Evaluating the Responsiveness to Therapeutic Change with Routine Outcome Monitoring: A Comparison of the Symptom Questionnaire-48 (SQ-48) with the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) and the Outcome Questionnaire-45 (OQ-45).

Assessment of psychological distress is important, because it may help to monitor treatment effects and predict treatment outcomes. We previously developed the 48-item Symptom Questionnaire (SQ-48) as a public domain self-report psychological distress instrument and showed good internal consistency as well as good convergent and divergent validity among clinical and non-clinical samples. The present study, conducted among psychiatric outpatients in a routine clinical setting, describes additional psychometric properties of the SQ-48. The primary focus is on responsiveness to therapeutic change, which to date has been rarely examined within psychiatry or clinical psychology. Since a questionnaire should also be stable when no clinically important change occurs, we also examined test-retest reliability within a test-retest design before treatment (n = 43). A pre-treatment/post-treatment design was used for responsiveness to therapeutic change, comparing the SQ-48 with two internationally widely used instruments: the Brief Symptom Inventory (n = 97) and the Outcome Questionnaire-45 (n = 109). The results showed that the SQ-48 has excellent test-retest reliability and good responsiveness to therapeutic change, without significant differences between the questionnaires in terms of responsiveness. In sum, the SQ-48 is a psychometrically sound public domain self-report instrument that can be used for routine outcome monitoring, as a benchmark tool or for research purposes. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Key Practitioner Message The SQ-48 is developed as a public domain self-report questionnaire, in line with growing efforts to develop clinical instruments that are free of charge. The SQ-48 has excellent test-retest reliability and good responsiveness to therapeutic change or patient progress. There were no significant differences in terms of responsiveness between the SQ-48 and BSI or OQ-45. The SQ-48 can be used as a routine evaluation outcome measure for quality assurance in clinical practice. Providing feedback on patient progress via outcome measures could contribute to the enhancement of treatment outcomes.

Reference values for the Body Image Concern Inventory (BICI), the Whitely Index (WI), and the Checklist Individual Strength (CIS-20R): The Leiden Routine Outcome Monitoring Study.

BACKGROUND: The Body Image Concern Inventory (BICI), the Whitely Index (WI), and the Checklist Individual Strength (CIS-20R) are three questionnaires often incorporated in routine outcome monitoring (ROM). Respectively, they assess symptom severity in patients with body dysmorphic disorder, hypochondriasis, and chronic fatigue syndrome. We aimed to generate reference values for a healthy population and for a population of patients fulfilling diagnostic criteria for at least one of BDD, hypochondriasis, and CFS, treated in specialized mental health care. METHODS: The healthy ROM reference-group (n=648) was recruited through general practitioners. These subjects were matched for age and sex with the ROM patient-group (n=823). To define limits (i.e., cut-off-values) for one-sided reference intervals (5th percentile [P5] for ROM patient-group and 95th percentile [P95] for ROM reference-group) the outermost 5% of observations were used. Discriminative powers were evaluated by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses RESULTS: Cut-off-values (P95 ROM reference-group) were 55 for the BICI, 6 for the WI, and 92 for the CIS-20R. These values differed for men and women, being mostly higher for women. The discriminative power of all three somatoform questionnaires was very high. LIMITATIONS: Substantial non-response and limited generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: For the BICI, WI, and CIS-20R a comprehensive set of reference values was obtained. The reference values may support clinical decisions regarding adjusting or terminating therapy, and possible referral.

Reference values for anxiety questionnaires: the Leiden Routine Outcome Monitoring Study.

BACKGROUND: The monitoring of patients with an anxiety disorder can benefit from Routine Outcome Monitoring (ROM). As anxiety disorders differ in phenomenology, several anxiety questionnaires are included in ROM: Brief Scale for Anxiety (BSA), PADUA Inventory Revised (PI-R), Panic Appraisal Inventory (PAI), Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ), Worry Domains Questionnaire (WDQ), Social Interaction, Anxiety Scale (SIAS), Social Phobia Scale (SPS), and the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R). We aimed to generate reference values for both 'healthy' and 'clinically anxious' populations for these anxiety questionnaires. METHODS: We included 1295 subjects from the general population (ROM reference-group) and 5066 psychiatric outpatients diagnosed with a specific anxiety disorder (ROM patient-group). The MINI was used as diagnostic device in both the ROM reference group and the ROM patient group. To define limits for one-sided reference intervals (95th percentile; P95) the outermost 5% of observations were used. Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) analyses were used to yield alternative cut-off values for the anxiety questionnaires. RESULTS: For the ROM reference-group the mean age was 40.3 years (SD=12.6), and for the ROM patient-group it was 36.5 years (SD=11.9). Females constituted 62.8% of the reference-group and 64.4% of the patient-group. P95 ROM reference group cut-off values for reference versus clinically anxious populations were 11 for the BSA, 43 for the PI-R, 37 for the PAI Anticipated Panic, 47 for the PAI Perceived Consequences, 65 for the PAI Perceived Self-efficacy, 66 for the PSWQ, 74 for the WDQ, 32 for the SIAS, 19 for the SPS, and 36 for IES-R. ROC analyses yielded slightly lower reference values. The discriminative power of all eight anxiety questionnaires was very high. LIMITATIONS: Substantial non-response and limited generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: For eight anxiety questionnaires a comprehensive set of reference values was provided. Reference values were generally higher in women than in men, implying the use of gender-specific cut-off values. Each instrument can be offered to every patient with MAS disorders to make responsible decisions about continuing, changing or terminating therapy.

Reference values for major depression questionnaires: the Leiden Routine Outcome Monitoring Study.

BACKGROUND: The Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), the Inventory of Depressive Symptoms (self-report) (IDS-SR) and the Montgomery-Äsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) are questionnaires that assess symptom severity in patients with a depressive disorder, often part of Routine Outcome Monitoring (ROM). We aimed to generate reference values for both "healthy" and "clinically depressed" populations. METHODS: We included 1295 subjects from the general population (ROM reference-group) recruited through general practitioners, and 4627 psychiatric outpatients diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) or dysthymia (ROM patient-group). The outermost 5% of observations were used to define limits for one-sided reference intervals (95th percentiles; P95). Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) analyses were used to yield alternative cut-off values. Internal consistency was assessed. RESULTS: The mean age was 40.3yr (SD=12.6) and 39.3 (SD=12.3) for the ROM reference and patient-groups, respectively, and 62.8% versus 61.0% were female. Cut-off (P95) values differed for women and men, being respectively 15 and 12 for the BDI-II, 23 and 18 for the IDS-SR, and 12.5 and 9 for the MADRS. ROC analyses yielded almost equal reference values. The discriminative power of the BDI-II, IDS-SR and MADRS scores was very high. Internal consistency was excellent for total scores and satisfactory for all subscales, except for the IDS-SR subscale Atypical Characteristics. LIMITATIONS: Substantial non-response and limited generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: For the BDI-II, IDS-SR and MADRS a comprehensive set of reference values were provided. Reference values were higher in women than in men, implying the use of sex-specific cut-off values. Either instrument can be offered to every patient with MAS disorders to make responsible decisions about continuing, changing or terminating therapy.

Reference values for mental health assessment instruments: objectives and methods of the Leiden Routine Outcome Monitoring Study.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) was developed to establish the outcome of psychotherapeutic and pharmacological treatments through repeated assessments before, during and after treatment. Although standardization of psychiatric assessments and their reference values are essential for patient care, for various ROM instruments reference values are not available. The aim of the Leiden ROM Study is to generate reference values for 22 ROM instruments, covering generic and specific mood, anxiety and somatoform (MAS) disorders, for the general population. This article describes the extensive process of recruitment, as well as baseline characteristics of patient versus non-patient groups. METHOD: Cross-sectional study in randomly selected participants aged 18-65 years from the Dutch population, included through general practitioners. RESULTS: Extensive demographic, psychosocial, mental health, and biological data from 1302 participants, recruited via general practitioners, were collected during a two-hour standardized assessment including observer-rated and self-report scales. These data will be compared with corresponding data from 7840 patients with psychopathology who were referred to secondary care. On-going quality control and calibration ensured maintenance of high quality during data collection. CONCLUSIONS: This reference group study for mental health assessments is the first study of this size carried out in the Netherlands. The results of this study are expected to be of value to secondary psychiatric care because they allow the indication of progress in health, treatment effect and possible termination of treatment. Additionally, the reference values can be used by primary care physicians as decision threshold for referral to specialized mental health care and vice versa.

Optimism and mental imagery: a possible cognitive marker to promote well-being?

Optimism is associated with a range of benefits not only for general well-being, but also for mental and physical health. The development of psychological interventions to boost optimism derived from cognitive science would have the potential to provide significant public health benefits, yet cognitive markers of optimism are little understood. The current study aimed to take a first step in this direction by identifying a cognitive marker for optimism that could provide a modifiable target for innovative interventions. In particular we predicted that the ability to generate vivid positive mental imagery of the future would be associated with dispositional optimism. A community sample of 237 participants completed a survey comprising measures of mental imagery and optimism, and socio-demographic information. Vividness of positive future imagery was significantly associated with optimism, even when adjusting for socio-demographic factors and everyday imagery use. The ability to generate vivid mental imagery of positive future events may provide a modifiable cognitive marker of optimism. Boosting positive future imagery could provide a cognitive target for treatment innovations to promote optimism, with implications for mental health and even physical well-being.

Reference values for generic instruments used in routine outcome monitoring: the Leiden Routine Outcome Monitoring Study.

INTRODUCTION: The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), Mood & Anxiety Symptom Questionnaire -30 (MASQ-D30), Short Form Health Survey 36 (SF-36), and Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology-Short Form (DAPP-SF) are generic instruments that can be used in Routine Outcome Monitoring (ROM) of patients with common mental disorders. We aimed to generate reference values usually encountered in 'healthy' and 'psychiatrically ill' populations to facilitate correct interpretation of ROM results. METHODS: We included the following specific reference populations: 1294 subjects from the general population (ROM reference group) recruited through general practitioners, and 5269 psychiatric outpatients diagnosed with mood, anxiety, or somatoform (MAS) disorders (ROM patient group). The outermost 5% of observations were used to define limits for one-sided reference intervals (95th percentiles for BSI, MASQ-D30 and DAPP-SF, and 5th percentiles for SF-36 subscales). Internal consistency and Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) analyses were performed. RESULTS: Mean age for the ROM reference group was 40.3 years (SD=12.6) and 37.7 years (SD=12.0) for the ROM patient group. The proportion of females was 62.8% and 64.6%, respectively. The mean for cut-off values of healthy individuals was 0.82 for the BSI subscales, 23 for the three MASQ-D30 subscales, 45 for the SF-36 subscales, and 3.1 for the DAPP-SF subscales. Discriminative power of the BSI, MASQ-D30 and SF-36 was good, but it was poor for the DAPP-SF. For all instruments, the internal consistency of the subscales ranged from adequate to excellent. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Reference values for the clinical interpretation were provided for the BSI, MASQ-D30, SF-36, and DAPP-SF. Clinical information aided by ROM data may represent the best means to appraise the clinical state of psychiatric outpatients.