The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Towards a standardised brief outcome measure: Psychometric properties and utility of the CORE–OM
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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.
Citations
Cites
Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02310555 · Cited by 43,931
An inventory for measuring depression
BECK, A. T. (1961) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1961.01710120031004 · Cited by 38,032
An inventory for measuring clinical anxiety: Psychometric properties.
Beck, A. T., Epstein, N., Brown, G., & Steer, R. A. (1988) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.56.6.893 · Cited by 14,407
The Scree Test For The Number Of Factors
Cattell, R. B. (1966) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10 · Cited by 13,554
Jacobson, N. S., & Truax, P. (1991) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.59.1.12 · Cited by 7,770
The brief symptom inventory: an introductory report.
Derogatis, L. R., & Melisaratos, N. (1983) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291700048017 · Cited by 6,650
A scaled version of the General Health Questionnaire
Goldberg, D. P., & Hillier, V. F. (1979) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291700021644 · Cited by 5,637
Confidence intervals rather than P values: estimation rather than hypothesis testing.
Gardner, M. J., & Altman, D. G. (1986) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.292.6522.746 · Cited by 2,014
What Works for Whom?: A Critical Review of Psychotherapy Research
Roth, A. D., & Fonagy, P. (1996) · Cited by 1,382
National Service Framework for Mental Health
Thornicroft, G. (2000) · Psychiatric Bulletin · doi:10.1192/pb.24.6.203 · Cited by 639
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- 1990, SAS/IML Software: Usage and Reference. Version 6
- 1996, FORMIC 3 for Windows
- Beck, 1996, Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory — Second Edition (BDI–II)
- Gardner, 1989, Confidence Interval Analysis (C.I.A.) Microcomputer Program Manual
- 1996, NHS Psychotherapy Services in England. Review of Strategic Policy
- 1998, CORE System (Information Management) Handbook
- Derogatis, 1983, SCL–90–R: Administration, Scoring and Procedures: Manual
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dineen-Griffin, S., Garcia-Cardenas, V., Williams, K., & Benrimoj, S. I. (2019) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0220116 · Cited by 639
Changes in undergraduate students’ psychological well‐being as they progress through university
Bewick, B., Koutsopoulou, G., Miles, J., Slaa, E., & Barkham, M. (2010) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075070903216643 · Cited by 597
“All surveys included the General Population Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (GP-CORE; Sinclair et al. 2005), a general population version of the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Outcome Measure (CORE-OM; Barkham et al. 2001, 2005; Evans et al. 2002).”
MethodSelf-citationBarkham, M., Bewick, B., Mullin, T., Gilbody, S., Connell, J., Cahill, J., Mellor-Clark, J., Richards, D., Unsworth, G., & Evans, C. (2013) · Counselling and Psychotherapy Research · doi:10.1080/14733145.2012.729069 · Cited by 413
“Within this tradition, one measure that has been widely adopted by practitioners and services is the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure (COREOM; Barkham, Mellor-Clark, Connell, & Cahill, 2006; Evans et al., 2002).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationBower, P., Kontopantelis, E., Sutton, A., Kendrick, T., Richards, D. A., Gilbody, S., Knowles, S., Cuijpers, P., Andersson, G., Christensen, H., et al. (2013) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.f540 · Cited by 341
Self-citationMeasuring, monitoring and managing the psychological well-being of first year university students
Cooke, R., Bewick, B. M., Barkham, M., Bradley, M., & Audin, K. (2006) · British Journal of Guidance & Counselling · doi:10.1080/03069880600942624 · Cited by 317
“In order to identify these two populations, we used the GP-CORE (Sinclair et al , 2005 ), a general population version of a standard measure of psychological well-being—the CORE-OM (Barkham et al , 2001 2005 ; Evans et al , 2002 ).”
MethodSelf-citation
Metadata
- 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
- 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
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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
