Preliminary validation of the Rating of Outcome Scale and equivalence of ultra-brief measures of well-being

Abstract

Three brief psychotherapy outcome measures were assessed for equivalence. The Rating of Outcome Scale (ROS), a 3-item patient-reported outcome measure, was evaluated for interitem consistency, test-retest reliability, discriminant validity, repeatability, sensitivity to change, and agreement with the Outcome Rating Scale (ORS) and Outcome Questionnaire (OQ) in 1 clinical sample and 3 community samples. Clinical cutoffs, reliable change indices, and Bland-Altman repeatability coefficients were calculated. Week-to-week change on each instrument was compared via repeated-measures-corrected effect size. Community-normed T scores and Bland-Altman plots were generated to aid comparisons between instruments. The ROS showed good psychometric properties, sensitivity to change in treatment, and discrimination between outpatients and nonpatients. Agreement between the ROS and ORS was good, but neither the agreement between these nor that between ultrabrief instruments and the OQ were as good as correlations might suggest. The ROS showed incremental advantages over the ORS: improvements in concordance with the OQ, better absolute reliability, and less oversensitivity to change. The ROS had high patient acceptance and usability, and scores showed good reliability, cross-instrument validity, and responsiveness to change for the routine monitoring of clinical outcomes. (PsycINFO Database Record