Cited by 63Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Measuring psychological outcomes after cognitive behaviour therapy in primary care: a comparison between a new patient-generated measure “PSYCHLOPS” (Psychological Outcome Profiles) and “HADS” (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale)

Ashworth, Mark, Evans, Chris, Clement, Sarah·2009·Journal of Mental Health

Abstract

Background: Patient-centred outcome measures are rarely used in primary care mental health settings.Aim: To determine reliability and change sensitivity for a new patient-generated measure, “PSYCHLOPS” (Psychological Outcome Profiles), comparing those parameters with a conventional outcome measure.Setting: Patients attending clinical psychology services in primary care.Methods: Standardized responses to PSYCHLOPS, pre- and post-therapy, were compared with responses to HADS.Results: 336 patients were recruited; 140 (42%) completed therapy and submitted post-therapy questionnaires. Complete questionnaire data were available for 114 patients (34%). Cohen's Effect Size was 1.61 for PSYCHLOPS and 1.15 for HADS (t = 5.75, p < 0.001). Internal consistency of questionnaire components were 0.75 and 0.67 pre-therapy, respectively. Change scores of both instruments correlated moderately (Pearson's r 0.65; p < 0.001). Completion rates for PSYCHLOPS pre-therapy were: 98.8 %, (problem domain), 91.2%, (function domain), 94.9%, (wellbeing domain) and for HADS, 97.6%.Conclusion: PSYCHLOPS was a more sensitive measure of change after therapy than the comparator measure, HADS. Strong responsiveness to change, satisfactory internal reliability and high completion rates implying feasibility, all suggest that measuring outcomes based on self-reported changes in problems chosen by patients may be a valuable complement to nomothetic outcome measures and be achieved using PSYCHLOPS.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09638230701879144

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 23 · Cited by 63

Authors
Ashworth, M., Evans, C., & Clement, S.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • London South Bank University (GB)
Corresponding author
Ashworth, Mark
Venue
Journal of Mental Health
Published
2009-01
Volume
18
Issue
2
Pages
169-177
ISSN
  • 0963-8237 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0567
OpenAlex
W2091430211
Cited by
63
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
FWCI
1.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Mental Health (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, patient-centered outcome measures, cognitive behavioral therapy, primary care mental health, clinical psychology services, responsiveness to change

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