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

Ole Karkov Østergård; Esben Hougaard

doi:10.1037/ser0000419

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

Ole Karkov Østergård, Esben Hougaard

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original language	English
Journal	Psychological Services
Volume	17
Issue number	4
Pages (from-to)	497-498
Number of pages	2
ISSN	1541-1559
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000419
Publication status	Published - Nov 2020

Keywords

client feedback
routine outcome monitoring
Partners for Change Outcome Management System
meta-analysis
outcome measurement

Access to Document

10.1037/ser0000419

AUB Link

Search for the material in Aalborg University Library's search engine

Cite this

@article{9814247e22054ea48899df1853ac9003,

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

abstract = "In their recent article in Psychological Services, Duncan and Sparks (2020) criticize our meta-analysis on the Partners for Change Outcome Management System (PCOMS; {\O}sterg{\aa}rd, 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.",

keywords = "client feedback, routine outcome monitoring, Partners for Change Outcome Management System, meta-analysis, outcome measurement",

author = "{\O}sterg{\aa}rd, {Ole Karkov} and Esben Hougaard",

year = "2020",

month = nov,

doi = "10.1037/ser0000419",

language = "English",

volume = "17",

pages = "497--498",

journal = "Psychological Services",

issn = "1541-1559",

publisher = "American Psychological Association",

number = "4",

}

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 -

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

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

AUB Link

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this