CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 934Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Towards a standardised brief outcome measure: Psychometric properties and utility of the CORE–OM

Open access
Evans, Chris, Connell, Janice, Barkham, Michael, Margison, Frank, McGrath, Graeme, Mellor-Clark, John, Audin, Kerry·2002·British Journal of Psychiatry
DOI 10.1192/bjp.180.1.51
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: An acceptable, standardised outcome measure to assess efficacy and effectiveness is needed across multiple disciplines offering psychological therapies. Aims: To present psychometric data on reliability, validity and sensitivity to change for the CORE–OM (Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation – Outcome Measure). Method: A 34-item self-report instrument was developed, with domains of subjective well-being, symptoms, function and risk. Analysis includes internal reliability, test–retest reliability, socio-demographic differences, exploratory principal-component analysis, correlations with other instruments, differences between clinical and non-clinical samples and assessment of change within a clinical group. Results: Internal and test–retest reliability were good (0.75–0.95), as was convergent validity with seven other instruments, with large differences between clinical and non-clinical samples and good sensitivity to change. Conclusions: The CORE–OM is a reliable and valid instrument with good sensitivity to change. It is acceptable in a wide range of practice settings.

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 · 10.1192/bjp.180.1.51

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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 CORE-OM is a well-validated, reliable, and widely used outcome measure of psychological treatments.

    “The CORE-OM is a well-validated, reliable, and widely used outcome measure of psychological treatments (Barkham et al. 2006;Barkham, Mullin, Leach, Stiles, & Lucock, 2007;Evans et al., 2002).”

    From Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for perinatal mood and anxiety disorders: A feasibility and proof of concept study. (2020) · cites this paper as Evans et al., 2002

    The Abstract reports good reliability and validity, and the section ‘Does the CORE–OM have wide utility?’ describes it as an outcome measure for psychological treatments with utility in a range of settings (page not provided). The paper mentions use in one large service but does not establish that the CORE–OM was widely used; suitability for broad use is not the same as widespread uptake. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • CORE-OM and CORE-10 have good psychometric properties.

    “Both CORE-OM and CORE-10 have shown good psychometric properties [55, 56].”

    From Measuring the Effect of the Early assessment Team (MEET) for patients referred to outpatient mental health care: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (2024) · cites this paper as [56]

    The Abstract and Discussion report good reliability and validity for CORE-OM. The paper assesses CORE-OM, but the available passages do not address CORE-10 or its psychometric properties (searched: CORE-10). (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The CORE-OM has excellent internal consistency in clinical samples (α=.94) and for each of its subscales (α=.75-.94); it also has good test-retest reliability (P=.83).

    “The CORE-OM has excellent internal consistency in clinical samples (α=.94) and for each of its subscales (α=.75-.94); it also has good test-retest reliability (P=.83) [73].”

    From A Virtual Reality-Assisted Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for and With Inuit in Québec: Protocol for a Proof-of-Concept Randomized Controlled Trial (2023) · cites this paper as [73]

    Table 3 reports α=.94 for all items in the clinical sample and α=.75–.88 for its four domains, within the claimed subscale range. The Test–retest stability section reports correlations of .87–.91 for scores other than risk (.64), based on 43 students; it does not support the stated .83 value. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The CORE-OM has published evidence of reliability and validity and has been used in previous UK mental health trials.

    “The CORE-OM has published evidence of reliability and validity [29,30] and has been used in previous UK mental health trials [31].”

    From Development and evaluation of culturally sensitive psychosocial interventions for under-served people in primary care (2014) · cites this paper as [30]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 24 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Evans, C., Connell, J., Barkham, M., Margison, F., McGrath, G., Mellor-Clark, J., & Audin, K.
Affiliations
  • The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
Corresponding author
Evans, Chris
ORCID
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Publisher
Royal College of Psychiatrists
Published
2002-01
Volume
180
Issue
1
Pages
51-60
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
DOI
10.1192/bjp.180.1.51
OpenAlex
W2114350740
Cited by
934
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 54 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 59 · 2017: 47 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 55 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 43 · 2012: 49
FWCI
14.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 5845 d)
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Leeds
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
CORE-OM, outcome measures, psychometric properties, reliability statistics, validity, sensitivity to change, psychotherapy, subjective well-being, clinical symptoms, functioning, risk, self-report measures
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Mental Disorders, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Sensitivity and Specificity, Sex Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Treatment Outcome

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