https://doi.org/10.4081/ripppo.2023.671
Italian validation of the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-10 (CORE-10): a short measure for routine outcome monitoring in clinical practice
Submitted: November 11, 2022
Accepted: March 12, 2023
Published: April 4, 2023
Accepted: March 12, 2023
Abstract Views: 1763
PDF: 475
Supplementary Material: 78
HTML: 27
Supplementary Material: 78
HTML: 27
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Authors
The customization of the intervention using patient feedback is an evidence-based practice aimed at the continuous evaluation, during treatment, of the patient’s change at a clinical level. There are few easy-to-use tools for common assessment of psychological distress, designed to be used for screening and during treatment to monitor progress. The Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-10 (CORE-10) is definitely one of them. Thus, the aim of the present study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Italian version of the CORE-10. A sample of 548 participants (females, N=463, 84.5%; mean age 23.29±7.21 years) was recruited in the study and filled out a battery of measures. The internal validity of the CORE-10 was investigated through a confirmatory factor analysis which evidenced a good fit to the data, suggesting a unidimensional factorial structure of the measure. Further, the scale had a good internal reliability and was significantly associated with other measures of distress, interpersonal problems, well-being, and insecure attachment. Finally, it showed excellent diagnostic accuracy, as well as intrinsic and post-test diagnostics. Given its validity and reliability, the CORE-10 may be adopted by Italian-speaking psychotherapists and researchers to evaluate the outcomes of mental health interventions as well as to track the session-to-session changes over time in psychological distress among patients.
Aiello, E. N., Fiabane, E., Margheritti, S., Magnone, S., Bolognini, N., Miglioretti, M., & Giorgi, I. (2022) Psychometric properties of the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) in Italian Physicians. La Medicina del Lavoro, 113, e2022037.
Barkham, M., Bewick, B., Mullin, T., Gilbody, S., Connell, J., Cahill, J., Evans, C. (2013). The CORE‐10: A short measure of psychological distress for routine use in the psychological therapies. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 13(1), 3-13.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14733145.2012.729069
Barkham, M., Hardy, G. E., & Startup, M. (1996). The IIP‐32: A short version of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 35(1), 21-35.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8260.1996.tb01159.x
Barkham, M., Hardy, G. E., & Mellor-Clark, J. (Eds.). (2010). Developing and delivering practice-based evidence: A guide for the psychological therapies. John Wiley & Sons.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470687994
Barkham, M., Margison, F., Leach, C., Lucock, M., Mellor-Clark, J., Evans, C., ... & McGrath, G. (2001). Service profiling and outcomes benchmarking using the CORE-OM: Toward practice-based evidence in the psychological therapies. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 69(2), 184.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.69.2.184
Brugnera, A., Zarbo, C., Farina, B., Picardi, A., Greco, A., Lo Coco, G., Greco, F. (2019). Psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Experience in Close Relationship Scale 12 (ECR-12): an exploratory structural equation modeling study. Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology,Process, Outcome, 22(3). https://doi.org/10.4081/ripppo.2019.392
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/ripppo.2019.392
Chiappelli, M., Coco, G. L., Gullo, S., Bensi, L., & Prestano, C. (2008). The Outcome Questionnaire 45.2. Italian validation of an instrument for the assessment of phychological treatments. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 17(2), 152-161.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1121189X00002852
Chui, H., Chong, E., Atzil-Slonim, D., Sahin, Z., Solomonov, N., Minges, M. V., Barber, J. P. (2021). Beyond symptom reduction: Development and validation of the Complementary Measure of Psychotherapy Outcome (COMPO). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68(5), 550 561.doi:10.1037/cou0000536
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000536
De Jong, K., Timman, R., Hakkaart-Van Roijen, L., Vermeulen, P., Kooiman, K., Passchier, J., & Busschbach, J. V. (2014). The effect of outcome monitoring feedback to clinicians and patients in short and long-term psychotherapy: A randomized controlled trial. Psychotherapy Research, 24(6), 629-639.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2013.871079
Duncan, B. L. (2012). The Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS): The Heart and Soul of Change Project. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 53(2), 93.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027762
Duncan, B. L., & Reese, R. J. (2015). The Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS) revisiting the client’s frame of reference. Psychotherapy, 52(4), 391.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000026
Evans, C., Connell, J., Barkham, M., Margison, F., McGrath, G., Mellor-Clark, J., & Audin, K. (2002). Towards a standardised brief outcome measure: Psychometric properties and utility of the CORE–OM. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 180(1), 51-60.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.180.1.51
Evans, C., Connell, J., Barkham, M., Marshall, C., & Mellor‐Clark, J. (2003). Practice‐based evidence: benchmarking NHS primary care counselling services at national and local levels. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy: An International Journal of Theory & Practice, 10(6), 374-388.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.384
Gallo, E., & Rucci, P. (2000). Supply, demand and predictive factors of psychotherapies in 10 community mental health services in Emilia Romagna. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 9(2), 103-112.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1121189X00008290
Ghasemi, A., & Zahediasl, S. (2012). Normality tests for statistical analysis: a guide for non-statisticians. International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 10(2), 486.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5812/ijem.3505
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: a Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Kim, H. Y. (2013). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics, 38(1), 52-54.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52
Kyriazos, T. A. (2018). Applied psychometrics: sample size and sample power considerations in factor analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in general. Psychology, 9(08), 2207.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2018.98126
Lambert, M. J. (2010). Prevention of treatment failure: The use of measuring, monitoring, and feedback in clinical practice. American Psychological Association.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/12141-000
Lambert, M. J., Gregersen, A. T., & Burlingame, G. M. (2004). The Outcome Questionnaire-45.
