Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Distribution of CORE–OM scores in a general population, clinical cut-off points and comparison with the CIS–R

  • Janice Connell (a1), Michael Barkham (a1), William B. Stiles (a2), Elspeth Twigg (a3), Nicola Singleton (a4), Olga Evans (a4) and Jeremy N. V. Miles (a5)...
Abstract
Background

Although measures of psychopathology are designed for use in clinical populations, their meaning derives from comparison with normal populations.

Aims

To compare the distribution of scores on the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation — Outcome Measure (CORE-OM) from a general population sample with the distribution in an aggregated clinical sample to derive recommended cut-off points for determining clinical significance.

Method

The CORE-OM general population sample was based on a weighted subsample of participants in the psychiatric morbidity follow-up survey who completed valid CORE-OM forms following their interview (effective n=535).

Results

Comparison of the CORE-OM general population sample with a clinical sample aggregated from previous studies (n=10761) yielded a cut-off score of 9.9 on the 0–40 scale of the CORE-OM. The CORE-OM was highly correlated (r=0.77) with the Clinical Interview Schedule — Revised, supporting convergent validity.

Conclusions

We recommend rounding the CORE-OM cut-off score to 10. However, cut-off scores must be used thoughtfully and adjusted to fit context and purpose.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Distribution of CORE–OM scores in a general population, clinical cut-off points and comparison with the CIS–R
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Distribution of CORE–OM scores in a general population, clinical cut-off points and comparison with the CIS–R
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Distribution of CORE–OM scores in a general population, clinical cut-off points and comparison with the CIS–R
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
Janice Connell, Psychological Therapies Research Centre, 17 Blenheim Terrace, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK. Email: j.connell@leeds.ac.uk
Footnotes
Hide All

Declaration of interest

M.B. was funded by the Mental Health Foundation to develop the CORE-OM.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Barkham, M., Margison, F., Leach, C., et al (2001) Service profiling and outcomes benchmarking using the CORE-OM: towards practice-based evidence in the psychological therapies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 184196.
Barkham, M., Gilbert, N., Connell, J., et al (2005) Suitability and utility of the CORE-OM and CORE-A for assessing severity of presenting problems in psychological therapy services based in primary and secondary care settings. British Journal of Psychiatry, 186, 239246.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A. & Garbin, M. G. (1988) Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: twenty-five years of evaluation. Clinical Psychology Review, 8, 77100.
Cahill, J., Barkham, M., Stiles, W. B., et al (2006) Convergent validity of the CORE measures with measures of depression for clients in brief cognitive therapy for depression. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 253259.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297334.
Evans, C., Connell, J., Barkham, M., et al (2002) Towards a standardised brief outcome measure: psychometric properties and utility of the CORE-OM. British Journal of Psychiatry, 180, 5160.
Evans, C., Connell, J., Barkham, M., et al (2003) Practice-based evidence: benchmarking NHS primary care counselling services at national and local levels. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 10, 374388.
Jacobson, N. S. & Truax, P. (1991) Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 1219.
Leach, C., Lucock, M., Barkham, M., et al (2005) Assessing risk and emotional disturbance using the CORE-OM and HoNOS outcome measures at the interface between primary and secondary mental healthcare. Psychiatric Bulletin, 29, 419422.
Leach, C., Lucock, M., Barkham, M., et al (2006) Transforming between Beck Depression Inventory and CORE-OM scores in routine clinical practice. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45, 153166.
Lewis, G., Pelosi, A. J., Araya, R. et al (1992) Measuring psychiatric disorder in the community: a standardized assessment for use by lay interviewers. Psychological Medicine, 22, 465486.
Martinovich, Z., Saunders, S. & Howard, K. I. (1996) Some comments on ‘Assessing clinical significance.’ Psychotherapy Research, 6, 124132.
Rorer, L. G., Hoffman, P. J., LaForge, G., et al (1966a) Optimum cutting scores to discriminate groups of unequal size and variance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50, 153164.
Rorer, L. G., Hoffman, P. J. & Hsieh, K. (1966b) Utilities as base-rate multipliers in the determination of optimum cutting scores for the discrimination of groups of unequal size and variance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50, 364368.
Singleton, N. & Lewis, G. (2003) Better or Worse: A Longitudinal Study of the Mental Health of Adults Living in Private Households, 2000. London: TSO (The Stationery Office).
Singleton, N., Bumpstead, R., O'Brien, M., et al (2001) Psychiatric Morbidity Among Adults Lliving in Private Households, 2000. London: TSO (The Stationery Office).
Singleton, N., Lee, A. & Meltzer, H. (2002) Psychiatric Morbidity Among Adults Living in Private Households, 2000: Technical Report. London: Office for National Statistics.
Stewart-Brown, S., Evans, J., Patterson, J., et al (2000) The health of students in institutes of higher education: an important and neglected public health problem? Journal of Public Health Medicine, 22, 492498.
Stiles, W. B., Barkham, M., Twigg, E., et al (2006) Effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural, person-centred, and psychodynamic therapies as practiced in UK National Health Service settings. Psychological Medicine, 36, 555566.
Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M. & Keller, S. D. (1996) A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Medical Care, 34, 220233.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

The British Journal of Psychiatry
  • ISSN: 0007-1250
  • EISSN: 1472-1465
  • URL: /core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 18 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 177 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 2nd January 2018 - 21st April 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Distribution of CORE–OM scores in a general population, clinical cut-off points and comparison with the CIS–R

  • Janice Connell (a1), Michael Barkham (a1), William B. Stiles (a2), Elspeth Twigg (a3), Nicola Singleton (a4), Olga Evans (a4) and Jeremy N. V. Miles (a5)...
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.

×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *