This study investigates (a) the use of outcome measures among psychotherapists working at family and community service agencies in Canada and (b) whether there are differences in the reasons to use or not to use outcome measures among therapists of different academic backgrounds. One hundred thirty agencies offering family and community service to the English speaking population in Canada were invited to participate in the study. Forty-four agencies (33.8%) provided site permission and 165 participants contributed to the survey. One hundred thirty six respondents reported to use outcome measures while 29 stated not to use outcome measures. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine whether academic background had an effect on two separate factors of reasons to use outcome measures (i.e., treatment factors and business reasons). No significant difference was found in the reasons to use outcome measures among users of different academic backgrounds. Both psychologists and social workers rated treatment factors as most important, followed by business reasons. Treatment factors include the tracking of client progress, determining the strengths and weaknesses of the therapists, providing information on whether a different treatment plan is warranted and the belief of therapists that measuring outcomes is an ethical practice. Business reasons are the agency's requirement to track client progress and the gathering of data for research and publication. The differences in the reasons not to use outcome measures could not be determined through a comparative statistical analysis as the assumptions of ANOVA were violated and the sample size was too small for a valid Kruskal Wallis test. The majority of users (47.3%) indicated that they use outcome measures at intake and at discharge, while 27.9% of users indicated that they use them after every session. Only two formal outcome management systems (the Outcome Questionnaire Measures and the Partners for Change Outcome Measurement System) were commonly used, by a total of 56 of the users, with only one participant using the Clinical Outcome in Routine Evaluation.
|Advisor:||Caffaro, John V.|
|Commitee:||Piotrowski, Nancy A., Reddout, Jeffrey|
|Department:||Social and Behavioral Sciences|
|School Location:||United States -- Minnesota|
|Source:||DAI-B 75/10(E), Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Counseling Psychology, Quantitative psychology|
|Keywords:||Canada, Clinical practice, Outcome measures, Psychotherapy|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be