CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 13Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychometric Methodologies and TestingAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 25 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Psychometric Properties of the Outcome Rating Scale (ORS) in a Spanish Clinical Sample

Open access
Moggia, Danilo, Niño-Robles, Noelia, Miller, Scott D., Feixas, Guillem·2018·The Spanish Journal of Psychology
DOI 10.1017/sjp.2018.32
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The Outcome Rating Scale (ORS) is an ultra-brief measure of well-being designed to track outcome in psychotherapy. This research studied the psychometric properties of the ORS in a Spanish clinical sample. One-hundred and sixty-five adult participants from different primary care centers of the city of Barcelona were recruited. The psychometric properties of the ORS in the sample were explored and described, comparing them to the properties of other instruments already validated in Spain. Our results showed good reliability (α = .91 [.88, .93]; α = .96; test re-test correlations from .61 to .84), good validity (convergent validity correlations with distress and symptoms measures from -.32 to -.76), and good sensitivity to change (pre-post comparison through Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Mdnpre = 31.0, Mdnpost = 19.6, z = -7.38, p < .05, r = .42). These results are consistent with previous findings in other countries. We conclude suggesting that the instrument can be applied to monitor outcome in psychotherapy and to test the effectiveness of treatments imparted with Spanish speaking clients. However, further research with the ORS in Spanish could provide more evidence of its psychometric properties.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/sjp.2018.32

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Outcome Rating Scale (ORS) was validated in a Spanish population by Moggia et al. (2018).

    “Escala de Evaluación de Resultados ( Outcome Rating Scales en inglés, ORS; Miller et al., 2003, adaptado al español por Harris, 2010, validado en población española por Moggia et al., 2018)”

    From El Proceso de Aceptación y Adaptación a la Bisexualidad a través de la Terapia Cognitivo-Conductual con Enfoque Afirmativo: Estudio de caso único (2022) · cites this paper as Moggia et al., 2018

    The Discussion says this was the first study of the ORS in Spain and that it “seems to be valid” for assessing well-being and psychotherapy outcomes. But the study assessed only a small, nonrandom clinical sample; the authors caution against generalizing and say further research is needed to adapt and standardize the ORS for the Spanish population. Thus, “validated in a Spanish population” overstates the scope and certainty of the finding. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 26 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Lovibond, 1995, Manual for Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scales (2nd ed.)
  2. Donoso, 2006, Chilean adaptation and validation of the Outcome Rating Scale (ORS)
  3. Beck, 1996, Beck Depression Inventory–II Manual (2nd Ed.)
  4. Duncan, 2003, The Session Rating Scale: Preliminary psychometric properties of a “working” alliance measure, Journal of Brief Therapy, 3, 3
  5. Lambert, 1996, Administration and scoring manual for the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ–45.2)
  6. 1998, CORE System (information management) handbook.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Moggia, D., Niño-Robles, N., Miller, S. D., & Feixas, G.
Affiliations
Universitat de Barcelona (ES)
ORCID
Venue
The Spanish Journal of Psychology
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2018
Volume
21
Pages
E30-E30
ISSN
  • 1138-7416 (ISSN-L)
  • 1988-2904
DOI
10.1017/sjp.2018.32
OpenAlex
W2885813501
Cited by
13
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 210 d)
Locations
  • The Spanish Journal of Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
Outcome Rating Scale, psychotherapy outcome assessment, psychometric properties, Spanish adaptation, primary care patients, convergent validity, test-retest reliability, sensitivity to change, well-being
MeSH terms
Adult, Mental Disorders, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Sensitivity and Specificity, Spain, Reproducibility of Results, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review