Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-ms7nj Total loading time: 0.286 Render date: 2022-08-07T20:17:51.754Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

The Outcome Questionnaire 45.2. Italian validation of an instrument for the assessment of phychological treatments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2011

Marco Chiappelli*
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Salute Mentale, Azienda USL di Bologna, Bologna
Gianluca Lo Coco
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Psicologia, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Palermo
Salvatore Gullo
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Psicologia, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Palermo
Luca Bensi
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Psicologia, Università degli Studi di Bologna, Bologna
Claudia Prestano
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Psicologia, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Palermo
*
Address for correspondence: Dr. M. Chiappelli, Dipartimento di Salute Mentale, Azienda USL di Bologna, viale Carlo Pepoli 5, 40123, Bologna Fax: +39-051-6584178 E-mail: marco.chiappelli@ausl.bologna.it

Summary

Aims – The Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45.2; Lambert et al., 2004) was designed to measure important areas of functioning (symptoms, interpersonal problems and social role functioning) that are of central interest in mental health. The crosscultural validity of the OQ-45.2 in the Italian population has been examined by comparing the psychometric properties and equivalence in factor structure and normative scores of the Italian OQ with the original American version. Method – Data were collected at university (N=461), in community (N=61) and in three mental health care organisations (N=301). Results – Results showed that the psychometric properties of the Italian OQ were adequate and similar to the original instrument. The CFA supported the multidimentional construct system of the instrument. Furthermore, normative scores were different for the Italian and American samples and this resulted in different cutoff scores for estimating clinically significant change in the Italian population. Conclusions – The Italian version of the OQ-45.2 appears promising as a measure of general psychological distress, and it could be used to measure the psychotherapy outcome in routine clinical practice.

Declaration of Interest:

