TY - JOUR
T1 - The evidence for the partners for change outcome management system is insufficient
T2 - Reply to Duncan and Sparks (2020)
AU - Østergård, Ole Karkov
AU - Hougaard, Esben
PY - 2020/11
Y1 - 2020/11
N2 - In their recent article in Psychological Services, Duncan and Sparks (2020) criticize our meta-analysis on the Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS; Østergård, Randa, & Hougaard, 2020) and judge it to be misleading and flawed. This reply points out omissions and mistakes in Duncan and Sparks (2020) and highlights our decisions regarding inclusion criteria, choice of outcome measures, and analytical strategy. We argue that the use of the PCOMS Outcome Rating Scale might inflate effect sizes because of social desirability. Therefore, independent outcome measurement is necessary for a stringent evaluation of the PCOMS as a routine outcome monitoring system.
AB - In their recent article in Psychological Services, Duncan and Sparks (2020) criticize our meta-analysis on the Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS; Østergård, Randa, & Hougaard, 2020) and judge it to be misleading and flawed. This reply points out omissions and mistakes in Duncan and Sparks (2020) and highlights our decisions regarding inclusion criteria, choice of outcome measures, and analytical strategy. We argue that the use of the PCOMS Outcome Rating Scale might inflate effect sizes because of social desirability. Therefore, independent outcome measurement is necessary for a stringent evaluation of the PCOMS as a routine outcome monitoring system.
KW - client feedback
KW - routine outcome monitoring
KW - Partners for Change Outcome Management System
KW - meta-analysis
KW - outcome measurement
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85096459242&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1037/ser0000419
DO - 10.1037/ser0000419
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 33211514
AN - SCOPUS:85096459242
SN - 1541-1559
VL - 17
SP - 497
EP - 498
JO - Psychological Services
JF - Psychological Services
IS - 4
ER -