The Use of Outcome Measures by Psychologists in Clinical Practice.

Abstract

This survey investigated psychologists' use of outcome measures in clinical practice. Of the respondents, 37% indicated that they used some form of outcome assessment in practice. A wide variety of measures were used that were rated by the client or clinician. Clinicians who assess outcome in practice are more likely to be younger, have a cognitive-behavioral orientation, conduct more hours of therapy per week, provide services for children and adolescents, and work in institutional settings. Clinicians who do not use outcome measures endorse practical (e.g., cost, time) and philosophical (e.g., relevance) barriers to their use. Both users and nonusers of outcome measures were interested in similar types of information, including client progress since entering treatment, current strengths and weaknesses, and determining if there is a need to alter treatment. Implications for practicing clinicians are discussed. DEREK R. HATFIELD received his MS in clinical psychology from Ohio University, where he is currently a doctoral student. His primary areas of research are outcome assessment and clinical judgment and decision making. BENJAMIN M. OGLES received his PhD in clinical psychology from Brigham Young University. He is a professor in the Department of Psychology at Ohio University. His research is focused on the assessment of outcome for mental health services. WE THANK Michael J. Lambert for his suggestions concerning this survey and the preparation of this article.

Youth top problems: Using idiographic, consumer-guided assessment to identify treatment needs and to track change during psychotherapy.

“…On the research front, the TP measure may provide a way to complement the study of empirically-derived constructs with attention to client-derived problems without compromising psychometric integrity. On the clinical practice front, the efficient assessment approach described here may provide a way to engage some of those practitioners who report that they do not value or use systematic outcome assessments to identify treatment foci or monitor treatment progress (Bickman et al, 2000;Garland et al, 2003;Hatfield & Ogles, 2004). If this kind of evidence has clinical appeal, perhaps it can contribute to making everyday clinical care more systematic, evidence-informed, and effective.…”

The clinical utility of the Personal Questionnaire (PQ): a mixed methods study

“…There is scepticism concerning the relevance of outcome measures over using clinical judgement alone (Hatfield & Ogles, 2004Jensen-Doss & Hawley, 2010;Jensen-Doss et al, 2017;Miller, Duncan, Brown, Sparks, & Claud, 2003;Trauer, Callaly, & Herrman, 2009). Practitioners report feeling anxious about being evaluated based on clients' outcome, and are concerned with the link between this evaluation and funding allocation, which may lead to competition among services, teams and therapists (Norman, Dean, Hansford, & Ford, 2014;Unsworth, Cowie, & Green, 2012).…”

“…The Clinical Utility of the PQ, p. 4 outcome measures (Garland, Kruse, & Aarons, 2003;Hatfield & Ogles, 2004;Hatfield & Ogles, 2007;Norman, Dean, Hansford, & Ford, 2014;Trauer, Gill, Pedwell, & Slattery, 2006).…”

Service user and clinician perspectives on the use of outcome measures in psychological therapy

“…Perhaps due to this perceived conflict of interest between services and clients, clinicians themselves tend to hold quite strong opinions, and voice anxieties and concerns about outcome measures and their use in therapy (Hatfield & Ogles, 2004, 2007Unsworth et al 2012). It is perhaps not surprising therefore that implementing standardized outcome measurement procedures within services is associated with many complexities and challenges (McInnes, 2006;Rao, et al 2010) and that even in services using 'routine outcome measurement' clinicians may not be using measures routinely (James et al in press).…”