BACKGROUND: The Health of the Nation Outcome Scale for Children and Adolescents (HoNOSCA) is an established outcome measure for child and adolescent mental health. Little is known of adolescent views on outcome. AIMS: To develop and test the properties of an adolescent, self-rated version of the scale (HoNOSCA-SR) against the established clinician-rated version. METHOD: A comparison was made of 6-weekly clinician-rated and self-rated assessments of adolescents attending two services, using HoNOSCA and other mental health measures. RESULTS: Adolescents found HoNOSCA-SR acceptable and easy to rate. They rated fewer difficulties than the clinicians and these difficulties were felt to improve less during treatment, although this varied with diagnosis and length of treatment. Although HoNOSCA-SR showed satisfactory reliability and validity, agreement between clinicians and users in individual cases was poor. CONCLUSIONS: Routine outcome measurement can include adolescent self-rating with modest additional resources. The discrepancy between staff and adolescent views requires further evaluation.
BACKGROUND: The Health of the Nation Outcome Scale for Children and Adolescents (HoNOSCA) is an established outcome measure for child and adolescent mental health. Little is known of adolescent views on outcome. AIMS: To develop and test the properties of an adolescent, self-rated version of the scale (HoNOSCA-SR) against the established clinician-rated version. METHOD: A comparison was made of 6-weekly clinician-rated and self-rated assessments of adolescents attending two services, using HoNOSCA and other mental health measures. RESULTS: Adolescents found HoNOSCA-SR acceptable and easy to rate. They rated fewer difficulties than the clinicians and these difficulties were felt to improve less during treatment, although this varied with diagnosis and length of treatment. Although HoNOSCA-SR showed satisfactory reliability and validity, agreement between clinicians and users in individual cases was poor. CONCLUSIONS: Routine outcome measurement can include adolescent self-rating with modest additional resources. The discrepancy between staff and adolescent views requires further evaluation.
Authors: Thijs Fassaert; Steve Lauriks; Stef van de Weerd; Jan Theunissen; Martijn Kikkert; Jack Dekker; Marcel Buster; Matty de Wit Journal: Community Ment Health J Date: 2013-12-12
Authors: Sasha Shepperd; Helen Doll; Simon Gowers; Anthony James; Mina Fazel; Ray Fitzpatrick; Jon Pollock Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2009-04-15
Authors: Ian M Goodyer; Sonya Tsancheva; Sarah Byford; Bernadka Dubicka; Jonathan Hill; Raphael Kelvin; Shirley Reynolds; Christopher Roberts; Robert Senior; John Suckling; Paul Wilkinson; Mary Target; Peter Fonagy Journal: Trials Date: 2011-07-13 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Jane E Pirkis; Philip M Burgess; Pia K Kirk; Sarity Dodson; Tim J Coombs; Michelle K Williamson Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2005-11-28 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Mark Shapiro; Susan G Silva; Scott Compton; Allan Chrisman; Joseph DeVeaugh-Geiss; Alfiee Breland-Noble; Douglas Kondo; Jerry Kirchner; John S March Journal: Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health Date: 2009-03-25 Impact factor: 3.033
Authors: Charlotte L Hall; Maria Moldavsky; Laurence Baldwin; Michael Marriott; Karen Newell; John Taylor; Kapil Sayal; Chris Hollis Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2013-10-20 Impact factor: 3.630