CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 532Psychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychiatric care and mental health servicesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Service profiling and outcomes benchmarking using the CORE-OM: Toward practice-based evidence in the psychological therapies.

Barkham, Michael, Margison, Frank, Leach, Chris, Lucock, Mike, Mellor-Clark, John, Evans, Chris, Benson, Liz, Connell, Janice, Audin, Kerry, McGrath, Graeme·2001·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0022-006x.69.2.184
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

To complement the evidence-based practice paradigm, the authors argued for a core outcome measure to provide practice-based evidence for the psychological therapies. Utility requires instruments that are acceptable scientifically, as well as to service users, and a coordinated implementation of the measure at a national level. The development of the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure (CORE-OM) is summarized. Data are presented across 39 secondary-care services (n = 2,710) and within an intensively evaluated single service (n = 1,455). Results suggest that the CORE-OM is a valid and reliable measure for multiple settings and is acceptable to users and clinicians as well as policy makers. Baseline data levels of patient presenting problem severity, including risk, are reported in addition to outcome benchmarks that use the concept of reliable and clinically significant change. Basic quality improvement in outcomes for a single service is considered.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-006x.69.2.184

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 39 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Beck, 1990, Manual for the Beck Anxiety Inventory.
  2. 1998, CORE System (information management) handbook.
  3. Derogatis, 1983, SCL-90-R: Administration, scoring and procedures: Manual II.
  4. 1996, NHS psychotherapy services in England: Review of strategic policy.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 532

Related

Metadata

Authors
Barkham, M., Margison, F., Leach, C., Lucock, M., Mellor-Clark, J., Evans, C., Benson, L., Connell, J., Audin, K., & McGrath, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Leeds (GB)
  • Manchester Royal Infirmary (GB)
  • The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2001
Volume
69
Issue
2
Pages
184-196
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
DOI
10.1037/0022-006x.69.2.184
OpenAlex
W2018435777
Cited by
532
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 29
FWCI
15.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Huddersfield Repository (University of Huddersfield) (submittedVersion)
  • Huddersfield Research Portal (University of Huddersfield) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
CORE-OM, outcome measures, psychotherapy, practice-based evidence, reliability and validity, quality improvement
MeSH terms
Delivery of Health Care, England, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Humans, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Psychotherapy, Evidence-Based Medicine, Benchmarking

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