, daily, weekly, or monthly. |
| Administration Time: | nView Screeners, Monitors, and Severity Measurement tools can be completed in less than five minutes. Structured interviews take approximately 30 minutes to complete depending on the type of interview. |
| Scoring Time: | All Proem measurements are scored electronically in a matter of seconds. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | The Proem instrument is administered and score electronically. The platform is web-based and patients can complete the measurements on any device connected to the internet. Proem is intended to be used as a clinical decision support tool to help healthcare providers assess, diagnose, treat, and measure outcomes for people with DSM-5 disorders. Proem measurements are available in multiple languages. |
| Publications: | The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.): The Development and Validation of a Structured Interview for DSM-IV and ICD: https://www.psychiatrist.com/read-pdf/11980/ |
| Keywords: | measurement based care, measurement based care system, behavioral health outcomes |
| Submitted By: | Shawna Mc Guckin |
|---|---|
| Developer: | The Mental Health Center of Denver |
| Contact: | www.reachingrecovery.org; email: reaching.recovery@mhcd.org; 303-504-1721 |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | Annual licensing fee per organization/agency |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | The Promoting Recovery in Organizations (PRO) Survey is a set of surveys, completed by the client, to measure the staff’s characteristics which promote recovery. The PRO Survey enables organizations to support client’s recovery growth by providing organizations with a formalized client feedback loop that tracks trends in recovery-focused service delivery. The PRO Survey scores highly for statistical reliability in Classical Test Theory (all subscales at or above .91), as well as Item Response Theory (all subscales at or above .76). Such reliability ensures even small improvements in recovery practice are accurately captured. The PRO Survey is used in conjunction with a family of assessments called “Reaching Recovery” that includes the Recovery Markers Inventory, the Consumer Recovery Measure, and the Recovery Needs Level. All four assessments work together to provide a systematic data approach to mental health recovery. |
| Population: | The PRO Survey is used nationwide for adults receiving community-based mental health services throughout all levels of service intensity and treatment modalities including individuals with serious and persistent mental illness. |
| Program Setting: | Community-based/Outpatient mental health settings, group homes and/or residential setting. |
| Age Range: | 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Completed by a % of clients served 1x per year |
| Administration Time: | 30 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | Scoring is computed electronically either through a web application or directly within a Netsmart CareRecord. Scores are provided to management to support organizational recovery and well-being growth. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Administration Options: | The PRO survey is administered through seven different sub-surveys for the seven different types of staff who interact with clients. Different types of staff (examples: therapists, case managers, nurses, etc.) promote recovery differently due to their differing roles and responsibilities interacting with clients. Clients complete a survey for the different types of staff they have interacted with in the last six months. The survey tool and results is used directly within Netsmart CareRecords, as well as through a standalone web-based application for organization not on a Netsmart EHR. Organizations have had success with peer survey teams administering the survey. |
| Publications: | 1)P. Antonio Olmos-Gall, Roy Starks, Kathryn DeRoche Lusczakoski, Steve Huff, Kristi Mock (2011): Seven key strategies that work together to create recovery based transformation, Community Mental Health Journal, DOI: 10.1007/s10597-011-9441-6 2)Carl Clark and P. Antonio Olmos-Gallo (2007): Performance measurement: a signature approach to outcomes, measurement improves recovery, National Council Magazine, Vol 3. 3)Roy Starks, Denny Morrison (2014): The recovery movement: as the mental health community shifts to a more patient-empowered model, clinicians find new ways to provide services, support, Netsmart Technologies White Paper 4)Derek Andrerson, Kate DeRoche, Shannon Madore (2008): The unexpected benefit of a research survey team: factors related to motivation for employment, Poster Presented at the American Evaluation Association Conference, Denver Colorado November 5, 2008 |
| Keywords: | client assessment, mental health recovery, recovery transformation |
| Submitted By: | Joanna Conti |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Vista Research Group, Inc. |
| Contact: | www.vista-research-group.com; (410) 757-2811; jconti@vista-research-group.net |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | Fee per patient enrolled in the research |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | RECOVERY 20/20™ is Vista’s outcomes research service for addiction treatment and behavioral healthcare providers. RECOVERY 20/20 follows up with patients one month, six months and 12 months after they leave treatment to quantify the impact treatment has had on the patient’s mental and physical health, quality of life and, for patients who were in treatment for addiction, their use of drugs and alcohol. RECOVERY 20/20 customers receive two annual reports: (a) a comprehensive Treatment Effectiveness Report designed to be shown to payers and prospective future clients; and (b) a Strategic Analysis that identifies areas in which the treatment provider is excelling as well as potential areas for improvement. |
| Population: | Patients who had been in addiction and/or behavioral health treatment |
| Program Setting: | Any residential or outpatient treatment setting |
| Age Range: | 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | At treatment intake and then one month, 6 months and 12 months after leaving treatment |
| Administration Time: | Intake Questionnaires take an average of 20 minutes. Follow-up surveys range between 5 and 20 minutes. |
| Scoring Time: | Vista aggregates and analyzes the data |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Administration Options: | Surveys are submitted via computer, mobile device or through telephone interviews. |
| Publications: | Conti, Joanna. Using Personalized Evidence-Based Treatment to Improve Outcomes & Your Bottom Line. 2017; 1-29. www.outcomes-eBook.com |
| Keywords: | outcomes research, post-treatment |
| Submitted By: | Jason Seidel |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Jason A. Seidel, Psy.D. Colorado Center for Clinical Excellence |
| Contact: | http://thecoloradocenter.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument has a copyright, but it is free to use with licensing agreement by downloading it at http://www.thecoloradocenter.com/outcomes.html |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Direct Provider (working directly with individual), Parent/Guardian, Teacher |
| Description: | The Rating of Outcome Scale (ROS, pronounced "ROSE") is a three-item instrument of subjective well-being. It is scored by adding three integers from three items to yield a total score. Paper versions use filled-in "bubbles" for completing the form (the child version uses emojis), and there are software versions available. It has been normed for adults and is translated into several languages. Published research has compared the psychometrics of the ROS to the Outcome Questionnaire 45.2 and the Outcome Rating Scale. The ROS has a score range of 0-30 and a clinical cutoff of 19.4. |
| Population: | Normed on community samples of US and UK adults and an outpatient psychotherapy sample. Used to assess severity-of-distress at intake, and session-by-session clinical change. It is intended to serve a broad population and has demonstrated a moderate sensitivity to distress and change, somewhere between that of the ORS and the OQ 45.2. The child version (CROS) and adolescent use of the ROS have been used with ages 6-18; however as of 2018, no published norms exist for those subpopulations for clinical cutoffs or reliable change indices. |
| Program Setting: | The ROS can be used in short-term and long-term psychotherapy, group therapy, couples therapy, play therapy, medication management, or for screening psychological distress in primary care settings. |
| Age Range: | 5-12, 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | At each contact |
| Administration Time: | Less than 1 minute |
| Scoring Time: | Manual scoring takes 10-15 seconds. Electronic/Web-based versions are also available. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | Electronic administration and scoring are available along with paper-pencil administration and scoring. The ROS is translated into 10 languages and can be used with adolescents and adults. There is a child version (the CROS, for ages 6-12). The ROS is usually used with a companion measure of therapeutic alliance (the Session Experience Scale or "SES") and the forms together are known as the ROSES. Group therapy typically uses the ROS with a group version of the SES (the "GSES"). |
| Publications: | Seidel, J. A., Andrews, W. P., Owen, J., Miller, S. D., & Buccino, D. L. (2016). Preliminary validation of the Rating of Outcome Scale and equivalence of ultra-brief measures of well-being. Psychological Assessment. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/pas0000311 |
| Keywords: | ROS, ROSES, Rating of Outcome Scale |
| Submitted By: | David Whitesock |
|---|---|
| Developer: | David Whitesock, JD/MA; Face It TOGETHER, Inc. |
| Contact: | David Whitesock; david@recoverycapiital.io; 218-779-8546; www.recoverycapital.io |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument has a copyright and requires a monthly or annual user or agency license. Licensing fees are discounted for research use. Each license permits unlimited survey delivery to unlimited contacts or clients during the active license. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Direct Provider (working directly with individual) |
| Description: | The Recovery Capital Index® (RCI) is a 68, 36, or 10-item survey that accurately measures the underlying determinants of a person’s recovery that are key to building a thriving life. The RCI has been empirically validated against a 100-point scale with indicators categorized across 3 domains, 9 components. and 22 indicators. Individuals with lower scores typically report a negative recovery status or affect versus individuals with higher or rising scores who report their recovery or wellbeing using more positive affect or terms. The validation process verified the design of the RCI domains – personal, social, and cultural capital. Variables significantly related to addiction wellness, based on the RCI, were: primary addiction, addiction identification, employment, and income. The RCI accurately describes the individual’s current state of recovery. The RCI can be applied to anyone at any moment in the care or recovery journey. It is not a pre-post survey. It is designed to be taken every 30 days but can be delivered every 14 days or on-demand in more intense care environments or models. The RCI platform automates the delivery of the survey as a secure web link by email and/or SMS. Submissions are tied to a specific contact and results are scored instantly. |
| Population: | Typically applied to individuals experiencing any and all levels of alcohol or drug use, dependence, or addiction; and any status of recovery. Has been applied and used with family members of those directly affected by those experiencing addiction or in recovery. |
| Program Setting: | Applied across all settings and program types. |
| Age Range: | 12-18, 18-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | First contact then every 30 days thereafter. |
| Administration Time: | 5-10 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | Electronic scoring and reporting. Scoring time within 15 seconds of submission. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Administration Options: | Web-based platform for managing, delivering, scoring, analyzing, and reporting. Survey is sent by automated email and SMS web link. Paper-pencil option available. Ongoing training and learning transfer from other users of the RCI. |
| Publications: | David Whitesock, JD/MA, Chief Innovation Officer, Jing Zhao, PhD, Assistant Research Scientist, Kristen Goettsch, MA, Senior Evaluation Scientist, and Jessica Hanson, PhD, Assistant Scientist; Validating a Survey for Addiction Wellness: The Recovery Capital Index; S D Med. 2018 May; 71(5): 202–212. William Cloud, Robert Granfield; Conceptualizing recovery capital: expansion of a theoretical construct; Subst Use Misuse. 2008;43(12-13):1971-86. |