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, E.M. & Lambert, M.J. (2001). A survival analysis of significant change in outpatient psychotherapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology 57, 875888.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bauer, S., Lambert, M.J. & Nielsen, S.L. (2004). Clinical significance methods: a comparison of statistical techniques. Journal of Personality Assessment 82, 6070.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beck, A.T., Steer, R.A. & Garbin, M.G. (1988). Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: Twenty-five years later. Clinical Psychology Review 8, 77100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckstead, D.J., Hatch, A.L., Lambert, M.J., Eggett, D.L., Goates, M.K. & Vermeersch, D.A. (2003). Clinical significance of the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45.2). Behavior Analyst Today 4, 7990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentler, P.M. (2001). EQS 6 Structural Equations Program Manual. Multivariate Software: Encino, CA.Google Scholar
Butcher, J., Derksen, J., Sloore, H. & Sirigatti, S. (2003). Objective personality assessment of people in diverse cultures: European adaptions of the MMPI-2. Behaviour Research and Therapy 41, 819840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambless, D.L. & Hollon, S.D. (1998). Defining empirical supported psychological treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 66, 618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambless, D.L. & Ollendick, T.H. (2001). Gli interventi psicologici validati empiricamente: controversie e prove empiriche. Psicoterapia e Scienze Umane 3, 546.Google Scholar
Chapman, J. E. (2003). Reliability and Validity of the Progress Questionnaire: an Adaptation of the Outcome Questionnaire. Drexel University: Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Cipriani, A. & Barbui, C. (2007). What is an individual patient data meta-analysis? Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale 16, 203204.Google ScholarPubMed
Conti, L. (1999). Repertorio delle Scale di Valutazione in Psichiatria. SEE: Firenze.Google Scholar
Davis, W.E., Greenblatt, R.L. & Pochyly, J.M. (1990). Test of MCMI black norms for five scales. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 46, 175178.3.0.CO;2-Q>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Jong, K., Nugter, M.A., Polak, M.G., Wagenborg, J. E. A., Spinhoven, P., Heiser, W.J. (in press). The Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45) in a Dutch population: a cross-cultural validation. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy.Google Scholar
Fava, E. & Masserini, C. (2006). La valutazione dell'efficacia delle psi-coterapie nei servizi pubblici. In La Ricerca in Psicoterapia (a cura di Dazzi, N., Lingiardi, V., Colli, A.). Raffaello Cortina: Milano.Google Scholar
Freni, S. & Papini, S.P. (2006). Una rassegna critica degli strumenti utili per la ricerca in psicoterapia. In La Ricerca in Psicoterapia (a cura di Dazzi, N., Lingiardi, V., Colli, A.). Raffaello Cortina: Milano.Google Scholar
Goldberg, D. (2006). The “NICE Guideline” on the treatment of depression. Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale 15, 1115.Google ScholarPubMed
Guthrie, E. (2004). Research on delivery of psychotherapy services: an introduction to the special section. Psychotherapy Research 14, 143145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, N.B., Lambert, M.J. & Forman, E.M. (2002). The psychotherapy dose-response effect and its implications for tratment delivery services. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice 9, 329–243.Google Scholar
Hartfield, D.R. & Ogles, B.M. (2004). The use of outcome measures by psychologists in clinical practice. Professional Psychology-Research and Practice 35(5), 485491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, N.S. & Truax, P. (1991). Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful clinical change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 59, 1219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jöreskog, K. & Sorbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: A Guide to the Program and Applications (2nd ed.). SPSS: Chicago.Google Scholar
Kline, R.B. (1991). Latent variable path analysis in clinical research: A beginner's tour guide. Journal of Clinical Psychology 41, 471484.3.0.CO;2-O>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, M.J. (2001). Psychotherapy outcome and quality improvement: introduction to the Special Section on patient-focused research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 69, 147149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambert, M.J. (2007). Presidential address: what we have learned from a decade of research aimed at improving psychotherapy outcome in routine care. Psychotherapy Research 17, 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, M.J. & Ogles, B.M. (2004). The efficacy and effectiveness of psychotherapy. In Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behaviour Change (5rh ed.) (ed. Lambert, M.), pp. 139193. Wiley: New York.Google Scholar
Lambert, M.J., Hansen, N.B., Umpress, V., Lunnen, K., Okiishi, J., Burlingame, G.M., Heufner, J., & Reisinger, C. (1996a). Administration and Scoring Manualfor the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ 45.2). American Professional Credentialing Services: Wilmington, DE.Google Scholar
Lambert, M.J., Burlingame, G.M., Umphress, V., Hansen, N.B., Vermeersch, D.A., Clouse, G.C. & Yanchar, S.C. (1996b). The reliability and validity of the Outcome Questionnaire. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy 3, 249258.3.0.CO;2-S>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, M.J., Hansen, N.B. & Finch, A.E. (2001). Patient focused research: using patient outcome data to enhance treatment effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 69, 159172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambert, M.J., Hannover, W., Nisslmüller, K., Richard, M. & Kordy, H. (2002). Fragebogen zum ergebnis von psychotherapie: Zur reliabi-litat und validitat der deutschen ubersetzung des Outcome Questionnaire 45.2 (OQ-45.2). Zeitscrift fur Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie 31, 4046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, M.J., Morton, J.J., Hatfield, D.R., Harmon, C, Hamilton, S., Shimokawa, K. et al. (2004). Administration and Scoring Manual for the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ 45.2) (3 ed.). American Professional Credentialling Services LLC: Wilmington, DE.Google Scholar
Lo Coco, G., Prestano, C. & Lambert, M.J. (2003). La ricerca focalizzata sul paziente. Un modello di supporto clinico per il terapeuta. Ricerca in Psicoterapia 3, 135149.Google Scholar
Lo Coco, G., Prestano, C, Di Stefano, G., Gullo, S. & Lambert, M.J. (2006). Un primo studio sulla validazione italiana dell'Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45.2). Ricerca in Psicoterapia 9, 719.Google Scholar
Lueger, R.J., Howard, K.J., Martinovich, Z., Lutz, W., Anderson, E.E. & Grissom, G. (2001). Assessing treatment progress of individual patients using expected treatment response models. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 69, 150158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mueller, R., Lambert, M.J. & Burlingame, G.M. (1998). The Outcome Questionnaire: A confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment 70, 248262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilling, S. & Price, K. (2006). Developing and implementing clinical guidelines: lessons from the NICE Schizophrenia Guideline. Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale 15, 109116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spielberger, C.D., Gorsuch, R.L., Lushene, R.E., Vagg, P.R. & Jacobs, G.A. (1983). State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Manual. Consulting Psychologists Press: Palo Alto, CA.Google Scholar
Umphress, V.J., Lambert, M.J., Smart, D.W., Barlow, S.H. & Clouse, G. (1997). Concurrent and construct validity of the Outcome Questionnaire. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 15, 4055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermeersch, D., Lambert, M.J. & Burlingame, G.M. (2000). Outcome Questionnaire: Item sensitivity to change. Journal of Personality Assessment 74, 242261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization (2003). Mental Health Policy and Service Guidance Package – Quality Improvement for Mental Health. World Health Organization: Geneva.Google Scholar
17
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.

The Outcome Questionnaire 45.2. Italian validation of an instrument for the assessment of phychological treatments
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The Outcome Questionnaire 45.2. Italian validation of an instrument for the assessment of phychological treatments
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The Outcome Questionnaire 45.2. Italian validation of an instrument for the assessment of phychological treatments
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *