Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire Added Value Scores: evaluating effectiveness in child mental health interventions

TY - JOUR

T1 - Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire Added Value Scores: evaluating effectiveness in child mental health interventions

AU - Ford, Tamsin

AU - Hutchings, Judy

AU - Bywater, Tracey

AU - Goodman, Anna

AU - Goodman, Robert

PY - 2009/6

Y1 - 2009/6

N2 - Background Routine outcome monitoring may improve clinical services but remains controversial, partly because the absence of a control group makes interpretation difficult. Aims To test a computer algorithm designed to allow practitioners to compare their outcomes with epidemiological data from a population sample against data from a randomised controlled trial, to see if it accurately predicted the trial's outcome. Method We developed an 'added value' score using epidemiological data on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). We tested whether it correctly predicted the effect size for the control and intervention groups in a randomised controlled trial. Results As compared with the a priori expectation of zero, the Added Value Score applied to the control group predicted an effect size of -0.03 (95% CI -0.30 to 0.24, t=0.2, P=0.8). As compared with the trial estimate of 0.37, the Added Value Score applied to the intervention group predicted an effect size of 0.36 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.60, t=0.1, P=0.9). Conclusions Our findings provide preliminary support for the validity of this approach as one tool in the evaluation of interventions with groups of children who have, or are at high risk of developing, significant psychopathology.

AB - Background Routine outcome monitoring may improve clinical services but remains controversial, partly because the absence of a control group makes interpretation difficult. Aims To test a computer algorithm designed to allow practitioners to compare their outcomes with epidemiological data from a population sample against data from a randomised controlled trial, to see if it accurately predicted the trial's outcome. Method We developed an 'added value' score using epidemiological data on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). We tested whether it correctly predicted the effect size for the control and intervention groups in a randomised controlled trial. Results As compared with the a priori expectation of zero, the Added Value Score applied to the control group predicted an effect size of -0.03 (95% CI -0.30 to 0.24, t=0.2, P=0.8). As compared with the trial estimate of 0.37, the Added Value Score applied to the intervention group predicted an effect size of 0.36 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.60, t=0.1, P=0.9). Conclusions Our findings provide preliminary support for the validity of this approach as one tool in the evaluation of interventions with groups of children who have, or are at high risk of developing, significant psychopathology.

U2 - 10.1192/bjp.bp.108.052373

DO - 10.1192/bjp.bp.108.052373

M3 - Article

SN - 1472-1465

VL - 194

SP - 552

EP - 558

JO - British Journal of Psychiatry

JF - British Journal of Psychiatry

IS - 6

ER -