| Keywords: | recovery, recovery capital, recovery measures, social determinants of health, recovery indicators, social capital, recovery capital index, recovery outcomes, recovery determinants, protective factors, recovery support, peer recovery, peer support, peer specialists, risk factors, quality improvement, substance use, substance misuse, quality of life, measurement based care, value based care, process improvement |
| Submitted By: | Shawna Mc Guckin |
|---|---|
| Developer: | The Mental Health Center of Denver |
| Contact: | reaching.recovery@mhcd.org / 303-504-1721 / www.reachingrecovery.org |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument requires annual licensing fee per organization/agency. |
| Reporter: | Direct Provider (working directly with individual) |
| Description: | The Recovery Markers Inventory (RMI) is an outcome-based clinical tool used with adult consumers with mental illness that promotes the engagement and progression towards mental health recovery. The RMI measures the clinician’s observations of the consumer’s environmental factors that support mental health recovery. It is used in conjunction with a family of assessments called “Reaching Recovery” that include assessments by the consumer as well as the clinician to measure and support recovery from mental illness. The tool offers a rigorous, standardized methodology to evaluate strengths and barriers. It uses Rasch statistical modeling to ensure even small improvements in recovery are accurately captured and to ensure that each item provides meaningful information in the assessment. The outcomes data from the RMI provides clinically meaningful data for treatment planning; programmatic decisions; quality assurance oversight; and supports organizations in their recovery and well-being transformation. |
| Population: | The Recovery Markers Inventory (RMI) is used nationwide for adults receiving community-based mental health services throughout all levels of service intensity and treatment modalities including individuals with serious and persistent mental illness. |
| Program Setting: | Community-based/Outpatient mental or physical health settings and/or residential setting. |
| Age Range: | 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Completed at intake and then every three months throughout treatment. |
| Administration Time: | 5 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | Scoring is computed through an electronic algorithm either through a web application or directly within a Netsmart CareRecord. Scores and sub-scores are provided as soon as the assessment is completed to aid in treatment planning and service delivery discussion with the individual in service. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | The tool is being used directly within the clinical treatment workflow within Netsmart CareRecords. The tool is also provided through a standalone web-based application for organizations not using a Netsmart EHR. The Web-application provides the assessment, real-time reporting, and filtering abilities to use the data to drive treatment and programmatic decisions. |
| Publications: | 1)Wesley Williams, Christopher McKinney, Larry Martinez & Carmela Benson (2015): Recovery outcomes of schizophrenia patients treated with paliperidone palmitate in a community setting: patient and provider perspectives on recovery, Journal of Medical Economics, DOI: 10.3111/13696998.2015.1131989 2)Kate DeRoche Lusczakoski, P. Antonio Olmos-Gallo, C.J. McKinney, Roy Starks, Steve Huff (2014): Measuring recovery related outcomes: a psychometric investigation of the recovery marker inventory, Community Mental Health Journal, DOI: 10.1007/s10597-014-9728-5 3) P. Antonio Olmos-Gall, Roy Starks, Kathryn DeRoche Lusczakoski, Steve Huff, Kristi Mock (2011): Seven key strategies that work together to create recovery based transformation, Community Mental Health Journal, DOI: 10.1007/s10597-011-9441-6 4)Kathryn KD Lusczakoski, P. Antonio Olmos-Gall, William Milnor, Christopher McKinney (2014): Measuring mental health recovery: an application of rasch modeling to the consumer recovery measure, The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, Vol 43, Issue 1, pp 104-115 |
| Keywords: | SPMI outcomes, behavioral health outcomes, mental health recovery, recovery research |
| Submitted By: | Shawna Mc Guckin |
|---|---|
| Developer: | The Mental Health Center of Denver |
| Contact: | reaching.recovery@mhcd.org / 303-504-1721 / www.reachingrecovery.org |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | Annual licensing fee per organization/agency. |
| Reporter: | Direct Provider (working directly with individual) |
| Description: | The Recovery Needs Level (RNL) is an assessment completed by the clinician. The RNL assures that the consumer receives the right service intensity at the right time by recommending a level of service intensity as the consumer recovers. The outcomes data from the RNL provides clinically meaningful data for treatment planning; programmatic decisions; and quality assurance. It is used in conjunction with a family of assessments called “Reaching Recovery” that includes the Recovery Markers Inventory, the Consumer Recovery Measure, and the Promoting Recovery in Organizations(PRO) Survey. All four assessments work together to provide a systematic data approach to mental health recovery. |
| Population: | The Recovery Needs Level (RNL) is used nationwide for adults receiving community-based mental health services throughout all levels of service intensity and treatment modalities including individuals with serious and persistent mental illness. The Recovery Needs Level scores highly for statistical reliability in Classical Test Theory (score = .78), as well as Item Response Theory (score = .75). |
| Program Setting: | Community-based/Outpatient mental health settings, group homes and/or residential setting. |
| Age Range: | 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Completed at intake and then in combination with service plan updates. |
| Administration Time: | 3 - 5 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | Scoring is computed through an electronic algorithm either through a web application or directly within a Netsmart CareRecord. Scores are provided as soon as the assessment is completed to aid in treatment planning and service delivery discussions with the individual in service and the service provider. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Administration Options: | The tool is being used directly within the treatment workflow within Netsmart CareRecords. The tool is also provided through a standalone web-based application for organization not on a Netsmart EHR. All electronic options include the assessment, real-time reporting, and filtering abilities to use the data to support individual’s recovery and engagement, as well as programmatic decisions. |
| Publications: | 1) P. Antonio Olmos-Gall, Roy Starks, Kathryn DeRoche Lusczakoski, Steve Huff, Kristi Mock (2011): Seven key strategies that work together to create recovery based transformation, Community Mental Health Journal, DOI: 10.1007/s10597-011-9441-6 2) Kate DeRoche Lusczakoski, P. Antonio Olmos-Gallo, C.J. McKinney, Roy Starks, Steve Huff (2014): Measuring recovery related outcomes: a psychometric investigation of the recovery marker inventory, 3) Community Mental Health Journal, DOI: 10.1007/s10597-014-9728-5 https://www.openminds.com/market-intelligence/executive-briefings/goal-share-savings-need-measure/ |
| Keywords: | Level of Care, SPMI outcomes, mental health recovery, recovery research |
| Submitted By: | Meghan Love |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Public Health Management Corporation (PHMC); Developed at Treatment Research Institute (TRI) |
| Contact: | Meghan Love; RTinfo@tri.phmc.org or toll-free 1-866-453-9262. |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument has a copyright which requires a licensing agreement and annual fee per organization. |
| Reporter: | Direct Provider (working directly with individual) |
| Description: | RecoveryTrack® is a science-derived, web-based tool that integrates Concurrent Recovery Monitoring (CRM) principles into treatment for substance use clients. Providing both an assessment and a monitoring system, RecoveryTrack is a clinical intervention that’s easy to use and requires minimal training. It consists of 12 core items which measure substance use, risk factors, protective factors, drug screen results and formal treatment attendance to deliver a quick yet multidimensional assessment to guide clients’ treatment. Items were selected for inclusion based on empirical support for their valid and reliable assessment of substance use disorder (SUD) treatment outcomes and relapse risk, or due to their presence in existing SUD measures. Items are therapeutically neutral and can be instituted in a variety of settings and treatment modalities, including post-treatment recovery monitoring. In addition to the core items, RecoveryTrack can be enhanced with optional supplemental items from our library, or with customized items created with input from PHMC scientists. Since RecoveryTrack is designed to be administered at individual sessions, at regular intervals (every 7, 14 or 30 days) it’s easier than ever for counselors to incorporate CRM into their clinical practice. The same is true for clinical supervisors who can now use empirical results and data during supervision, and for executive staff to justify expenses based on solid measurement. RecoveryTrack automatically organizes client data into case reports that can be used by counselors during treatment as a clinical intervention, and by managers to foster accountability. It also generates aggregate reports that can be used by managers to document program performance and support accountability. These tools can help improve outcomes by systematically monitoring a client’s status, allowing counselors to make more informed treatment decisions, adapting treatment plans according to real-time data, and quickly identifying problems when they begin. RecoveryTrack is based on extensive research by our scientists and on models that the medical and psychiatric fields already use by implementing brief monitoring procedures as important components of treatment. |
| Population: | Adult individuals (18+) participating in substance use disorder (SUD) outpatient care. |
| Program Setting: | Substance use disorder treatment (SUD) specialty care settings including outpatient, intensive outpatient (IOP), opioid replacement (methadone and office-based buprenorphine) and post-discharge monitoring. |
| Age Range: | 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Designed to be administered at individual sessions, at regular intervals: every 7, 14 or 30 days. |
| Administration Time: | 5-10 minutes. |
| Scoring Time: | Online scoring and reporting available instantaneously within the system. |
| Benchmark Data: | No |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | Electronic, web-based administration and scoring. Paper/Pencil. |
| Publications: | 1) Cacciola, J. S., Alterman, A. I., Dephilippis, D., Drapkin, M. L., Valadez, C., Fala, N. C., Mckay, J. R. (2012). Development and initial evaluation of the Brief Addiction Monitor (BAM). Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 44(3), 256-263. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2012.07.013 2) Kolwicz, T.G., Camilleri, A.C., Cacciola, J., Dugosh, K., Alterman A. (2011, June). Psychometric properties of clinical monitoring items. Poster presented at 73rd Meeting of College on Problems of Drug Dependence, Hollywood, FL. 3) McKay JR, Cacciola JS, Alterman AI, Valdades C, Fala N, Oslin D. (2008, July). Developing an outcomes monitoring system for substance use disorder treatment. Paper presented at VHA Mental Health Care Conference, Washington, D.C. 4) Brooks, A., Carise, D., Camilleri, A., et al. (2008, June). Feasibility and utility of a concurrent recovery monitoring system in Delaware state. Paper presented at 70th Annual College on Problems of Drug Dependence, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 5) Cacciola, J. C., Camilleri, A., Kolwicz, T., Brooks, A. C., & Alterman, A. (2012, June). Does clinical monitoring impact treatment outcomes? Poster presented at the 74th Annual College on Problems of Drug Dependence, Palm Springs, California. |
| Keywords: | RecoveryTrack, TRI, PHMC, concurrent recovery monitoring, CRM, risk factors, protective factors, measurement based care, outcome measurement tools, quality improvement, standardized tool, systematic client feedback, substance use, substance misuse. |
| Submitted By: | Sue Jenkins |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Michael J. Lambert, Ph.D., Gary M. Burlingame, Ph.D. and OQ Measures LLC. |
| Contact: | oqmeasures.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument has a copyright to protect content. Organizations interested in use are required to pay fee based on type of license. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | Also known as the Severe Outcome Questionnaire, the S-OQ® 2.0 is specifically intended to be used with seriously mentally ill clients. The S-OQ® 2.0 provides you a “snapshot” measurement of distress and functioning levels at any given time and tracks changes in such levels across time. 30 questions are from the OQ® 30.2 and the 15 additional questions measure basic functioning and functional impairment. Clinicians can measure patient's progress along these several important dimensions: subjective discomfort (intrapsychic functioning) interpersonal relationships social role performance severe functional impairment The S-OQ® 2.0 provides a marker for degree of disturbance and a way of tracking patient improvement or deterioration. |
| Population: | Measures for the severely mentally ill. |
| Program Setting: | Our measures have been used in a variety of settings including outpatient, inpatient, residential, educational, case/medication management, wilderness, juvenile justice settings, and the military. Relevant findings and norms germane to these different populations can be found in the Administration and Scoring Manuals. |
| Age Range: | 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Weekly or each contact |
| Administration Time: | 5-10 Minutes |
| Scoring Time: | 1-2 minutes. Electronic scoring and reporting is available. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | A range of electronic, web-based and paper-pencil administration and scoring options are available and through licensing. |
| Keywords: | SOQ 2.0 SOQ2.0 measures severely ill micahel lambert gary burlingame outcomes OQ |
| Submitted By: | William Cats Baril |
|---|---|
| Developer: | UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT; ROBERT ALTHOFF; WILLIAM CATS-BARIL; ISABELLE DESJARDINS; SANCHIT MARUTI |
| Contact: | william.cats-baril@uvm.edu |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument requires users to pay a fee per administration. In large volumes, the instrument can be used through a licensing agreement per organization rather than a fee per administration cost. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | Brief questionnaire designed and validated to replicate psychiatrist expert assessment of imminent risk of suicide (risk of dying from suicide in the next 72 hours). Non-linear weights are attributed to each question and supported by neural network branching logic. Typically implemented in settings where systematic suicide risk assessments are required to assess acute risk in real time, like taking a vital sign measuring emotional distress. Instrument classifies patients into 3 categories of risk with sensitivity and reliability scores above 90%. Risk categories are directly aligned with clinicians' needs to perform timely clinical interventions. |
| Population: | Used in emergency room and ambulatory healthcare settings as a screening tool for imminent suicide risk, regardless of presenting chief complaint. Also used in the Department of Corrections and Armed Forces to screen a broad population of individuals. Used in a population 18 y/o and older. |
| Program Setting: | Designed for screening and triage in Emergency Departments. Can be used for screening of imminent suicide risk (risk of suicide in the next 72 hours) in other settings including: Partial Hospitalization Programs, Intensive Outpatient Treatment Programs and other general healthcare ambulatory settings. |
| Age Range: | 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | The tool assesses imminent risk of suicide defined as risk of suicide in the next 72 hours. Depending on setting instrument should be administered at each contact with patient. |
| Administration Time: | Less than 2 minutes. |
| Scoring Time: | The tool scoring is only electronically scored and reported.. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | Electronic administration and scoring. iPad and web-based versions; Epic compatible. Easy interpretation. Clinical decision support. |
| Publications: | "Suicide Risk Assessment in Hospitals: An Expert System-Based Triage Tool," Isabelle Desjardins, MD; William Cats-Baril, PhD; Sanchit Maruti, MD, MS; Kalev Freeman, MD, PhD; and Robert Althoff, MD, PhD, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 77:7July 2016,pp. 874-872 |
| Keywords: | suicide risk assessment, suicide prevention, suicide screening in hospitals |
| Submitted By: | Scott Miller |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Scott D. Miller, Barry L. Duncan, Performance Metrics |
| Contact: | info@scottdmiller.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | The Session Rating Scale (SRS) is a four-item, client completed therapeutic-alliance measure. Like the ORS, the SRS is a visual analogue scale that takes less than a minute to administer, score, and interpret. Items on the scale reflect the classical definition of the alliance first stated by Bordin (1979). The scale assesses four interacting elements, including the quality of the relational bond, as well as the degree of agreement between the client and therapist on the goals, methods, and overall approach of therapy. The cutoff for an alliance measure is the point at which clinicians should be especially alert to the possibility of a rupture in and potential failure of the working relationship. The alliance cutoff enables clinicians to identify those therapeutic relationships that are at a statistically greater risk for client dropouts or experiencing a negative or null outcome from treatment. On the SRS, a score of 36 or below is considered cause for concern because fewer than 24% of cases score lower than 36. Typically, clinicians administer and discuss the results of the scale at the end of each visit. Versions of the scale are available for adults, children, and young children. |
| Population: | The SRS may be used across diagnostic groups and service populations. It has been translated into 28 different languages and is in wide use around the world as a routine outcome measure. |
| Program Setting: | The SRS is used in a variety of mental and physical healthcare settings, including inpatient and outpatient, voluntary and involuntary levels of care. It is transdiagnostic and transtheoretical. |
| Age Range: | 5-12, 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Each contact |
| Administration Time: | 1 minute |
| Scoring Time: | Electronic versions are available from three different vendors (http://www.scottdmiller.com/fit-software-tools/). The scale may be administered in paper and pencil format. Scoring is simple using a metric ruler. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | Three vendors provide electronic administration and scoring (http://www.scottdmiller.com/fit-software-tools/) as well as access to a variety of performance metrics (e.g., effect size calculations for both organization and provider) as well as normative comparisons. The measure was reviewed by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and listed as an evidence-based tool (http://legacy.nreppadmin.net/ViewIntervention.aspx?id=249) |
| Publications: | Quirk, K., Miller, S.D., Duncan, B., & Owens, J. (2012). Group session rating scale: Preliminary psychometrics in substance abuse interventions. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 12, 4, 1-7. Miller, S.D., Duncan, B.L., Sorrell, R., & Brown, G.S. (February, 2005). The Partners for Change Outcome Management System. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(2), 199-208. Duncan, B.L., Miller, S.D., Sparks, J.A., Claud, D.A., Reynolds, L.R., Brown, J., Johnson, L.D. (2003). The session rating scale: Preliminary psychometric properties of a “working alliance” inventory. Journal of Brief Therapy, 3(1), 3-11. |
| Keywords: | Sessions Rating Scale, Alliance measure |
| Submitted By: | Ka Ho Brian Chor |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Praed Foundation |
| Contact: | jlyons@chapinhall.org |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The CANS copyright is held by the Praed Foundation (praedfoundation.org) to ensure the CANS remains free to use. Training and annual certification is expected for appropriate use. |
| Reporter: | Direct Provider (working directly with individual) |
| Description: | The Standard Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths (CANS) Comprehensive is a multi-purpose tool developed to support care planning and level of care decision-making, and to facilitate quality improvement initiatives, while also allowing for the measurement of clinical and functional outcomes of interventions. It was developed from a communication perspective in order to facilitate the linkage between the assessment process and the design of individualized service plans including the application of evidence-based practices. The purpose of the Standard CANS Comprehensive is to accurately represent the shared vision of the child/youth serving system— children, youth, and families. As such, collaborative completion of the Standard CANS Comprehensive as youth and family enter the system is accomplished in order to allow for the effective communication of this shared vision for use at all levels of the system. Since its primary purpose is communication, the Standard CANS Comprehensive is designed based on communication theory, Communimetrics, rather than the psychometric theories that have influenced most measurement development. This measurement theory was specifically designed to facilitate the use of measures of clinical and functional status in complex treatment environments. The unique measurement approach of the CANS requires training and certification for ethical use. While the Standard CANS Comprehensive is the most commonly used version of the tool, many other versions exist. Nearly all versions share a common core set of fifty items that are also on the Standard CANS Comprehensive and many versions contain items specific to the context in which the version is used. All CANS versions have copyright to maintain the intellectual integrity of the approach. There is no charge for use of the CANS, although there is an annual fee for training and certification. |
| Population: | The Standard CANS Comprehensive has been used in multiple youth-serving systems (health, behavioral health, mental health, child welfare, juvenile justice, early intervention) in multiple states (AL, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, KY, LA, ME, MD, MI, MT, NH, NY, OR, PA, SC, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY). The target age range is 0 to 24. Additional items are recommended for children ages 0 to 5 or youth involved in transitions to adulthood, ages 16-24. Completion of the Standard CANS Comprehensive requires that information is collaboratively gathered on a child/youth’s and parents/caregivers’ needs and strengths. Strengths are the child/youth’s assets: areas in life where he or she is doing well or has an interest or ability. Needs are areas where a child/youth requires help or intervention. Care providers use an assessment process to get to know the child or youth and the families with whom they work and to understand their strengths and needs. Providers also obtain information from collateral sources. Information from all sources is integrated into action levels, which represent a shared understanding of a youth’s and caregiver’s needs. The Standard CANS Comprehensive supports a focus on strengths as a basis of the treatment or care plan. Centerpiece strengths are used to promote healthy development. In some circumstances, interventions are used to build strengths rather than to address needs. By working with the child/youth and family collaboratively during the assessment process and talking together about the Standard CANS Comprehensive items and ratings, care providers can develop a treatment or care plan that addresses a child/youth’s strengths and needs while building strong engagement. The Standard CANS Comprehensive represents a formal process to ensure person-centered care. |
| Program Setting: | The Standard CANS Comprehensive is commonly used in community settings that cut across youth-serving systems (health, behavioral health, mental health, child welfare, juvenile justice, early intervention). It is also used in residential programs to assist in integrating these intensive interventions with ongoing community care, and its use with complex health care/medical management programs is growing. The Standard CANS Comprehensive’s applications in assessment, treatment/care planning, outcomes measurement, and communication allow the CANS Comprehensive to be used in various programs and service settings. |
| Age Range: | 0-2, 2-5, 5-12, 12-18, 18-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Varies by setting (e.g., every 30-60 days, every 6 months) |
| Administration Time: | Five to 10 minutes to complete the form, 45 to 90 minutes to listen to youth and families’ story to understand the situation sufficiently to complete the form collaboratively. |
| Scoring Time: | Scoring and reporting are typically embedded in existing electronic health record systems or similar databases customized by each site. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | Both paper-pencil administration and electronic administration and scoring are permissible, depending on the need of each site. |
