OBJECTIVE: The Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI) is established as a core metric in psychiatric research. This study aims to test the validity of CGI as a clinical outcome measure suitable for routine use in a private inpatient setting. METHODS: The CGI was added to a standard battery of routine outcome measures in a private psychiatric hospital. Data were collected on consecutive admissions over a period of 24 months, which included clinical diagnosis, demographics, service utilization and four routine measures (CGI, HoNOS, MHQ-14 and DASS-21) at both admission and discharge. Descriptive and comparative data analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of 786 admissions in total, there were 624 and 614 CGI-S ratings completed at the point of admission and discharge, respectively, and 610 completed CGI-I ratings. The admission and discharge CGI-S scores were correlated (r = 0.40), and the indirect improvement measures obtained from their differences were highly correlated with the direct CGI-I scores (r = 0.71). The CGI results reflected similar trends seen in the other three outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: The CGI is a valid clinical outcome measure suitable for routine use in an inpatient setting. It offers a number of advantages, including its established utility in psychiatric research, sensitivity to change, quick and simple administration, utility across diagnostic groupings, and reliability in the hands of skilled clinicians.
OBJECTIVE: The Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI) is established as a core metric in psychiatric research. This study aims to test the validity of CGI as a clinical outcome measure suitable for routine use in a private inpatient setting. METHODS: The CGI was added to a standard battery of routine outcome measures in a private psychiatric hospital. Data were collected on consecutive admissions over a period of 24 months, which included clinical diagnosis, demographics, service utilization and four routine measures (CGI, HoNOS, MHQ-14 and DASS-21) at both admission and discharge. Descriptive and comparative data analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of 786 admissions in total, there were 624 and 614 CGI-S ratings completed at the point of admission and discharge, respectively, and 610 completed CGI-I ratings. The admission and discharge CGI-S scores were correlated (r = 0.40), and the indirect improvement measures obtained from their differences were highly correlated with the direct CGI-I scores (r = 0.71). The CGI results reflected similar trends seen in the other three outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: The CGI is a valid clinical outcome measure suitable for routine use in an inpatient setting. It offers a number of advantages, including its established utility in psychiatric research, sensitivity to change, quick and simple administration, utility across diagnostic groupings, and reliability in the hands of skilled clinicians.
Authors: Amanda W Baker; Madelyn R Frumkin; Susanne S Hoeppner; Nicole J LeBlanc; Eric Bui; Stefan G Hofmann; Naomi M Simon Journal: Mindfulness (N Y) Date: 2018-11-07
Authors: Greg Clarke; Eleanor L McGlinchey; Kerrie Hein; Christina M Gullion; John F Dickerson; Michael C Leo; Allison G Harvey Journal: Behav Res Ther Date: 2015-04-14
Authors: Abigail L Barthel; Megan A Pinaire; Joshua E Curtiss; Amanda W Baker; Mackenzie L Brown; Susanne S Hoeppner; Eric Bui; Naomi M Simon; Stefan G Hofmann Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2020-09-02 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Fabian Lenhard; Sebastian Sauer; Erik Andersson; Kristoffer Nt Månsson; David Mataix-Cols; Christian Rück; Eva Serlachius Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2017-07-28 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Robert Hilt; Christine Wolf; Kent Koprowicz; Elizabeth Thomas; Mary Chandler; Xiao Lei Hao; Matthew Russell; Tung Le; Lee Hooks; Bryan King Journal: Community Ment Health J Date: 2013-12-10
Authors: Iris Oosterling; Janne Visser; Sophie Swinkels; Nanda Rommelse; Rogier Donders; Tim Woudenberg; Sascha Roos; Rutger Jan van der Gaag; Jan Buitelaar Journal: J Autism Dev Disord Date: 2010-12
Authors: Stefan G Hofmann; Joshua Curtiss; Sat Bir S Khalsa; Elizabeth Hoge; David Rosenfield; Eric Bui; Aparna Keshaviah; Naomi Simon Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2015-08-06 Impact factor: 2.226