Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation – Outcome Measure

Figures & data

Table 1 Demographic data

Sample	Total (missing data for sex)	Females (%)	Males (%)	Mean age (SD)	Age range (years)
Nonclinical sample	452 (15)	343 (75.9)	94 (20.8)	29.3 (14.4)	18–76
Students	310 (15)	250 (76.9)	60 (18.5)	23.2 (6.1)	18–69
Community sample	127 (0)	93 (73.2)	34 (26.8)	44.4 (17.6)	20–76
Clinical sample (outpatients)	192 (1)	130 (67.7)	61 (31.8)	41.3 (14.9)	18–78
Primary care	44 (0)	29 (65.9)	15 (34.1)	41.8 (12.7)	22–76
Secondary care	147 (1)	101 (68.2)	46 (31.1)	41.1 (15.5)	18–78
Test–retest sample	78 (0)	54 (69.2)	24 (30.8)	34.9 (18.8)	18–69
Students	32 (0)	26 (81.3)	6 (18.8)	20.7 (3.8)	18–34
Community sample	46 (0)	28 (60.9)	18 (39.1)	44.8 (18.8)	20–69

Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.

Figure 1 Forest plot showing comparison between Spanish scores and UK referential data.

Table 2 Coefficient α (95% CI) denoting internal consistency for nonclinical and clinical samples

Domains	Nonclinical samples		Clinical samples		Pooled nonclinical samples (n=452)	Pooled clinical samples (n=192)
	Students (n=325)	Community (n=127)	Primary care (n=44)	Secondary care (n=148)
Subjective well-being	0.80 (0.76, 0.83)	0.80 (0.74, 0.85)	0.79 (0.67, 0.88)	0.81 (0.75, 0.85)	0.80 (0.77, 0.83)	0.81 (0.76, 0.85)
Problems/Symptoms	0.88 (0.86, 0.90)	0.85 (0.81, 0.89)	0.86 (0.80, 0.91)a	0.90 (0.88, 0.92)a	0.88 (0.86, 0.90)	0.90 (0.87, 0.91)
Functioning	0.86 (0.84, 0.88)	0.84 (0.80, 0.88)	0.82 (0.73, 0.89)	0.86 (0.83, 0.89)	0.86 (0.84, 0.88)	0.85 (0.82, 0.88)
Risk	0.73 (0.68, 0.77)b	0.60 (0.48, 0.70)b	0.80 (0.68, 0.87)	0.76 (0.70, 0.82)	0.71 (0.66, 0.75)c	0.77 (0.71, 0.82)c
Nonrisk items	0.94 (0.93, 0.95)	0.93 (0.91, 0.95)	0.92 (0.88, 0.95)	0.85 (0.93, 0.96)	0.94 (0.93, 0.95)	0.94 (0.93, 0.95)
All items	0.94 (0.93, 0.95)b	0.92 (0.90, 0.94)b	0.93 (0.90, 0.95)	0.95 (0.93, 0.96)	0.94 (0.93, 0.95)	0.94 (0.93, 0.95)

Notes:

a P<0.05 (significantly higher α in the secondary care sample in comparison with primary care sample).

b P<0.05 (significantly higher α in the students sample in comparison with the community sample).

c P<0.05 (significantly higher α in the clinical sample in comparison with the nonclinical sample).

Abbreviation: CI, confidence interval.

Table 3 Test–retest stability and changes of mean values between first and second survey in a nonclinical sample (n=78)

Domains	Test–retest stabilitya	Change
		Mean	95% CI	P-valueb
Subjective well-being	0.76	−0.013	−0.13, 0.10	0.80
Problems/Symptoms	0.85	0.045	−0.03, 0.12	0.47
Functioning	0.79	0.045	−0.02, 0.12	0.16
Risk	0.45	0.008	−0.04, 0.04	0.90
Nonrisk items	0.87	0.037	−0.02, 0.10	0.36
All items	0.87	0.030	−0.02, 0.08	0.43

Notes:

a Rho Spearman correlation.

b Wilcoxon test.

Abbreviation: CI, confidence interval.

Table 4 Correlations with referential measures in clinical samples

Samples	n	Domains
		W	P	F	R	−R	All
Primary care (present study)
BDI-II	39	0.76	0.75	0.65	0.32	0.78	0.74
SCL-90-R	30	0.66	0.56	0.58	0.10	0.64	0.61
Secondary care (present study)
BDI-II	123	0.80	0.82	0.77	0.55	0.85	0.85
SCL-90-R	125	0.70	0.81	0.75	0.51	0.82	0.82
Pooled clinical samples (present study)
BDI-II	162	0.79	0.80	0.74	0.48	0.83	0.83
SCL-90-R	155	0.70	0.77	0.72	0.46	0.79	0.79
Clinical sample (Evans et al^Citation36)
BDI-II	29	0.79	0.74	0.78	0.32	0.83	0.81
SCL-90-R	34	0.68	0.87	0.79	0.83	0.85	0.88

Abbreviations: W, subjective well-being; P, problems/symptoms; F, functioning; R, risk; BDI-II, Beck Depression Inventory-II; SCL-90-R, Symptom Checklist-90-Revised.