| Publications: | 1. Anderson, R. L., Estle, G. (2001). Predicting level of mental health care among children served in a delivery system in a rural state. Journal of Rural Health, 17(3), 259-265. 2. Chor, K. H. B., McClelland, G. M., Weiner, D. A., Jordan, N., & Lyons, J. S. (2012). Predicting outcomes of children in residential treatment: A comparison of a decision support algorithm and a multidisciplinary team decision model. Children and Youth Services Review, 34 (12), 2345-2352. 3. Chor, K. H. B., McClelland, G. M., Weiner, D. A., Jordan, N., & Lyons, J. S. (2014). Out-of-home placement decision-making and outcomes in youth welfare: A longitudinal study. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(1), 70-86. 4. Cordell, K. D., Snowden, L. R., & Hosier, L. (2016). Patterns and priorities of service need identified through the Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths (CANS) assessment. Children and Youth Services Review, 60, 129- 135. 5. Epstein, R. A., Schlueter, D., Gracey, K. A., Chandrasekhar, R. & Cull, M. J. (2015). Examining placement disruption in child welfare, Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 32(3), 224-232. 6. Israel, N., Accomazzo, S., Romney, S., & Slatevski, D. (2015). Segregated Care: Local area tests of distinctiveness and discharge criteria. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 32(3), 233-250. 7. Lardner, M. (2015). Are restrictiveness of care decisions based on youth level of need? A multilevel model analysis of placement levels using the Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths assessment. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 32(3), 195-207. 8. Lyons, J. S. (2004). Redressing the Emperor: Improving the children’s public mental health system. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishing. 9. Lyons, J. S. (2009). Communimetrics: A communication theory of measurement in human service settings. New York, NY: Springer. 10. Lyons, J. S. Weiner, D. A. (2009). (Eds.) Strategies in Behavioral Healthcare: Assessment, Treatment Planning, and Total Clinical Outcomes Management. New York, NY: Civic Research Institute. |
| Keywords: | CANS, Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths, Communimetrics, assessment, caregiver, child, outcomes, provider, service, system, treatment, youth |
| Submitted By: | Ravita Maharaj |
|---|---|
| Developer: | The American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Authors include James R. Thompson, Brian R. Bryant, Robert L. Schalock, Karrie A. Shogren, Marc Tasse, Michael L. Wehmeyer, Edward M. Campbell, Ellis M. (Pat) Craig, Carolyn Hughes, David A. Rotholz |
| Contact: | Ravita Maharaj, rmaharaj@aaidd.org; www.aaidd.org/sis |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | SIS-A has a copyright and for large-scale use (organizations, state disability agencies), is used with a licensing agreement. For the individual practitioner, SIS-A requires users to purchase the User's Manual, Interview Profile forms, and recommends completing training. |
| Reporter: | Direct Provider (working directly with individual), Independent Provider (not working directly with individual) |
| Description: | The SIS-A is a standardized assessment that measures the relative intensity of support needs for a person (16-72 years) with intellectual or related developmental disabilities (IDD) to be successful in community life. It was normed on more than 1,500 individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities across the U.S. and Canada. The SIS-A is used in conjunction with the person-centered planning process to develop individualized support plans (ISPs). Aggregate SIS-A scores can also be used at the organizational and jurisdictional levels to inform decision-making about services. It is administered in person by a trained SIS-A interviewer, and requires the participation of at least three respondents who have known the individual who is being assessed for at least three months. |
| Population: | The SIS-A is normed for individuals 16 years and older with an intellectual or related developmental disability. |
| Program Setting: | The SIS-A can be used in any setting that serves individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities to assess the support needs across Exceptional Medical and Behavioral Support Needs; Life Activities domains to include: Home Living, Community Living, Lifelong Learning, Employment, Health & Safety, Social; and Protection & Advocacy. |
| Age Range: | 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | The SIS-A can be administered once every 3-5 years |
| Administration Time: | 2 - 2.5 hours |
| Scoring Time: | Scoring can be completed electronically or using pen and paper. The electronic platform is used by organizations adminstering 100 + assessments on an annual basis. The pen and paper scoring is appropriate for individual practitioners. Each section of the SIS-A is scored using rating measures. Section 1 (Extraordinary Medical and Behavioral Support Needs scores are summed to create a total raw score. Section 2: The Support Needs Index, subscale raw scores are summed up and converted to subscal standard scores, and then summed to determine a corresponding composite standard score and percentile rank. Section 3: Supplemental and Protection and Advocacy Scale, the four items with the highest raw score totals are noted. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | Two options exist for administration of SIS-A-- (i) SISOnline which is the technological platform used to adminisiter and generate reports, and used by mid-large scale agencies. (ii) Paper-pencil version which requires purchase of the SIS-A User's Manual and Interview Profile forms. This option is recommended for users who will administer less than 50 assessments annually. Several translations of the SIS-A include Icelandic, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, Latvian. |
| Publications: | Thompson, J. R., Schalock, R. L., Agosta, J., Teninty, L., & Fortune, J. (2014). How the Supports Paradigm is Transforming the Developmental Disabilities Service System. Inclusion, 2, 86-99. Thompson, J. R., Bradley, V. J., Buntinx, W. H. E., Schalock, R. L., Shogren, K. A., Snell, M. E., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2009). Conceptualizing supports and the support needs of people with intellectual disability. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 135-146. |
| Keywords: | supports, intellectual disability |
| Submitted By: | Richard West |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Richard P. West, PhD, Matthew J. Taylor, PhD, Tetra Outcomes |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | Organizations pay a monthly licensing fee. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | Tetra Outcomes is a cloud-based, HIPAA-compliant solution that is designed to illuminate the Conditions for Treatment, and put those conditions in the hands of providers. Our data allow therapists and counselors to target treatment and make better decisions. One of the most revolutionary and unique features of Tetra Outcomes is the frequency of feedback from the clients in treatment. When providers have access to frequent feedback from their most important stakeholders (their clients) they will be more likely to change their treatment in ways that are immediately understood by their clients. With feedback in hand, providers can make data-based decisions and manage the conditions necessary for effective treatment and its outcomes. |
| Population: | Patients receiving substance use disorder treatment or behavioral health treatment. |
| Program Setting: | Any residential or outpatient addiction treatment setting, including detox, partial hospitalization, medication management, or recovery residences. |
| Age Range: | 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Tetra recommends a weekly administration |
| Administration Time: | 1-2 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | Instantaneous. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | Assessments are collected via a secure, HIPAA-compliant web-based software, accessible by any phone, tablet, or computer. Therapists, clinicians, and facility managers access the results via a secure database. Electronic administration, scoring and reporting. Web-based tools. Translated into Spanish and Portuguese. |
| Keywords: | accreditation, evidence-based practice, measurement-based care, progress monitoring, outcome measures |
| Submitted By: | Katherine Ingram |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Lovibond and Lovibond |
| Proprietary: | Instrument in public domain |
| Restrictions: | The DASS questionnaire is a public domain, and so permission is not needed to use it. The DASS questionnaires and scoring key may be downloaded from the DASS website and copied without restriction. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | The Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale - 21 Items (DASS-21) is a set of three self-report scales designed to measure the emotional states of depression, anxiety and stress. Each of the three DASS-21 scales contains 7 items, divided into subscales with similar content. The depression scale assesses dysphoria, hopelessness, devaluation of life, self-deprecation, lack of interest / involvement, anhedonia and inertia. The anxiety scale assesses autonomic arousal, skeletal muscle effects, situational anxiety, and subjective experience of anxious affect. The stress scale is sensitive to levels of chronic nonspecific arousal. It assesses difficulty relaxing, nervous arousal, and being easily upset / agitated, irritable / over-reactive and impatient. Scores for depression, anxiety and stress are calculated by summing the scores for the relevant items. The DASS-21 is based on a dimensional rather than a categorical conception of psychological disorder. The assumption on which the DASS-21 development was based (and which was confirmed by the research data) is that the differences between the depression, anxiety and the stress experienced by normal subjects and clinical populations are essentially differences of degree. The DASS-21 therefore has no direct implications for the allocation of patients to discrete diagnostic categories postulated in classificatory systems such as the DSM and ICD. |
| Population: | Intended to serve a broad population to supplement diagnostic criteria |
| Program Setting: | across all levels of care |
| Age Range: | 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | monthly |
| Administration Time: | 12 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | 10 minutes |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | electronic administration and scoring, paper-pencil administration scoring, web-based tools, clinical decision support, translated versions, ADA accessibility options, |
| Publications: | Tran, T. D., Tran, T., & Fisher, J. (2013). Validation of the depression anxiety stress scales (DASS) 21 as a screening instrument for depression and anxiety in a rural community-based cohort of northern Vietnamese women. BMC psychiatry, 13, 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-13-24 Le, M., Tran, T. D., Holton, S., Nguyen, H. T., Wolfe, R., & Fisher, J. (2017). Reliability, convergent validity and factor structure of the DASS-21 in a sample of Vietnamese adolescents. PloS one, 12(7), e0180557. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180557 Liu WJ, Musa R, Chew TF, Lim CTS, Morad Z, Bujang MAB. DASS21: A Useful Tool in the Psychological Profile Evaluation of Dialysis Patients. Am J Med Sci. 2018;355(4):322-330. doi:10.1016/j.amjms.2017.11.015 |
| Keywords: | DASS-21 |
| Submitted By: | Wade Berstler |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Flaar tech solutions; Edwin Perez, Gregory Kitzen, Dr.Wade Berstler, Peter Honore, Travis Ealy |
| Contact: | WadeBerstler@flaar.org (Clinical)1-888-442-2155 EdPerez@flaar.org (Administrative) 1-888-442-2155 |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | No restrictions, upgrade available |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Direct Provider (working directly with individual), Independent Provider (not working directly with individual) |
| Description: | FLAAR is a multi-faceted outcome based after care rehabilitation continuum, supported by Brief Addiction Monitoring (BAM) for those housed in substance-free living facilities. The FLAAR Client Enrichment Platform (CEP) offers outcome based multi-dimensional treatment and monitoring with resources including, but not limited to, peer support, life skills training, GED completion, resume development, job placement assistance, vocational enhancement, proper health and nutrition, and courses focusing on skills and knowledge needed in the early stages of substance-free living. Advanced tools are also available. Subsidies are available for clients qualifying for financial need. All outcome based resources work in conjunction with a FLAAR smartphone application available to all clients for monitoring, and ensure timely apprises to bolster relapse prevention. The data tracking allows for real time client assessment, and custom designed adjustments can be made in each client’s rehabilitation program. FLAAR outcomes are statistically supported with empirical data provided by BAM. |
