Psychiatric Services
Journal Home Search Current Issue Past Issues Subscribe All APPI Journals Help Contact Us
 
Quicksearch
Advanced Search
Or Search All APPI Journals
This Article
* Full Text
* Full Text (PDF)
* Alert me when this article is cited
* Alert me if a correction is posted
* Citation Map
Services
* Email this article to a Colleague
* Similar articles in this journal
* Similar articles in PubMed
* Alert me to new issues of the journal
* Add to My Articles & Searches
* Download to citation manager
* reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
* Citing Articles via HighWire
* Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
* Articles by Burlingame, G. M.
* Articles by Rees, F. M.
* Search for Related Content
PubMed
* PubMed Citation
* Articles by Burlingame, G. M.
* Articles by Rees, F. M.
Related Collections
* Chronically Mentally Ill Patients
* Hospitals, Hospital Treatment
* Outcome and Process Assessment
*Related Article
Psychiatr Serv 56:444-451, April 2005
© 2005 American Psychiatric Association

Special Section on the GAF: Selection of Outcome Assessment Instruments for Inpatients With Severe and Persistent Mental Illness

Gary M. Burlingame, Ph.D., Todd W. Dunn, M.S., Steven Chen, Ph.D., August Lehman, M.S., Reid Axman, B.S., Dallas Earnshaw, A.P.R.N., C.N.S. and Frank M. Rees, Ph.D.

The purpose of this article is to describe a procedure to assist in selecting outcome measures for inpatients treated at a state psychiatric hospital. The procedure combines evidence-based criteria from the literature, instruments shown to be sensitive to change in clinical trials, and the perspectives of a multidisciplinary team of researchers, administrators, providers, and patient advocates. Recent efficacy and effectiveness studies were used to identify recurrently used outcome instruments. A computerized search of more than 30 bibliographic databases, such as PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Social SciSearch, and ERIC, was conducted for articles published between 1990 and 2002. Comparisons of the most frequently used instruments were made on seven criteria proposed as best-practice indicators, including sensitivity to change and robust psychometrics. The sample produced 110 measures. Rater-completed instruments were represented more often than patient-completed ones. However, considerable variability across both methods was found on the criteria. The limited resources associated with publicly funded inpatient facilities led to a recommendation to select at least one rater-completed and one patient-completed instrument.


Related Article:

April 2005: This Month's Highlights
Psychiatr Serv 2005 56: 395. [Full Text] [PDF]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Schizophr BullHome page
B. T. Mausbach, R. Moore, C. Bowie, V. Cardenas, and T. L. Patterson
A Review of Instruments for Measuring Functional Recovery in Those Diagnosed With Psychosis
Schizophr Bull, March 1, 2009; 35(2): 307 - 318.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Psychiatr. Serv.Home page
D. Earnshaw, F. Rees, T. W. Dunn, G. M. Burlingame, and S. Chen
State Mental Health Policy: Implementing a Multisource Outcome Assessment Protocol in a State Psychiatric Hospital: A Case Study
Psychiatr Serv, April 1, 2005; 56(4): 411 - 413.
[Full Text] [PDF]




Get information about faster international access.

Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2005 American Psychiatric Association. All rights reserved.

Home | Search | Current Issue | Past Issues | Subscribe | All APPI Journals | Help | Contact Us

American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc. American Psychiatric Association
1000 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1825, Arlington, VA 22209-3901 * 800-368-5777 * appi at psych.org