The Ohio Scales

Mental health services and psychotropic medications provided to children at risk for placement instability in foster care

“…Children’s behavior scores were elevated, with an overall mean score a standard deviation higher than in a normative community sample. Over a quarter (28%) of the sample was reported to have scores two standard deviations above a community sample mean (Ogles et al, 1999). From administrative data, 38.2% were found to have had one or more psychiatric or medical hospitalizations while in foster care; 25% of foster parents reported that the child had a history of psychiatric hospitalization.…”

“…Categories included (1) mental health diagnosis without current clinically significant symptoms, (2) mental health diagnosis with current clinically significant symptoms, (3) no mental health diagnosis or current symptoms, and (4) no mental health diagnosis but with current clinically significant symptoms. Current mental health symptoms were measured using the Ohio Youth Problem, Functioning and Satisfaction Scales (Ogles et al, 1999), a 40-item scale measuring current internalized and externalized child behaviors and current functioning. The developers of the scale report good reliability and validity for the symptom scales (see Ogles et al, 1999 for psychometric properties across multiple studies).…”

“…Current mental health symptoms were measured using the Ohio Youth Problem, Functioning and Satisfaction Scales (Ogles et al, 1999), a 40-item scale measuring current internalized and externalized child behaviors and current functioning. The developers of the scale report good reliability and validity for the symptom scales (see Ogles et al, 1999 for psychometric properties across multiple studies). In this study, we were able to use results from a statewide study of 3960 children who were beginning therapy services in the same state to identify mean Ohio scale scores in a clinical sample of Medicaid-insured children (Starin et al, 2014).…”

Changes in mental health outcomes with the intensive in‐home child and adolescent psychiatric service: a multi‐informant, latent consensus approach

“…The structural means of a sample of youth from the community were modeled in a multi‐sample analysis that was used to develop “community benchmarks” for the Functioning and Problem Severity MILC constructs (based on descriptive statistics of Functioning and Problem Severity reports of 166 children, 329 parents and 40 clinicians available in Ogles et al . []). Our goal was to estimate “normative” levels of the MILC constructs (since they have not been estimated to date), providing norm‐referenced MILC scores of the IICAPS sample at both intake and discharge, and a complementary appraisal of the effectiveness of the IICAPS intervention.…”

“…The structural means of a sample of youth from the community were modeled in a multi-sample analysis that was used to develop "community benchmarks" for the Functioning and Problem Severity MILC constructs (based on descriptive statistics of Functioning and Problem Severity reports of 166 children, 329 parents and 40 clinicians available in Ogles et al [2004]). Our goal was to estimate "normative" levels of the MILC constructs (since they have not been estimated to Note: χ 2 = chi-square; df = degrees of freedom; p = p value of the chi-square test; Δχ 2 = p value of the chi-square difference test; CFI = comparative fit index; ΔCFI = difference in the CFI value (assuming baseline model to be correct); RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CI = 90% confidence interval of RMSEA value.…”