The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Why do some therapists not deal with outcome monitoring feedback? A feasibility study on the effect of regulatory focus and person–organization fit on attitude and outcome
Open accessAbstract
Objective Despite research on its effectiveness, many therapists still have negative attitudes toward using outcome monitoring feedback. The current study aims to investigate how the perceived match between values of an individual and those of the organization (Person-Organization fit; PO fit), and motivation to prevent failure or to achieve success (regulatory focus) are related to therapists' attitude, attitude changes over time, and outcomes. Method Therapists (n = 20) filled out a feedback attitude questionnaire at two points in time: before the start of outcome monitoring, and after six months. In addition, they completed measures on PO fit and regulatory focus. Results PO fit was predictive of outcomes, when feedback was provided, but did not predict therapists' attitude. Therapists with a strong prevention focus (prevent failures), had a more positive attitude toward feedback, but achieved slower symptom reduction in their at risk cases. A strong promotion focus (achieve success) was not predictive of attitude, but did result in faster symptom reduction in at risk patients when feedback was provided. Conclusion Therapists motivational approach to work and the perceived match with the organization they work for, can influence both their attitude toward outcome monitoring and their outcomes.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
Reluctancy on the use of technical equipment, financial support, time disposal, apprehension about the ecological validity of measures, perceiving measurement as a way of control, or concerns about data security contribute to the hesitant reception of measurement in clinical practice.
“For instance, reluctancy on the use of technical equipment, financial support, time disposal, apprehension about the ecological validity of measures (e.g., thinking that empirical findings do not reflect their everyday practice; Boswell et al., 2015;Gilbody et al., 2002), perceiving measurement as a way of control, or concerns about data security (de Jong & de Goede, 2015;Mütze et al., 2022).”
From Data-Informed Case Formulation with the Trier Treatment Navigator (2022) · cites this paper as de Jong & de Goede, 2015
Citations
Cites
Sufficient Sample Sizes for Multilevel Modeling
Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2005) · Methodology · doi:10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.86 · Cited by 3,582
Fully conditional specification in multivariate imputation
Van Buuren, S., Brand, J. P. L., Groothuis-Oudshoorn, C. G. M., & Rubin, D. B. (2006) · Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation · doi:10.1080/10629360600810434 · Cited by 1,217
Shimokawa, K., Lambert, M. J., & Smart, D. W. (2010) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0019247 · Cited by 657
Lambert, M. (2007) · Psychotherapy Research · doi:10.1080/10503300601032506 · Cited by 461 · cited 2×
“It has been more than a decade since the first study on outcome monitoring feedback came out, and many studies since then have demonstrated that using outcome monitoring and providing feedback to therapists about their patients’ progress can improve outcomes in clinical practice, especially for patients who are not pr…”
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 25
- 10.1046/j.1440-1584.2002.00484.x · DOI
- 10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.875 · DOI · Paper page
- Caldwell D. F., 2007, Perspectives on organizational fit, 356
- 10.5465/ambpp.1989.4980837 · DOI
- 10.1006/obhd.1996.2675 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s10488-014-0589-6 · DOI
- De Jong K., 2009, Handleiding voor afname en scoring van de outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45)
- 10.1080/10503307.2012.673023 · DOI
- 10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.802 · DOI
- 10.1177/0893318912450663 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.07.005 · DOI
- 10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0021-9010.72.2.212 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x · DOI
- Lambert M. J., 2004, Administration and scoring manual for the OQ-45.2 (Outcome Questionnaire)
- 10.1037/a0027723 · DOI
- 10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.854 · DOI
- 10.2307/256404 · DOI · Paper page
- Riemer M., 2007, CFIT user survey—counselor version
- 10.1080/10503307.2012.698918 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3389/fnint.2012.00123 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0278-4319(01)00035-4 · DOI
- Walter G., 1998, Journal of Quality in Clinical Practice, 18, 109
- 10.1037/a0027932 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Delgadillo, J., de Jong, K., Lucock, M., Lutz, W., Rubel, J., Gilbody, S., Ali, S., Aguirre, E., Appleton, M., Nevin, J., et al. (2018) · The Lancet Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(18)30162-7 · Cited by 152
Data-Informed Case Formulation with the Trier Treatment Navigator
Moggia, D., Schaffrath, J., Bommer, J., Weinmann-Lutz, B., & Lutz, W. (2022) · Revista de Psicoterapia · doi:10.33898/rdp.v33i123.35971 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- de Jong, K., & de Goede, M.
- Affiliations
- Leiden University (NL)
- Utrecht University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- de Jong, Kim
- ORCID
- de Jong, Kim
- Venue
- Psychotherapy Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2015-09-04
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 661-668
- ISSN
- 1050-3307 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-4381
- OpenAlex
- W1884039780
- Cited by
- 38
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2
- FWCI
- 4.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- dspace.library.uu.nl
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Psychotherapy Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Keywords
- person-organization fit, regulatory focus, prevention focus, promotion focus, psychotherapy outcome, symptom relief, at-risk patients, therapist motivation
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Feasibility Studies, Feedback, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Organizational Objectives, Personnel Loyalty, Psychotherapy, Organizational Culture, 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