| Population: | Adult clients 18 or older. |
| Program Setting: | Residential after care substance-free living facilities |
| Age Range: | 18-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Monthly; Administration of FLAAR outcome based monitoring- Daily |
| Administration Time: | Five Minutes |
| Scoring Time: | 10 minutes-BAM |
| Benchmark Data: | No |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | Computer driven, mobile application based |
| Publications: | (1) Cacciola, JS, Alterman, AI, DePhilippis, D, Drapkin, ML, Valadez Jr, C, Fala, NC, Oslin, D, McKay, JR. (2012). Development and initial evaluation of the Brief Addiction Monitor (BAM). The Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 44(3):256–263. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2012.07.013. (2) Chih, M-Y, Patton, T, McTavish, FM, Isham, AJ, Judkins-Fisher, CL, Atwood, AK, Gustafson, DH. (2014). Predictive modeling of addiction lapses in a mobile health application. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 46, 29-35. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2013.08.004 (3)Technology-based interventions for the treatment and recovery management of substance use disorders: A JSAT special issue. Marsch, Lisa A. et al. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , 1 - 4 |
| Keywords: | BAM, FLAAR, addiction, after care, aftercare continuum, outcomes, recovery, rehabilitation, substance abuse |
| Submitted By: | Wade Berstler |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Flaar tech solutions; Edwin Perez, Gregory Kitzen, Dr.Wade Berstler, Peter Honore, Travis Ealy |
| Contact: | WadeBerstler@flaar.org (Clinical)1-888-442-2155 EdPerez@flaar.org (Administrative) 1-888-442-2155 |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | No restrictions, upgrade available |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | FLAAR is a multi-faceted outcome based after care rehabilitation continuum, supported by Brief Addiction Monitoring (BAM) for those housed in substance-free living facilities. The FLAAR Client Enrichment Platform (CEP) offers outcome based multi-dimensional treatment and monitoring with resources including, but not limited to, peer support, life skills training, GED completion, resume development, job placement assistance, vocational enhancement, proper health and nutrition, and courses focusing on skills and knowledge needed in the early stages of substance-free living. Advanced tools are also available. Subsidies are available for clients qualifying for financial need. All outcome based resources work in conjunction with a FLAAR smartphone application available to all clients for monitoring, and ensure timely apprises to bolster relapse prevention. The data tracking allows for real time client assessment, and custom designed adjustments can be made in each client’s rehabilitation program. FLAAR outcomes are statistically supported with empirical data provided by BAM. |
| Population: | Adult clients 18 or older. |
| Program Setting: | All outpatient after care clients |
| Age Range: | 18-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Monthly; Administration of FLAAR outcome based monitoring-Daily. |
| Administration Time: | Five Minutes |
| Scoring Time: | 10 minutes |
| Benchmark Data: | No |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | Supported by BAM (Brief Addiction Monitor |
| Keywords: | FLAAR, BAM, outcomes, after care, recovery, rehabilitation, addiction, substance abuse, aftercare continuum |
| Submitted By: | Mike Petree |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Petree Consulting Inc. |
| Contact: | mike@remoteresearchdirector.com 435-669-9852 |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | Service and dashboard are only accessible to paying subscribers |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Direct Provider (working directly with individual), Independent Provider (not working directly with individual), Parent/Guardian, Teacher, Employer, Other |
| Description: | The Remote Research Director (RRD) Service hosts a large library of instruments from which users can choose. The Remote Research Director Dashboard (R2D2)automatically assigns and delivers surveys via email, tablet/computer, text or on paper. Results are immediately scored and graphed for use in routine outcomes monitoring. R2D2 makes the job of data collection easier through prioritized task lists and other tools designed for research coordinators. RRD personnel provide ongoing person-to-person trainings and review each subscriber's account weekly to encourage maximum data collection success. |
| Population: | R2D2 has a large library of instruments that cover a wide range of populations, diagnosis & treatment milieu. |
| Program Setting: | All types |
| Age Range: | 0-2, 2-5, 5-12, 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | All ranges |
| Administration Time: | n/a |
| Scoring Time: | n/a |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Administration Options: | R2D2 is a web based system. Surveys can be completed on any device with web access. It includes a Feedback Informed Treatment dashboard that is easy to access during sessions as well as data collection tracking tools to make the job easier. |
| Keywords: | Feedback Informed Treatment |
| Submitted By: | Ravita Maharaj |
|---|---|
| Developer: | AAIDD is the publisher. Authors include James R. Thompson, Michael L. Wehymer, Carolyn Hughes, Karrie A. Shogren, Hyojeong Seo, Todd D. Little, Robert L. Schalock, Rodney E. Realon, Susan R. Copeland, James R. Patton, Edward A. Polloway, Debbie Shelden, Shea Tanis, Marc J. Tasse |
| Contact: | Ravita Maharaj, (202) 387-1968, or https://www.aaidd.org/sis/sis-c |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | For mid-large scale organizations (e.g. disability state agencies, human services providers), an annual licensing agreement is required to use SISOnline, the technological and reporting platform, plus per assessment and user fees. For the individual or small business that will administer less than 100 assessments annually, users purchase the hard copy Interview and Profile forms plus the User's Manual. |
| Reporter: | Direct Provider (working directly with individual), Independent Provider (not working directly with individual), Teacher |
| Description: | The SIS-C is a standardized measure of the intensity of support needs of children (age 5-16) with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Age bands cover two-year cycles to include 5-7, 8-10, 11-13, 14-16 years. The SIS-C is administered via a structured interview facilitated by an interviewer, and include respondents who know the individual at least three months across various settings. SIS-C covers the following: Section 1: Exceptional Medical and Behavioral Support Needs; Section 2: Support Needs Index that uses three measures (type, frequency, and time) to rate activities in subscales: Home Life, Community & Neighborhood, School Participation, School Learning, Health& Safety, Social, Advocacy. |
| Population: | SIS-A was normed on children (age 5-16) with intellectual and other related developmental disabilities. |
| Program Setting: | SIS-C is used in human services and other professional settings that serve children with intellectual and other related developmental disabilities, and which can be administered by psychologists, special education teachers, case managers, social workers, speech and language therapists. |
| Age Range: | 2-5, 5-12, 12-18 |
| Administration Frequency: | SIS-C is administered every two years |
| Administration Time: | Average time in 2 - 2.5 hours |
| Scoring Time: | SIS-C can be scored manually with the use of the User's Manual and its Appendices. Or, scores and reports can be generated electronically using SISOnline, the technological platform appropriate for the administration of 100+ assessments on an annual basis. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | The SIS-C should be administered by a person who has completed at least a baccalaureate degree and has experience working in the field of human services with children with intellectual disability. It is the interviewer's responsibility to integrate information from multiple respondents (who know the child best in multiple settings). SIS-C can be administered using pen-paper (i.e. SIS-C User's Manual and the Interview Profile forms), or elctronically, using SISOnline, a technological platform that provides scores and generates reports. The SISOnline option is ideal for mid-large scale entities, while the pen-paper scoring is better suited for the small-scale, individual practitioner. |
| Publications: | Seo, H., Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Little, T.D. & Palmer, S.B. (2017). The impact of medical/behavioral support needs on the supports needed by adolescents with intellectual disability to participate in community life. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 122, 173-191. Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Seo., H., Thompson, J. R., Schalock, R. L., Hughes, C., Little, T. D., & Palmer, S. B. (2016). Examining the reliability and validity of the Supports Intensity Scale – Children’s version in children with autism and intellectual disability. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities. Shogren, K. A., Seo, H. S., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Thompson, J. R., Hughes, C. & Little, T. D. (2015). Support needs of children with intellectual and developmental disabilities: Age related implications for assessment. Psychology in the Schools, 52, 874-891. |
| Keywords: | intellectual and developmental disability, supports |
| Submitted By: | Jared Dempsey |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Kitty S. Harris, Ph.D. and Jared P. Dempsey, Ph.D. |
| Contact: | (888) 792-7106, Contact@Trac9.com, www.Trac9.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument requires a licensing agreement per organization rather than a fee per administration cost. For pricing for a particular facility, email contact@trac9.com or call (888) 792-7106. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | Trac9 conducted a thorough investigation in the scientific literature to identify factors associated with successful treatment and long-term abstinence. From this investigation, 9 instruments were identified including the factors of depression, anxiety, stress, visual response to cravings, verbal response to cravings, spirituality, commitment to sobriety, optimism, and quality of life. As each standardized instrument has individual scaling ranges, each measure is rescaled to 0 being the lowest possible score and 100 being the highest possible score. This allows for easy interpretation and direct comparison to other variables. Standard scale values are also provided to facilitate communication with accrediting bodies, insurance companies, and external treatment providers. To evaluate sensitivity to change, 1,892 patients in residential treatment for substance use disorder were analyzed. This included 13 facilities located across all regions of the United States. Initially, all 9 instruments, on converted scale, were combined into a single factor, Global Recovery Score (GRS). All instruments assessing pathology were reversed prior to creation of the GRS, allowing for a single factor in which increasing values represent patient improvement. A repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted for GRS score during week 1 of treatment and GRS score at week 4 of treatment. The omnibus test showed a significant change across time, F(1, 1891) = 3451.69, p < .001. Week 1 scores had an average of 54.32 (SD = 14.82) and Week 4 average of 73.33 (SD = 14.55). This reflects an average improvement rate of 35% across all facilities at week 4 of treatment. Additionally, all individual measures significantly improved when statistical tests were performed per measure. Outcome assessment are provided for all individuals assessed by Trac9, with monthly, anonymous follow-ups occurring for an entire year. These follow-up responses have the option to be compensated which significantly enhances compliance rates. |
| Population: | Trac9.com is an instrument exclusively for substance use disorder populations. The specific standardized instruments selected were based on research publications on this population. |
| Program Setting: | Trac9 is appropriate for residential, partial hospitalization, and outpatient treatment of substance use disorder. |
| Age Range: | 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Weekly |
| Administration Time: | 12 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | All data is automatically scored, charted, and displayed |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | The data is aggregated to allow for several different features using the same data. Clinical Monitoring: client symptoms shown in real-time with automatic scoring and graphing. Facility-Level Supervision: Monitor multiple facilities in real-time on one live chart and identify targeted areas of growth before problems occur. AMA Predictive Analytics: Predictive statistics identify clients at high risk of treatment failure based on pattern of response to first assessment. Clinical Supervision: Monitor average clinician results for patient outcomes in real time and identify unique strengths in staff. Outcomes Data: Outcome assessments collected one time per month, for 12 months, after treatment. Data is collected anonymously to ensure honesty. |
| Publications: | Trac9 Depression Instrument: Conner, K. R., Pinquart, M. and Duberstein, P. R. (2008), Meta‐analysis of depression and substance use and impairment among intravenous drug users (IDUs). Addiction, 103: 524-534. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.02118.x Trac9 Anxiety Instrument: Allan, N. P., Albanese, B. J., Norr, A. M., Zvolensky, M. J. and Schmidt, N. B. ( 2015) Effects of anxiety sensitivity on alcohol problems: evaluating chained mediation through generalized anxiety, depression and drinking motives, Addiction, 110, 260– 268, doi: 10.1111/add.12739. Book, S. W., Thomas, S. E., Dempsey, J. P., Randall, P. K., & Randall, C. L. (2009). Social anxiety impacts willingness to participate in addiction treatment. Addictive Behaviors, 34(5), 474-476. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.12.011 |
| Submitted By: | Iris Santiago |
|---|---|
| Developer: | David Kraus, PhD |
| Contact: | sales@outcomereferrals.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument has copyright, but no royalty fees. Must use WellnessCheck.net. After six month free introductory period, the instrument requires users to pay a fee per unique client assessed, per year. This includes unlimited administrations throughout the contract year. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Direct Provider (working directly with individual), Independent Provider (not working directly with individual), Parent/Guardian, Teacher, Employer, Other |
| Description: | Save time and let TOP's WellnessCheck.net full-service application help you meet all Joint Commission standards. TOP was developed and improved over the last 30 years by leading experts in the field: • Real-time client reports designed by clinicians for review with patients; • Aggregate reports and benchmarks that meet Joint Commission standards; • Easiest to use system; • Best science, including exceptional predictive validity; • Best sensitivity to change; • Largest industry benchmarking database; • Paper, online, and tablet applications; • Come in child, adult and adolescent tool kits |
| Population: | Broad population. TOP measures 20 domains including attention and conduct problems, depressions, eating issues, sleep problems, worrisome sexual behavior and functioning, substance abuse, suicidality, and violence. |
| Program Setting: | Most programs/services/settings |
| Age Range: | 2-5, 5-12, 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | varies--weekly up to every 90 days |
| Administration Time: | less than 10 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | electronic scoring and reporting; report available within minutes |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | Electronic administration and scoring Paper-pencil administration with electronic scoring Web-based tool Clinical decision support Available in English and Spanish, more languages in development |
| Publications: | 1) Boswell JF, Kraus DR, Miller SD and Lambert MJ. Implementing routine outcome monitoring in clinical practice: Benefits, challenges, and solutions. Psychotherapy Research. 2015; 25 (1):6-19. 2) Kraus DR, Seligman DA and Jordan JR. Validation of a behavioral health treatment outcome and assessment tool designed for naturalistic settings: the Treatment Outcome Package. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2005; 61 (3):285-314. 3) Kraus DR, Wolf A and Castonguay L. The outcomes assistant: a kinder philosophy to the management of outcomes. Psychotherapy Official Publication of Division 29 of the American Psychological Association. 2006; 41 (3):23-31. |
| Keywords: | mental health assessment; joint commission standards; depression screening tools; mental health assessment tool; measurement based care |
| Submitted By: | Laura Dietzen |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Tridiuum, Inc. |
| Contact: | Mark Redlus (m.redlus@tridiuum.com) |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument requires a licensing agreement per organization rather than a fee per administration. Cost depends on organization size and anticipated volume. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | T1BH measures depression (PHQ9), anxiety (GAD7), trauma (PC-PTSD), substance use (modified AUDIT and DAST), suicide ideation, harm to others, psychiatric history and therapeutic alliance. The T1BH provides individual real time reports and alerts for the domains above. In addition, the T1BH system provides a Behavioral Health Impairment (BHI) index score; a composite score indicating overall behavioral health impairment. The patient receives a BHI each time they complete an assessment that is tracked along an expected treatment response (ETR) curve. The ETR is a predictive model based on the patient’s intake assessment indicating their progress across the course of treatment. The BHI has been normed for adults (>18 years) and youth (12 - 17 years). To date, the BHI has been used to monitor treatment of over 300,000 patients since it's original development nearly two decades ago. Typically, the patient completes the assessment at each treatment session. |
| Population: | T1BH was originally designed for use with patients seeking mental health (MH) treatment in outpatient settings regardless of treatment modality or diagnostic category. However the T1BH has been used to assess behavioral health in the following settings: cardiology, oncology, emergency medicine, domestic violence shelters, addiction centers, and inpatient MH settings. T1BH will soon be administered in gynecology clinics and in primary care offices. A new version for youth and parent/guardians is currently under development. |
| Program Setting: | T1BH has been used in a wide variety of care settings with a range of treatment modalities, including outpatient mental health, intensive-outpatient mental health (MH) , residential programs, inpatient MH, short-term acute care, medication management, group therapy, physician offices and domestic violence shelters, among others. |
| Age Range: | 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | An Intake assessment is completed at the first visit and Updates are given throughout the course of treatment at intervals determined by the customer to meet their needs. |
| Administration Time: | Intake (18 - 37 items), 5 - 10 minutes; Updates (12 - 33 items) 5-8 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | The assessment is scored electronically in real time with reports immediately available to providers. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Administration Options: | T1BH is part of an integrated assessment, scoring, data warehouse and analytics platform. The assessment is given and scored electronically using computers or iPad interfaces. Responses are scored in real time. Results are shown on detailed reports that include alerts and clinical decision support, which can be used immediately by providers during the therapeutic session. Program-level metrics are available through an analytics dashboard, with the ability to also view individual clients. The assessment is available in English and Spanish. |
| Publications: | Howard KI, Moras K, Brill P, Matinovich Z, Lutz W. Efficacy, effectiveness, and patient progress. American Psychologist, 1996: 51(10), 1059 - 1064. Grissom G, Lyons J, Lutz W. Standing on the shoulders of a giant: Development of an outcome management system based on the dose model and phase theory of psychotherapy. Psychotherapy Research, 2002; 12(4):397-412. O’Hea EL, Cutillo AS, Dietzen L, Harralson T, Grissom G, Person S, Boudreaux ED. The Mental Health and Dynamic Referral for Oncology (MHADRO): Methodology of a multi-site Randomized Control Trial. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2013; 35(1): 15-24. |
| Keywords: | BHI, BHS, Expected Treatment Response ETR, Polaris Health Directions |
| Submitted By: | Brett Talbot |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Videra Health, Brett Talbot, PhD |
| Contact: | support@viderahealth.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | Providers are required to sign a contract with Videra Health prior to gaining access to the portal and services. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | Videra Health is an innovative online platform that facilitates measurement-based care in diverse clinical environments through the use of automated AI-assisted video assessments, going beyond traditional surveys. With Videra, providers have the flexibility to select from a library of pre-designed assessments from Videra or other sources or create customized assessments tailored to their patients' needs. These assessments are conveniently delivered to patients outside of regular visits (via text or email) at the desired frequency. Videra Health gathers sophisticated data about the emotional and behavioral state of patients by analyzing the patient's voice, language, face, and movement. The platform's AI analytics automatically score the assessments, providing real-time interpretations and reports to the provider. Videra's advanced provider portal features intuitive dashboards with actionable alerts that enable seamless integration of assessment results into clinical decision-making processes. |
| Population: | Videra Health has been used to screen and monitor health conditions in children, adolescents, adults, and geriatric populations. |
| Program Setting: | Videra health is applicable to all types of settings. |
| Age Range: | 5-12, 12-18, 18-65, over-65 |
| Administration Frequency: | Can be set to any frequency, with the ability to modify frequency at any time. |
| Administration Time: | Variable depending on assessment length, but most take between 3 and 10 minutes. |
| Scoring Time: | Assessments are immediately scored and available on the Videra Health platform. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | Web-based administration via personal device with audio and video capability (e.g. smartphone, tablet, computer). No log in is needed for the patient to complete the assessment. English and Spanish are available with more language offerings in development. |
| Publications: | Grimm, B.; Talbot, B.; Larsen, L. PHQ-V/GAD-V: Assessments to Identify Signals of Depression and Anxiety from Patient Video Responses. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9150. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12189150 Wang, J.; Zhang, L.; Liu, T.; Pan, W.; Hu, B.; Zhu, T. Acoustic Differences between Healthy and Depressed People: A Cross- Situation Study. BMC Psychiatry 2019, 19, 300. |
| Keywords: | AI, Artificial Intelligence, Screening, Measurement based care, Analytics, Automated scoring, Customizable, Patient Engagement, Remote patient monitoring, Asynchronous, Data Collection, RPM, Video |
| Submitted By: | Mitch Staley |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Helix Business Solutions, MDed |
| Contact: | https://vitalchild.solutions/contact/ |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | VitalChild’s Multi-Dimensional Youth Assessment 360 has a copyright to protect content. States, counties or organizations interested in using VitalChild are required to pay an annual subscription fee, per youth, for unlimited data collection. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client), Direct Provider (working directly with individual), Independent Provider (not working directly with individual), Parent/Guardian, Teacher, Employer, Other |
| Description: | VitalChild is a combined case management solution and outcomes monitoring system designed for use across the sectors of care within the child welfare; children and family services, foster care, juvenile justice, residential treatment, inpatient & outpatient service delivery. A robust Case Management component enables staff to efficiently and securely upload and access images, reports and data through a mobile platform. VitalChild also includes the Multi-Dimensional Youth Assessment 360 (MDYA360) Outcomes monitoring System accompanied by a Resource Library with a variety of measures and forms to be used to best address the needs of the youth and families, examine accountability within systems of care, and provide durable indicators of treatment outcomes. Data collection can be scheduled so youth/caregiver/staff are automatically prompted at scheduled intervals. The system is trauma-informed, child-centered, family-focused and strength-based. Reports, based on collected data, are automatically generated in real-time and continuously updated. Reports include facility safety status updates, clinical insights, treatment plans, Judge’s Decision Guide, and Level of Care indicators, among others. |
| Population: | Children, youth and caregivers. |
| Program Setting: | Child welfare, children services, foster homes, juvenile justice, residential treatment, inpatient, outpatient |
| Age Range: | 0-2, 2-5, 5-12, 12-18 |
| Administration Frequency: | Flexible |
| Administration Time: | Variable, depends on assessment tool used. Typically, 15-35 minutes. |
| Scoring Time: | Automated, real-time scoring. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Proprietary |
| Administration Options: | A range of electronic, mobile and web-based administration and scoring options are available through vendor contract. |
| Publications: | Corrigan, M. W., Grove, D. and Vincent, P. F. (2011). Multi-Dimensional Education: A Common Sense Approach to Data-Driven Thinking. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Corrigan, M. W., Grove, D., Vincent, P. F., Chapman, P. E., & Walls, R. T. (2007). The importance of multi-dimensional baseline measurements to assessment of integrated character education models. Journal of Research in Character Education, 5(2), 103-129. Corrigan, M. W., Grove, D. & Gargani, J. (April, 2012). The Variance of Accountability: Investigating Achievement Scores Through Applied Multi-Dimensional Assessment. Paper presented at American Education Research Association 2012 conference in Vancouver, Canada. Vital Child Product Overview available at https://vitalchild.solutions |
| Keywords: | CCWIS, Case Management, Child Welfare, Helix, Oracle, VitalChild |
| Submitted By: | Sue Jenkins |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Gary M. Burlingame, Ph.D., Michael J. Lambert Ph.D., and OQ Measures LLC. |
| Contact: | oqmeasures.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument has a copyright to protect content. Organizations interested in use are required to pay fee based on type of license. |
| Reporter: | Parent/Guardian |
| Description: | The Y-OQ®-2.01 is a 64 item report completed by the parent/guardian. It is a measure of treatment progress for children and adolescents (ages 4-17) receiving mental health intervention. It is designed to reflect the total amount of distress a child or adolescent is experiencing. |
| Population: | General mental health for clients aged 4-17. |
| Program Setting: | Our measures have been used in a variety of settings including outpatient, inpatient, residential, educational, case/medication management, wilderness, juvenile justice settings, and the military. Relevant findings and norms germane to these different populations can be found in the Administration and Scoring Manuals. |
| Age Range: | 5-12, 12-18 |
| Administration Frequency: | Weekly or each contact |
| Administration Time: | 5-10 Minutes |
| Scoring Time: | 2-5 Minutes |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | A range of electronic, web-based and paper-pencil administration and scoring options are available and through licensing. |
| Publications: | Warren, J. S., Nelson, P.L., Mondragon, S. A., Baldwin, S. A., & Burlingame, G. M. (2010). Youth psychotherapy change Trajectories and outcomes in Usual care settings. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 78, 144-155. Nelson, P. L., Warren, J. S., Gleave, R. L., & Burlingame, (2013). Youth psychotherapy change trajectories and early warning system accuracy in a managed care setting. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69, 880.895. Bishop, M., Bybee, T. Lambert, M. J., Burlingame, G. M., Wells, G. M. & Poppleton, L. (2005). Accuracy of a rationally derived method for identifying treatment failure in children and adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 14, 207-222 |
| Keywords: | OQ Y-OQ YOQ Y-OQ2.01 2.01 instruments measures outcomes michael lambert gary burlingame youth |
| Submitted By: | Sue Jenkins |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Gary M. Burlingame, Ph.D., Michael J. Lambert Ph.D. |
| Contact: | oqmeasures.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument has a copyright to protect content. Organizations interested in use are required to pay fee based on type of license. |
| Reporter: | Parent/Guardian |
| Description: | The Y-OQ® 2.01 TA is a new measure which includes the Y-OQ® 2.01 and 4 questions about the Therapeutic Alliance. The goal of the 4 Therapeutic Alliance questions is to assess your client's perception of the relationship between you and your client. While it may be reassuring to know that clients have very positive feelings about their relationship with you, it is more helpful in a problem-solving mode to identify ruptures in the relationship and move to repair them. The Y-OQ®-2.01 is a 64 item report completed by the parent/guardian. It is a measure of treatment progress for children and adolescents (ages 4-17) receiving mental health intervention. It is designed to reflect the total amount of distress a child or adolescent is experiencing. |
| Population: | General mental health for clients aged 4-17. |
| Program Setting: | Our measures have been used in a variety of settings including outpatient, inpatient, residential, educational, case/medication management, wilderness, juvenile justice settings, and the military. Relevant findings and norms germane to these different populations can be found in the Administration and Scoring Manuals. |
| Age Range: | 5-12, 12-18 |
| Administration Frequency: | Weekly or each contact as needed |
| Administration Time: | 5-7 Minutes |
| Scoring Time: | 1-2 minutes. Electronic scoring and reporting is available. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | A range of electronic, web-based and paper-pencil administration and scoring options are available and through licensing. |
| Publications: | Brett M Merrill, Jared Scott Warren, Darren J Garcia, Sam A Hardy (2015). Youth motivation as a predictor of treatment outcomes in a community mental health system. Psychotherapy Research. Jared Scott Warren, Benjamin Salazar (2014). Youth Self-Efficacy Domains as Predictors of Change in Routine Community Mental Health Services. Psychotherapy Research. Golee F. Abrishami, Jared Scott Warren (2013). Therapeutic alliance and outcomes in children and adolescents served in a community mental health system. Journal of Child and Adolescent Behavior. Jared Scott Warren, Charles R. Brown, Christopher M. Layne, Philip L. & Nelson (2011). Parenting self-efficacy as a predictor of child psychotherapy outcomes in usual care: A multi-dimensional approach. Psychotherapy Research. |
| Keywords: | OQ Y-OQ YOQ Y-OQ2.01 2.01 instruments measures outcomes michael lambert gary burlingame youth TA Y-OQTA therapeutic alliance |
| Submitted By: | Sue Jenkins |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Gary M. Burlingame, PH.D. M. Gawain Wells, PH.D., Michael J. Lambert, PH.D., & Curtis W. Reisinger, PH.D. |
| Contact: | oqmeasures.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument has a copyright to protect content. Organizations interested in use are required to pay fee based on type of license. |
| Reporter: | Parent/Guardian |
| Description: | The Y-OQ® 30.2 is designed to be administered to a youth/adolescent and administered by a parent/guardian. The Y-OQ® 30.2 clinician reports allow you to track your clients' progress and find the ones who are not-on-track. The Y-OQ® 30.2 provides insight to clinicians on a client's progress during treatment by providing reliable data on the client. The Y-OQ® 30.2 is brief to complete (it takes less than 5 minutes) and your clinician report is available to you in 3 seconds. It is designed to be incorporated into therapy in an unobtrusive manner. |
| Population: | General mental health for clients under the age of 18. |
| Program Setting: | Our measures have been used in a variety of settings including outpatient, inpatient, residential, educational, case/medication management, wilderness, juvenile justice settings, and the military. Relevant findings and norms germane to these different populations can be found in the Administration and Scoring Manuals. |
| Age Range: | 5-12, 12-18 |
| Administration Frequency: | Weekly or each contact |
| Administration Time: | Less than 5 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | 1-2 minutes. Electronic scoring and reporting is available. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | A range of electronic, web-based and paper-pencil administration and scoring options are available and through licensing. |
| Publications: | Burlingame, G., Wells, A., Lambert, M. & Cox, J. (2004). Youth Outcome Questionnaire: Updated psychometric properties. In M. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcome assessment (3rd ed, Volume 2). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; pp 235-274. Dunn, T., Burlingame, G., Walbridge, M., Smith, J. & Crumb, M. & (in press) Outcome assessment for children and adolescents: Psychometric validation of the Youth Outcome Questionnaire 30.1 (Y-OQ 30.1), Journal of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Albright, A., Michael, K., Massey, C., Sale, R. Kirk, A., & Egan, T. (2013). An evaluation of an interdisciplinary rural school mental health program in Appalachia. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1754730X.20132013.808890 |
| Keywords: | youth outcome measures OQ Y-OQ YOQ Y-OQ 30.2 YOQ30 michael lambert gary burlingame instruments |
| Submitted By: | Sue Jenkins |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Gary M. Burlingame, PH.D. M. Gawain Wells, PH.D., Michael J. Lambert, PH.D., & Curtis W. Reisinger, PH.D. |
| Contact: | oqmeasures.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument has a copyright to protect content. Organizations interested in use are required to pay fee based on type of license. |
| Reporter: | Parent/Guardian |
| Description: | The Y-OQ® 30.2 TA is a measure that includes the Y-OQ® 30.2 and other questions designed to identify and assess the therapeutic alliance between the clinician and the client. The Y-OQ® 30.2 is designed to be administered to a youth/adolescent and administered by a parent/guardian. The Y-OQ® 30.2 clinician reports allow you to track your clients' progress and find the ones who are not-on-track. The Y-OQ® 30.2 provides insight to clinicians on a client's progress during treatment by providing reliable data on the client. The Y-OQ® 30.2 is brief to complete (it takes less than 5 minutes) and your clinician report is available to you in 3 seconds. It is designed to be incorporated into therapy in an unobtrusive manner. |
| Population: | General mental health for clients under the age of 18. |
| Program Setting: | Our measures have been used in a variety of settings including outpatient, inpatient, residential, educational, case/medication management, wilderness, juvenile justice settings, and the military. Relevant findings and norms germane to these different populations can be found in the Administration and Scoring Manuals. |
| Age Range: | 5-12, 12-18 |
| Administration Frequency: | Weekly or each contact as needed |
| Administration Time: | Less than 5 minutes |
| Scoring Time: | 1-2 minutes. Electronic scoring and reporting is available. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | A range of electronic, web-based and paper-pencil administration and scoring options are available and through licensing |
| Publications: | Brett M Merrill, Jared Scott Warren, Darren J Garcia, Sam A Hardy (2015). Youth motivation as a predictor of treatment outcomes in a community mental health system. Psychotherapy Research. Golee F. Abrishami, Jared Scott Warren (2013). Therapeutic alliance and outcomes in children and adolescents served in a community mental health system. Journal of Child and Adolescent Behavior. Jared Scott Warren, Philip L Nelson, Gary Michael Burlingame, Sasha A Mondragon (2012). Predicting patient deterioration in youth mental health services: Community mental health vs. managed care settings. Journal of Clinical Psychology. Jared Scott Warren, Charles R. Brown, Christopher M. Layne, Philip L. & Nelson (2011). Parenting self-efficacy as a predictor of child psychotherapy outcomes in usual care: A multi-dimensional approach. Psychotherapy Research. |
| Keywords: | youth outcome measures instruments gary burlingame michael lambert therapeutic alliance TA YOQ 30.2 YOQ30 YOQ30TA Y-OQ Y-OQ30 |
| Submitted By: | Sue Jenkins |
|---|---|
| Developer: | M. Gawain Wells, Ph.D., Gary M. Burlingame, Ph.D., Michael J. Lambert, Ph.D. and OQ Measures LLC. |
| Contact: | oqmeasures.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument has a copyright to protect content. Organizations interested in use are required to pay fee based on type of license. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | The Y-OQ® SR 2.0 is the self-report version of the Youth Outcome Questionnaire (Y-OQ® 2.01). It is designed to capture your younger clients' voice. It can be used in tracking treatment progress for adolescents receiving therapy or counseling. It is important to note that the Y-OQ® 2.0 SR is NOT an equivalent form of, or interchangeable with, the Y-OQ® 2.01. The Y-OQ® SR TA 2.0 is a new measure which includes the Y-OQ® 2.01 and 5 questions from the OQ®-ASC about the Therapeutic Alliance. The goal of the 5 Therapeutic Alliance questions is to assess your client's perception of the relationship between you and your client. While it may be reassuring to know that clients have very positive feelings about their relationship with you, it is more helpful in a problem-solving mode to identify ruptures in the relationship and move to repair them. |