Lambert, M.J., Burlingame, G.M., Umphress, V., Hansen, N.B., Vermeersch, D.A., Clouse, G.C. (1996). The reliability and validity of the Outcome Questionnaire. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 3, 249–258.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0879(199612)3:4<249::AID-CPP106>3.0.CO;2-S
Lambert, M. J., Whipple, J. L., & Kleinstäuber, M. (2018). Collecting and delivering progress feedback: A meta-analysis of routine outcome monitoring. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 520.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000167
Lambert, M. J., Whipple, J. L., Hawkins, E. J., Vermeersch, D. A., Nielsen, S. L., & Smart, D. W. (2003). Is it time for clinicians to routinely track patient outcome? a meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(3), 288.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bpg025
Lambert, M. J., Whipple, J. L., Vermeersch, D. A., Smart, D. W., Hawkins, E. J., Nielsen, S. L., & Goates, M. (2002). Enhancing psychotherapy outcomes via providing feedback on client progress: A replication. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 9(2), 91-103.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.324
Lomazzi, L., Fava, E., Landra, S., D'Angelo, P., Lammoglia, M., Pazzi, E., ... & Carta, I. (1997). Psychotherapies in Lombard public mental health services: psichiatrists' and psicologists' point of view. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 6(3), 184-193.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1121189X00005030
Lovibond S.H., Lovibond, P.F (1995). Manual for the depression anxiety stress scales (2nd ed.), Psychology Foundation, Sydney.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/t01004-000
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2012). An attachment perspective on psychopathology. World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA), 11(1), 11–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpsyc.2012.01.003
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpsyc.2012.01.003
Miller, S. D., Duncan, B. L., Brown, J., Sparks, J. A., & Claud, D. A. (2003). The outcome rating scale: A preliminary study of the reliability, validity, and feasibility of a brief visual analog measure. Journal of brief Therapy, 2(2), 91-100.
Nor, A. W. (2015). The graphical assessment of multivariate normality using SPSS. Education in Medicine Journal, 7(2), e71-e75.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5959/eimj.v7i2.361
Østergård, O. K., & Hougaard, E. (2020). The evidence for the partners for change outcome management system is insufficient: Reply to Duncan and Sparks (2020).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000419
Østergård, O. K., Randa, H., & Hougaard, E. (2020). The effect of using the Partners for Change Outcome Management System as feedback tool in psychotherapy - A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychotherapy Research, 30(2), 195-212.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2018.1517949
Palmieri, G., Evans, C., Hansen, V., Brancaleoni, G., Ferrari, S., Porcelli, P., ... & Rigatelli, M. (2009). Validation of the Italian version of the clinical outcomes in routine evaluation outcome measure (CORE‐OM). Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy: An International Journal of Theory & Practice, 16(5), 444-449.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.646
Pavot, W., Diener, E. (1993). Review of the Satisfaction With Life Scale. Psychological Assessment, 5(2), 164-172. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.5.2.164
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.5.2.164
Shepherd, M., Ashworth, M., Evans, C., Robinson, S. I., Rendall, M., & Ward, S. (2005). What factors are associated with improvement after brief psychological interventions in primary care? Issues arising from using routine outcome measurement to inform clinical practice. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 5(4), 273-280.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14733140600571326
Twenge, J. M., Cooper, A. B., Joiner, T. E., Duffy, M. E., & Binau, S. G. (2019). Age, period, and cohort trends in mood disorder indicators and suicide-related outcomes in a nationally representative dataset, 2005–2017. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 128(3), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000410
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000410
WHO (1998). Wellbeing Measures in Primary Health Care/The Depcare Project. WHO Regional Office for Europe: Copenhagen.
