The evidence for the partners for change outcome management system is insufficient: Reply to Duncan and Sparks (2020)

Ole Karkov Østergård, Esben Hougaard

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

1 Citationer (Scopus)

Abstrakt

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.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftPsychological Services
Vol/bind17
Udgave nummer4
Sider (fra-til)497-498
Antal sider2
ISSN1541-1559
DOI
StatusUdgivet - nov. 2020

Fingeraftryk

Dyk ned i forskningsemnerne om 'The evidence for the partners for change outcome management system is insufficient: Reply to Duncan and Sparks (2020)'. Sammen danner de et unikt fingeraftryk.

Citationsformater