| Population: | General mental health for clients aged 4-17. |
| Program Setting: | Our measures have been used in a variety of settings including outpatient, inpatient, residential, educational, case/medication management, wilderness, juvenile justice settings, and the military. Relevant findings and norms germane to these different populations can be found in the Administration and Scoring Manuals. |
| Age Range: | 5-12, 12-18 |
| Administration Frequency: | Weekly or each contact |
| Administration Time: | 5-7 Minutes |
| Scoring Time: | 1-2 minutes. Electronic scoring and reporting is available. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | A range of electronic, web-based and paper-pencil administration and scoring options are available and through licensing. |
| Publications: | Ridge, N. W., Warren, J. S., Burlingame, G. M., Wells, M. G., & Tumbling, K. M. (2009). Reliability and validity of the Youth Outcome Questionnaire see Report. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65, 1115-1126. Burlingame, G. M., Wells, M. G., Lambert, M. J., & Cox, J. (2004). Youth Outcome Questionnaire (Y-OQ). In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcomes assessment, Vol. 2 (3rd ed., pp. 235–273). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. |
| Keywords: | self report OQ Y-OQ YOQ measures michael lambert gary burlingame instruments outcomes |
| Submitted By: | Sue Jenkins |
|---|---|
| Developer: | M. Gawain Wells, Ph.D., Gary M. Burlingame, Ph.D., Michael J. Lambert, Ph.D. |
| Contact: | oqmeasures.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument has a copyright to protect content. Organizations interested in use are required to pay fee based on type of license. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | The Y-OQ® SR TA 2.0 is a new measure which includes the Y-OQ® 2.01 and 5 questions from the OQ®-ASC about the Therapeutic Alliance. The goal of the 5 Therapeutic Alliance questions is to assess your client's perception of the relationship between you and your client. While it may be reassuring to know that clients have very positive feelings about their relationship with you, it is more helpful in a problem-solving mode to identify ruptures in the relationship and move to repair them. |
| Population: | General mental health for clients under the age of 18. |
| Program Setting: | Our measures have been used in a variety of settings including outpatient, inpatient, residential, educational, case/medication management, wilderness, juvenile justice settings, and the military. Relevant findings and norms germane to these different populations can be found in the Administration and Scoring Manuals. |
| Age Range: | 5-12, 12-18 |
| Administration Frequency: | Weekly or each contact as needed |
| Administration Time: | 5-7 Minutes |
| Scoring Time: | 1-2 minutes. Electronic scoring and reporting is available. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | A range of electronic, web-based and paper-pencil administration and scoring options are available and through licensing. |
| Publications: | Brett M Merrill, Jared Scott Warren, Darren J Garcia, Sam A Hardy (2015). Youth motivation as a predictor of treatment outcomes in a community mental health system. Psychotherapy Research. Jared Scott Warren, Benjamin Salazar (2014). Youth Self-Efficacy Domains as Predictors of Change in Routine Community Mental Health Services. Psychotherapy Research. Golee F. Abrishami, Jared Scott Warren (2013). Therapeutic alliance and outcomes in children and adolescents served in a community mental health system. Journal of Child and Adolescent Behavior. Philip L. Nelson, Jared Scott Warren, Robert L Gleave, Gary Michael Burlingame (2013). Youth psychotherapy change trajectories and early warning system accuracy in a managed care setting. Journal of Clinical Psychology. Jared Scott Warren, Philip L Nelson, Gary Michael Burlingame, Sasha A Mondragon (2012). Predicting patient deterioration in youth mental health services: Community mental health vs. managed care settings. Journal of Clinical Psychology. Jared Scott Warren, Charles R. Brown, Christopher M. Layne, Philip L. & Nelson (2011). Parenting self-efficacy as a predictor of child psychotherapy outcomes in usual care: A multi-dimensional approach. Psychotherapy Research. Debra T McClendon, Jared Scott Warren, Katherine M Green, Gary Michael Burlingame, Dennis Lee Eggett, Richard McClendon (2011). Sensitivity to change of youth treatment outcome measures: a comparison of the CBCL, BASC-2, and Y-OQ. Journal of Clinical Psychology. |
| Keywords: | youth self-report self report michael lambert gary burlingame measures outcome instruments OQ 2.01 OQ2.01 Y-OQ |
| Submitted By: | Sue Jenkins |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Gary M. Burlingame, PH.D. M. Gawain Wells, PH.D., Michael J. Lambert, PH.D., & Curtis W. Reisinger, PH.D. |
| Contact: | oqmeasures.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument has a copyright to protect content. Organizations interested in use are required to pay fee based on type of license. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | The Y-OQ® SR 30.2 is designed to be self-reported by the youth/adolescent. The Y-OQ® SR 30.2 clinician reports allow you to track your clients' progress and find the ones who are not-on-track. The Y-OQ® SR 30.2 provides reliable and accurate outcome measures on the client's response to treatment. |
| Population: | General mental health of clients under the age of 18. |
| Program Setting: | Our measures have been used in a variety of settings including outpatient, inpatient, residential, educational, case/medication management, wilderness, juvenile justice settings, and the military. Relevant findings and norms germane to these different populations can be found in the Administration and Scoring Manuals. |
| Age Range: | 5-12, 12-18 |
| Administration Frequency: | Weekly or each contact |
| Administration Time: | 5-10 Minutes |
| Scoring Time: | 1-2 minutes. Electronic scoring and reporting is available. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | A range of electronic, web-based and paper-pencil administration and scoring options are available and through licensing. |
| Publications: | Durham, C. J., McGrath, L. D., Burlingame, G. B., Lambert, M. J., & Davies, D. R. (2002).The effects of repeated administrations of self-report and parent-report scales. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 20, 240-257. |
| Keywords: | self report OQ YOQ Y-OQ measures instruments outcomes outcome michael lambert gary burlingame youth adolescent self-report client |
| Submitted By: | Sue Jenkins |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Gary Burlingame, Ph.D. and Jarred S. Warren, Ph.D. |
| Contact: | oqmeasures.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument has a copyright to protect content. Organizations interested in use are required to pay fee based on type of license. |
| Reporter: | Parent/Guardian |
| Description: | The Y-OQ® Treatment Support Measure (TSM) is a tool designed to work in conjunction with the Y-OQ® 2.01, Y-OQ® SR 2.0, Y-OQ® 30.2.It was designed as a treatment planning tool to assist therapists working with children, youth, and their parents or guardians and as a clinical support tool to provide therapists with actionable feedback when youth are not making expected progress in treatment. Y-OQ® TSM results obtained at the beginning of treatment can be used to identify client strengths and weaknesses which can be used in treatment planning. The Y-OQ TSM P is designed to be completed by the parent/guardian and assesses: The parent's sense of confidence in performing various parenting tasks (parenting self-efficacy) The parent's own network of supportive relationships The specific parenting skills and behaviors The parent's distress (including personal problems and stress related to parenting) |
| Population: | Clinical support tool for clients under the age of 18. |
| Program Setting: | Our measures have been used in a variety of settings including outpatient, inpatient, residential, educational, case/medication management, wilderness, juvenile justice settings, and the military. Relevant findings and norms germane to these different populations can be found in the Administration and Scoring Manuals. |
| Age Range: | 5-12, 12-18 |
| Administration Frequency: | First contact, then as needed |
| Administration Time: | 5-7 Minutes |
| Scoring Time: | 1-2 minutes. Electronic scoring and reporting is available. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | A range of electronic, web-based and paper-pencil administration and scoring options are available and through licensing. |
| Publications: | Brett M Merrill, Jared Scott Warren, Darren J Garcia, Sam A Hardy (2015). Youth motivation as a predictor of treatment outcomes in a community mental health system. Psychotherapy Research. Jared Scott Warren, Benjamin Salazar (2014). Youth Self-Efficacy Domains as Predictors of Change in Routine Community Mental Health Services. Psychotherapy Research. Golee F. Abrishami, Jared Scott Warren (2013). Therapeutic alliance and outcomes in children and adolescents served in a community mental health system. Journal of Child and Adolescent Behavior. Jared Scott Warren, Charles R. Brown, Christopher M. Layne, Philip L. & Nelson (2011). Parenting self-efficacy as a predictor of child psychotherapy outcomes in usual care: A multi-dimensional approach. Psychotherapy Research. |
| Keywords: | parent OQ-TSM P TSMP OQ TSMP OQ measures instruments measures outcomes Michael lambert Gary burlingame jarred warren youth |
| Submitted By: | Sue Jenkins |
|---|---|
| Developer: | Gary Burlingame, Ph.D. and Jarred S. Warren, Ph.D. |
| Contact: | oqmeasures.com |
| Proprietary: | Instrument has copyright |
| Restrictions: | The instrument has a copyright to protect content. Organizations interested in use are required to pay fee based on type of license. |
| Reporter: | Self-report (Individual/Patient/Client) |
| Description: | The Y-OQ® Treatment Support Measure (TSM) is a tool designed to work in conjunction with the Y-OQ® 2.01, Y-OQ® SR 2.0, Y-OQ® 30.2. It was designed as a treatment planning tool to assist therapists working with children, youth, and their parents or guardians and as a clinical support tool to provide therapists with actionable feedback when youth are not making expected progress in treatment. The Y-OQ TSM is to be completed by the client and will assess the client's : alliance between the parent and the child's therapist The youth's feelings of self-efficacy The youth's supportive relationships with family members and friends The youth's motivation to participate in treatment The youth's alliance with the therapist Y-OQ® TSM results obtained at the beginning of treatment can be used to identify client strengths and weaknesses which can be used in treatment planning. |
| Population: | Clinical support tool for clients under the age of 18. |
| Program Setting: | Our measures have been used in a variety of settings including outpatient, inpatient, residential, educational, case/medication management, wilderness, juvenile justice settings, and the military. Relevant findings and norms germane to these different populations can be found in the Administration and Scoring Manuals. |
| Age Range: | 5-12, 12-18 |
| Administration Frequency: | First contact, then as needed |
| Administration Time: | 5-7 Minutes |
| Scoring Time: | 1-2 minutes. Electronic scoring and reporting is available. |
| Benchmark Data: | Yes – Published and available |
| Psychometric Testing: | Yes – Published and available |
| Administration Options: | A range of electronic, web-based and paper-pencil administration and scoring options are available and through licensing. |
| Publications: | Brett M Merrill, Jared Scott Warren, Darren J Garcia, Sam A Hardy (2015). Youth motivation as a predictor of treatment outcomes in a community mental health system. Psychotherapy Research. Thomas Kramer, Paul Caldarella, K Richard Young, Lane Fischer, Jared Scott Warren (2014). Implementing Strong Kids school-wide to reduce internalizing behaviors and increase prosocial behaviors. Education and Treatment of Children. Jared Scott Warren, Benjamin Salazar (2014). Youth Self-Efficacy Domains as Predictors of Change in Routine Community Mental Health Services. Psychotherapy Research. Golee F. Abrishami, Jared Scott Warren (2013). Therapeutic alliance and outcomes in children and adolescents served in a community mental health system. Journal of Child and Adolescent Behavior. Philip L. Nelson, Jared Scott Warren, Robert L Gleave, Gary Michael Burlingame (2013). Youth psychotherapy change trajectories and early warning system accuracy in a managed care setting. Journal of Clinical Psychology. Jared Scott Warren, Michael J Lambert (2012). Youth Clinical Support Tools Manual. Treatment Support Measure: Parent and Youth Forms. |
| Keywords: | youth TSM OQ OQTSM OQ-TSM TSMY measures outcome instruments gary burlingame michael lambert jarred warre |