1996
DOI: 10.1097/00004583-199608000-00017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Outcomes of Mental Health Care for Children and Adolescents: I. A Comprehensive Conceptual Model

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

3
150
0

Year Published

1998
1998
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 254 publications
(153 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
3
150
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These findings reveal that reliance on the single outcome indicator of posttreatment diagnostic status might potentially underestimate the positive effect of this treatment for child and adolescent anxiety. Consistent with the recommendations of Hoagwood, Jensen, Petti, and Burns (1996) and others (e.g., who advocate the examination of multiple indicators of treatment outcome, including those relevant to the youth and the systems in which they function, these findings speak to the need for further analysis of the treatment outcome literature for child and adolescent anxiety disorders to address questions relevant to the potential effectiveness of a given intervention for a particular youth with a particular problem (e.g., Chorpita et al, 2011). Ollendick and King (1998) presented the first review of treatments for child and adolescent phobic and anxiety disorders that used guidelines set forth by the American Psychological Association (APA) Task Force on Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures, Division of Clinical Psychology, American Psychological Association (1995) to evaluate the efficacy of a given psychological intervention.…”
supporting
confidence: 64%
“…These findings reveal that reliance on the single outcome indicator of posttreatment diagnostic status might potentially underestimate the positive effect of this treatment for child and adolescent anxiety. Consistent with the recommendations of Hoagwood, Jensen, Petti, and Burns (1996) and others (e.g., who advocate the examination of multiple indicators of treatment outcome, including those relevant to the youth and the systems in which they function, these findings speak to the need for further analysis of the treatment outcome literature for child and adolescent anxiety disorders to address questions relevant to the potential effectiveness of a given intervention for a particular youth with a particular problem (e.g., Chorpita et al, 2011). Ollendick and King (1998) presented the first review of treatments for child and adolescent phobic and anxiety disorders that used guidelines set forth by the American Psychological Association (APA) Task Force on Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures, Division of Clinical Psychology, American Psychological Association (1995) to evaluate the efficacy of a given psychological intervention.…”
supporting
confidence: 64%
“…As seen in Table 2, girls were significantly more anxious than boys (z = -2.16, P = .030). In addition, although not statistically significant, older adolescents (16-18 years) seemed to be more likely to score above the clinical cutoff for anxiety than younger adolescents (12-15 years) [χ 2 (1, N = 236) = 2.78, P = .095].…”
Section: Participantsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This includes functioning well at home, in school, and in their communities and being free from psychopathology. 2 In the adolescent population, physical and mental health issues can affect every aspect of life, including learning, social participation, and the inevitable transition into adulthood. Two particularly concerning mental health issues for adolescents are depression and anxiety.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Currently, a variety of assessment tools are used in clinical practice for these purposes. The push toward implementing evidencebased treatments (EBT) in the child mental health system all but requires the use of systematic assessments to evaluate treatment and may even be mandated as part of service provision (Doss 2005;Hoagwood et al 1996). Despite an increasing trend toward standardized assessment, relatively little research has focused on comparing the efficiency and utility of commonly used assessment tools.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%