Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:29:00.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The 15-item Systemic Clinical Outcome and Routine Evaluation (SCORE-15) Scale: Portuguese Validation Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2015

Margarida Vilaça ,
Bruno de Sousa ,
Peter Stratton  and
Ana Paula Relvas
Margarida Vilaça*
Affiliation:
Universidade de Coimbra (Portugal)
Bruno de Sousa
Affiliation:
Universidade de Coimbra (Portugal)
Peter Stratton
Affiliation:
University of Leeds (UK)
Ana Paula Relvas
Affiliation:
Universidade de Coimbra (Portugal)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Margarida Vilaça. University of Coimbra. Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences. Rua do Colégio Novo. 3000–115. Coimbra (Portugal). Phone: +35–1916070964. E-mail: gui.vilaca@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study reports on the validity of the 15-item Portuguese version of the Systemic Clinical Outcome Routine Evaluation (SCORE-15; Vilaça, Silva, & Relvas, 2014), a brief and comprehensive measure of family functioning. Previous studies with SCORE-15 show that this version replicates the three-factor solution found for the original English version: Family strengths, Family communication and Family difficulties. In addition to reviewing previous studies, this article analyses the discriminant, convergent and predictive validity of the Portuguese SCORE-15. To do so, the SCORE-15 was administered to family members attending systemic family or couple’s therapy at the start of the first and fourth sessions and also to a group of non-clinical individuals. Overall, data are reported from 618 participants, including 136 from families attending systemic therapy and 482 community family members. Comparisons of community and clinical samples (discriminant validity) showed statistically significant differences for the total scale and subscales (p < .001), with the community participants presenting healthier family functioning than the clinical ones. Analyses using SCORE-15 and the Quality of Life – adult version, another family measure applied simultaneously (convergent validity), indicate that both scales are significantly (p < .01) and moderately (r = –.47) correlated. Mean score analysis of SCORE-15’s therapeutic sensitivity to change (predictive validity) showed that only the Family communication subscale was sensitive to statistically significant improvement (p < .05) from session 1 to session 4, whereas the SCORE-15’s reliability change index points to its ability to detect clinical improvements (RCI = 14%).

Keywords

SCORE-15validationfamily therapyPortugal
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 18 , 2015 , E87
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Almeida, S. (2013). Escala de Qualidade de Vida Familiar (Quality of Life – QOL): Desenvolvimento de uma versão reduzida para a população portuguesa [Quality of Life – QOL: Development of the Portuguese short version] (Unpublished master’s thesis) Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Coimbra, Portugal. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10316/24115 Google Scholar
Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice (n.d.). SCORE-15 Index of Family Functioning and Change. Retrieved from author Webpage http://www.aft.org.uk/view/score.html Google Scholar
Cahill, P., O’Reilly, K., Carr, A., Dooley, B., & Stratton, P. (2010). Validation of a 28-item version of the Systemic Clinical Outcome and Routine Evaluation in an Irish context: The SCORE-28. Journal of Family Therapy, 32, 210–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6427.2010.00506.x Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences (2 nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Deacon, S. A., & Piercy, F. P. (2001). Qualitative methods in family evaluation: Creative assessment techniques. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 29, 355–373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01926180127627 Google Scholar
Evans, C., Margison, F., & Barkham, M. (1998). The contribution of reliable and clinically significant change methods to evidence-based mental health. Evidence-Based Mental Health, 1, 70–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ebmh.1.3.70 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fay, D., Carr, A., O’Reilly, K., Cahill, P., Dooley, B. Guerin, F., & Stratton, P. (2013). Irish norms for the SCORE-15 and 28 from a national telephone survey. Journal of Family Therapy, 35, 24–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6427.2011.00575.x Google Scholar
Golann, S. (1988). On second-order family therapy. Family Process, 27(1), 51–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1988.00051.x Google Scholar
Hamilton, E., Carr, A., Cahill, P., Cassels, C., & Harnett, D. (2015). Psychometric properties and responsiveness to change of SCORE-15 and 28 item versions of the SCORE: A family assessment questionnaire. Family Process. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/famp.12117 Google Scholar
IBM, Corp. (2011). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.Google Scholar
Jacobson, N., & Truax, P. (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 12–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.59.1.12 Google Scholar
Janes, E. (2005). Self report measures of family function and change following family therapy: A review of conceptual issues, existing measures and proposals for improvement. Unpublished manuscript, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, United Kingdom. Retrieved from www.psyc.leeds.ac.uk/staff/p.m.stratton/ Google Scholar
Jewell, T., Carr, A., Stratton, P., Lask, J., & Eisler, I. (2013). Development of a Children’s Version of the SCORE Index of Family Function and Change. Family Process, 52, 673–684. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/famp.12044 Google Scholar
Lambert, J., & Vermeersch, A. (2008). Measuring and improving psychotherapy outcome in routine practice. In Brown, D. & Lent, W. (Eds.), Handbook of counseling psychology (4 th Ed., pp. 233–248). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
Olson, D., & Barnes, H. (1982). Quality of life questionnaire. In Olson, D., McCubbin, H., Barnes, H., Larsen, A., Muxen, M., & Wilson, M. (Eds.), Family inventories: Inventories used in a national survey of families across the family life cycle (pp. 147–148). St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Family Social Science.Google Scholar
Relvas, A. P., Vilaça, M., Sotero, L., Cunha, D., & Portugal, A. (2010). Systemic clinical outcomes and routine evaluation: SCORE-15 [Portuguese translation]. (Unpublished instrument) Google Scholar
Stratton, P., Bland, J., Janes, E., & Lask, J. (2010). Developing an indicator of family function and a practicable outcome measure for systemic family and couple therapy: the SCORE. Journal of Family Therapy, 32, 232–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6427.2010.00507.x Google Scholar
Stratton, P., Lask, J., Bland, J., Nowotny, E., Evans, C., Singh, R., Janes, E., & Peppiatt, A. (2014). Detecting therapeutic improvement early in therapy: Validation of the SCORE-15 Index of Family Functioning and Change. Journal of Family Therapy, 36(1), 3–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12022 Google Scholar
Stratton, P., McGovern, M., Wetherell, A., & Farrington, C. (2006). Family therapy practitioners researching the reactions of practitioners to an outcome measure. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 27, 199–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1467-8438.2006.tb00722.x Google Scholar
Vilaça, M., Silva, J., & Relvas, A. P. (2014). Systemic clinical outcome routine evaluation (SCORE-15). In A. P. Relvas & S. Major (Coord.), Instrumentos de Avaliação Familiar – Funcionamento e Intervenção (Vol. I) [Family Assessment Instruments – Functioning and Intervention (Vol. I)] (pp. 23–41). Coimbra, Portugal: Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra.Google Scholar
Vilaça, M., Stratton, P., & Relvas, A. P. (2015). Comparison of short and long versions of the Systemic Clinical Outcome and Routine Evaluation (SCORE) in a community and clinic-based sample. (Manuscript submitted for publication).Google Scholar