• Corpus ID: 231799276

Background There is a need for reliable assessmenttools that are suitable for the counsellingand the psychological therapyservicesinprimaryand secondary care settings. Aims Totestthe suitability andutilityof

@inproceedings{Barkham2005BackgroundTI,
  title={Background There is a need for reliable assessmenttools that are suitable for the counsellingand the psychological therapyservicesinprimaryand secondary care settings. Aims Totestthe suitability andutilityof},
  author={Michael Barkham and Naomi Gilbert and Chris Marshall and Elspeth Twigg},
  year={2005}
}

• M. Barkham, Naomi Gilbert, +1 author E. Twigg
• Published 2005
• Medicine, Psychology

Declaration of interest M.B. received funding fromthe Mental Health Foundation and the ArtemisTrustto supportthe developmentofthe CORE^ OMand CORE^A, respectively. There is increasing pressure on mental health services to adopt assessment and outcome measures that can be used routinely in mental health settings (Department of Health, 2001). Measures need to be appropriate for specific patient populations but also be capable of ‘following the patient’ through the various tiers of mental health services. The Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation – Outcome Measure (CORE–OM; Barkham et al, 1998, 2001; Evans et al, 2002) has become a widely used patient self-report measure across service settings delivering psychological treatments, together with a practitionercompleted component termed the CORE– Assessment (CORE–A; Mellor-Clark et al, 1999; Mellor-Clark & Barkham, 2000). However, there has been no test to compare the CORE–OM and CORE–A in assessing the severity of presenting problems in bona fide primary versus secondary care settings. Accordingly, first we investigate whether the CORE–OM and CORE–A are appropriate as assessment tools in both service settings, and then we identify whether they reflect differences between the two settings.