Table 5 Mean and standard deviations for clinical and nonclinical samples

Domains	Present study						Evans et al*
	Nonclinical (n=452)		Clinical (n=192)		95% CI		Nonclinical (n=1,084)		Clinical (n=863)		95% CI
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Difference	da	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Difference	da,b
Subjective well-being	1.18	0.76	2.41	0.95	1.08, 1.36	1.5 (1.31, 1.68)	0.91	0.83	2.37	0.96	1.38, 1.53	1.6 (1.54, 1.74)
Problems/Symptoms	0.99	0.62	1.98	0.87	0.86, 1.10	1.4 (1.22, 1.59)	0.90	0.72	2.31	0.88	1.33, 1.48	1.7 (1.67, 1.88)
Functioning	0.74	0.52	1.56	0.75	0.71, 0.92	1.3 (1.19, 1.55)	0.85	0.65	1.86	0.84	0.95, 1.09	1.3 (1.26, 1.46)
Risk	0.11	0.27	0.48	0.66	0.29, 0.44	0.8 (0.69, 1.04)	0.20	0.45	0.63	0.75	0.38, 0.49	0.7 (0.62, 0.81)
Nonrisk items	0.91	0.55	1.86	0.78	0.84, 1.05	1.5 (1.32, 1.70)	0.88	0.66	2.12	0.81	1.18, 1.31	1.7 (1.59, 1.80)
All items	0.77	0.48	1.62	0.71	0.75, 0.94	1.5 (1.33, 1.71)	0.76	0.59	1.86	0.75	1.04, 1.16	1.6 (1.55, 1.76)

Notes:

a Cohen effect size parameter.

b Cohen’s d has been calculated with the data provided at UK study.³⁶

* Reproduced with permission from Evans C, Connell J, Barkham M, et al. Towards a standardised brief out come measure: psychometric properties and utility of the CORE-OM. Br J Psychiatry. 2002;180:51–60.³⁶ Available from: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/180/1/51.long.

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; SD, standard deviation.

Figure 2 Box plot of mean item score for all items for clinical and nonclinical samples.

Abbreviation: CORE-OM, Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - Outcome Measure.

Table 6 Sex differences in scores for clinical and nonclinical samples

Domains	Nonclinical						Clinical
	Male (n=94)		Female (n=343)		95% CI		Male (n=61)		Female (n=130)		95% CI
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Difference	da	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Difference	da,b
W	0.95	0.77	1.23	0.76	−0.46, −0.11	−0.37 (−0.60, −0.14)	2.15	1.03	2.51	0.88	−0.65, −0.08	−0.39 (−0.69, −0.08)
P	0.96	0.68	0.99	0.60	−0.18, 0.10	−0.05 (−0.28, 0.18)	1.83	0.92	2.05	0.85	−0.48, 0.04	−0.25 (−0.56, 0.05)
F	0.70	0.57	0.74	0.50	−0.15, 0.08	−0.08 (−0.31, 0.15)	1.57	0.80	1.55	0.73	−0.21, 0.25	0.03 (−0.28, 0.33)
R	0.13	0.28	0.10	0.27	−0.03, 0.08	0.11 (−0.12, 0.34)	0.53	0.78	0.44	0.59	−0.11, 0.29	0.14 (−0.17, 0.44)
All – R	0.85	0.60	0.92	0.54	−0.19, 0.05	−0.13 (−0.35, 0.10)	1.77	0.83	1.90	0.75	−0.37, 0.10	−0.17 (−0.47, 0.14)
All	0.72	0.52	0.77	0.47	−0.16, 0.05	−0.10 (−0.33, 0.12)	1.56	0.78	1.64	0.68	−0.30, 0.13	−0.11 (−0.42, 0.19)

Note:

a Cohen effect size parameter.

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; SD, standard deviation; W, Subjective well-being; P, Problems/Symptoms; F, Functioning; R, Risk.

Table 7 Correlations between Spearman’s ρ values for clinical and nonclinical samples

Domains	W	P	F	R	All – R
Nonclinical (n=452)
W
P	0.79
F	0.77	0.75
R	0.33	0.39	0.40
All – R	0.89	0.94	0.91	0.41
All	0.88	0.94	0.91	0.45	0.99
Clinical (n=192)
W
P	0.85
F	0.71	0.76
R	0.51	0.56	0.57
All – R	0.89	0.95	0.90	0.60
All	0.88	0.94	0.90	0.67	0.99

Abbreviations: W, subjective well-being; P, problems/symptoms; F, functioning; R, Risk.

Table 8 Male and female cutoff scores between clinical and nonclinical populations

Domains	Present study		Evans et al*
	Male	Female	Male	Female
Subjective well-being	1.46	1.82	1.37	1.77
Problems/Symptoms	1.33	1.43	1.44	1.62
Functioning	1.06	1.07	1.29	1.30
Risk	0.24	0.21	0.43	0.30
Nonrisk items	1.24	1.33	1.36	1.50
All items	1.06	1.13	1.19	1.29

Note:

* Reproduced with permission from Evans C, Connell J, Barkham M, et al. Towards a standardised brief outcome measure: psychometric properties and utility of the CORE-OM. Br J Psychiatry. 2002;180:51–60.³⁶ Available from: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/180/1/51.long.

EvansCConnellJBarkhamMTowards a standardised brief outcome measure: psychometric properties and utility of the CORE-OMBr J Psychiatry2002180516011772852

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar