Validity of clinically significant change classifications yielded by Jacobson-Truax and Hageman-Arrindell methods

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

© 2016 The Author(s).Background: Reporting of the clinical significance of observed changes is recommended when publishing mental health treatment outcome studies and is increasingly used in routine outcomes monitoring systems. Since recovery rates vary with the method chosen, we investigated the validity of classifications of clinically significant change when the Jacobson-Truax method and the Hageman-Arrindell method were used. Methods: Of 718 inpatients who completed the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21) and Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire at admission and discharge to a psychiatric clinic, 355 were invited (and 119 agreed) to complete the questionnaires and the Recovery Assessment Scale six weeks post discharge. Results: Both the JT and HA methods showed comparably good validity when referenced against the other indices. Clinically significant change on the DASS-21 was related to a greater consumer-based sense of recovery, greater perceived quality of life, and fewer readmissions to hospital within 28 days of discharge. Conclusions: Since there was found to be no advantage to using one method over another when recovery is of interest, the simpler JT method is recommended for routine usage.
Original languageEnglish
Article number187
JournalBMC Psychiatry
Volume16
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 6 Jun 2016

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Validity of clinically significant change classifications yielded by Jacobson-Truax and Hageman-Arrindell methods'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this