How to Cite
La Tona, A., Tagini, S., Brugnera, A., Poletti, B., Aiello, E. N., Lo Coco, G., … Compare, A. (2023). Italian validation of the <em>Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-10</em> (CORE-10): a short measure for routine outcome monitoring in clinical practice. Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome, 26(1). https://doi.org/10.4081/ripppo.2023.671
Copyright (c) 2023 the Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.
Similar Articles
- Rolf Sandell, Rating the outcomes of psychotherapy or psychoanalysis using the Change After Psychotherapy (CHAP) scales. Manual and commentary , Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome: Vol. 18 No. 2 (2015): Special issue on Qualitative and Quantitative Research in Child and Adolescent Psychotherapy: part 1
- Ilaria Maria Antonietta Benzi, Nicola Carone, Laura Parolin, Gabriel Martin-Gagnon, Karin Ensink, Andrea Fontana, Different epistemic stances for different traumatic experiences: implications for mentalization , Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome: Vol. 26 No. 3 (2023)
- Chiara Manfredi, Gabriele Caselli, Federica Pescini, Martina Rossi, Daniela Rebecchi, Giovanni Maria Ruggiero, Sandra Sassaroli, Parental criticism, self-criticism and their relation to depressive mood: an exploratory study among a non-clinical population , Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome: Vol. 19 No. 1 (2016): Special issue on Qualitative and Quantitative Research in Child and Adolescent Psychotherapy: part 2
- Giorgia Margherita, Benedetta Muzii, Alessia Caffieri, Adriana Di Francia, Brenda Somma, ‘Isolated together’: online group treatments during the COVID-19 pandemic. A systematic review , Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome: Vol. 25 No. 3 (2022): SPECIAL ISSUE: "Group psychotherapy: between settled benchmarks and new horizons"
- Jule Bauckhage, Christian Sell, When and for whom do psychodynamic therapists use guided imagery? Explicating practitioners’ tacit knowledge , Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome: Vol. 24 No. 3 (2021)
- Alessandro Talia, Anna Georg, Björn Siepe, Salvatore Gullo, Madeleine Miller-Bottome, Jana Volkert, Corinne Neukel, Michael Kaess, Felix Bempohl, Sabine C. Herpertz, Svenja Taubner, An exploratory study on how attachment classifications manifest in group psychotherapy , Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome: Vol. 25 No. 3 (2022): SPECIAL ISSUE: "Group psychotherapy: between settled benchmarks and new horizons"
- Emanuela Brusadelli, Laura Ferrari, Michele Benetti, Stefania Bruzzese, Giada Maria Tonelli, Salvatore Gullo, Online Supportive Group as social intervention to face COVID lockdown. A qualitative study on psychotherapists, psychology trainees and students, and community people , Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome: Vol. 23 No. 3 (2020)
- Marta Vecchiato, Chiara Sacchi, Alessandra Simonelli, Nicola Purgato, Evaluating the efficacy of psychodynamic treatment on a single case of autism. A qualitative research , Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome: Vol. 19 No. 1 (2016): Special issue on Qualitative and Quantitative Research in Child and Adolescent Psychotherapy: part 2
- Giovanna Esposito, Francesco Cuomo, Angela Di Maro, Raffaella Passeggia, The assessment of therapist responsiveness in psychotherapy research: a systematic review , Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome: Vol. 27 No. 2 (2024)
- Giovanna Esposito, Anna Sara Cutolo, Raffaella Passeggia, Silvia Formentin, Miguel Mario Gonçalves, Tracking change in group interventions: a further adaptation of the innovative moments coding system for groups , Research in Psychotherapy: Psychopathology, Process and Outcome: Vol. 25 No. 3 (2022): SPECIAL ISSUE: "Group psychotherapy: between settled benchmarks and new horizons"
<< < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > >>
You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.
