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)
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Preliminary research in a primary care setting indicates that the PSYCHLOPS is a sensitive and reliable measure of change following psychological treatment.
“Preliminary research in a primary care setting indicates that the PSYCHLOPS is a sensitive and reliable measure of change following psychological treatment (Ashworth et al., 2009).”
From Investigating the potential of a novel internet-based cognitive behavioural intervention for Dari and Farsi speaking refugee youth: A feasibility study (2022) · cites this paper as Ashworth et al., 2009
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
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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