Susan V. Eisen

The Revised Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale (BASIS-R): reliability and validity.

Background:To assess outcomes of health services, providers need brief, responsive, reliable, and valid measures that can be implemented in clinical settings with minimal cost and burden. The Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale (BASIS-32®) is a self-report measure developed in 1984 to assess mental health treatment outcomes. During the past 3 years, multiple methods were used to revise the instrument to improve reliability, validity, and applicability to diverse groups of mental health service recipients. Objective:The objective of this study was to field test the revised instrument, make further changes based on analysis of the field test data, and assess reliability and validity of the final version (BASIS-24). Methods:A field test was implemented at 27 treatment sites across the Untied States. A total of 2656 inpatients and 3222 outpatients participated. Factor analytic methods, classic test theory, and item response theory modeling were used to select the most discriminating, nonredundant items for inclusion in the final version of the instrument and to assess its reliability and validity. Item response theory modeling was used to score the instrument. Results:The final instrument includes 24 items assessing 6 domains: depression/ functioning, interpersonal relationships, self-harm, emotional lability, psychosis, and substance abuse. Test–retest and internal consistency reliability were acceptable. Tests of construct and discriminant validity supported the instruments ability to discriminate groups expected to differ in mental health status, and its correlation with other measures of mental health. Conclusions:Analyses of the BASIS-24 supported its reliability and validity for assessing mental health status from the patients perspective.

Assessing behavioral health outcomes in outpatient programs: reliability and validity of the BASIS-32.

The Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale (BASIS-32) was developed to assess mental health outcomes among patients with severe illness treated on inpatient programs. However, its applicability and utility to those treated in outpatient programs has not been determined. The objective of this study was to assess reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of the BASIS-32 among mental health consumers treated in outpatient programs. A total of 407 outpatients completed the BASIS-32 and the Short Form Health Status Profile (SF-36) at the beginning of a treatment episode and again 30 to 90 days later. Outpatients reported less difficulty at intake than did inpatients, and the BASIS-32 detected statistically significant changes 30 to 90 days after beginning outpatient treatment. Factor structure and construct validity were partially confirmed on this sample of outpatient consumers. Analyses of data from a wide range of facilities and samples would add to validation efforts and to further refinement of the BASIS-32.

Mental and Physical Health Status and Alcohol and Drug Use Following Return From Deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan

OBJECTIVES We examined (1) mental and physical health symptoms and functioning in US veterans within 1 year of returning from deployment, and (2) differences by gender, service component (Active, National Guard, other Reserve), service branch (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines), and deployment operation (Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom [OEF/OIF]). METHODS We surveyed a national sample of 596 OEF/OIF veterans, oversampling women to make up 50% of the total, and National Guard and Reserve components to each make up 25%. Weights were applied to account for stratification and nonresponse bias. RESULTS Mental health functioning was significantly worse compared with the general population; 13.9% screened positive for probable posttraumatic stress disorder, 39% for probable alcohol abuse, and 3% for probable drug abuse. Men reported more alcohol and drug use than did women, but there were no gender differences in posttraumatic stress disorder or other mental health domains. OIF veterans reported more depression or functioning problems and alcohol and drug use than did OEF veterans. Army and Marine veterans reported worse mental and physical health than did Air Force or Navy veterans. CONCLUSIONS Continuing identification of veterans at risk for mental health and substance use problems is important for evidence-based interventions intended to increase resilience and enhance treatment.

Measuring social health in the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS): item bank development and testing

PurposeTo develop a social health measurement framework, to test items in diverse populations and to develop item response theory (IRT) item banks.MethodsA literature review guided framework development of Social Function and Social Relationships sub-domains. Items were revised based on patient feedback, and Social Function items were field-tested. Analyses included exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), two-parameter IRT modeling and evaluation of differential item functioning (DIF).ResultsThe analytic sample included 956 general population respondents who answered 56 Ability to Participate and 56 Satisfaction with Participation items. EFA and CFA identified three Ability to Participate sub-domains. However, because of positive and negative wording, and content redundancy, many items did not fit the IRT model, so item banks do not yet exist. EFA, CFA and IRT identified two preliminary Satisfaction item banks. One item exhibited trivial age DIF.ConclusionAfter extensive item preparation and review, EFA-, CFA- and IRT-guided item banks help provide increased measurement precision and flexibility. Two Satisfaction short forms are available for use in research and clinical practice. This initial validation study resulted in revised item pools that are currently undergoing testing in new clinical samples and populations.

Predeployment, Deployment, and Postdeployment Risk Factors for Posttraumatic Stress Symptomatology in Female and Male OEF/OIF Veterans

[Correction Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Vol 120(4) of Journal of Abnormal Psychology (see record 2011-19996-001). In the article there was an error in the affiliation bylines for Rani Elwy and Susan Eisen. Their affiliations should have been listed as Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital and Department of Health Policy and Management, Boston University School of Public Health.] Prior research on risk factors for posttraumatic stress symptomatology (PTSS) in war-exposed Veterans has revealed both direct and indirect mechanisms of risk that span predeployment, deployment, and postdeployment timeframes. The aims of the present study were to identify the mechanisms through which previously documented risk factors contribute to PTSS in a national sample of 579 female and male Veterans deployed to Afghanistan for Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) or to Iraq for Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), as well as to examine the extent to which results mirror associations observed among Vietnam Veterans (King, King, Foy, Keane, & Fairbank, 1999). Consistent with conservation of resources (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001), findings indicated that PTSS is accounted for by multiple chains of risk, many originating in predeployment experiences that place Veterans at risk for additional stress exposure, and foretell difficulty accessing resources in the face of subsequent stressors. Importantly, the majority of previously documented mechanisms were replicated in this study, suggesting key pathways through which risk factors may contribute to PTSS across different Veteran populations. Results also revealed a number of novel risk mechanisms for OEF/OIF female Veterans, particularly with respect to the role of deployment family relationships in risk for PTSS.

Measuring Clinically Meaningful Change Following Mental Health Treatment

Assessment of clinically meaningful change is useful for treatment planning, monitoring progress, and evaluating treatment response. Outcome studies often assess statistically significant change, which may not be clinically meaningful. Study objectives are to: (1) evaluate responsiveness of the BASIS-24© using three methods for determining clinically meaningful change: reliable change index (RCI), effect size (ES), and standard error of measurement (SEM); and (2) determine which method provides an estimate of clinically meaningful change most concordant with other change measures. BASIS-24© assessments were obtained at two time points for 1,397 inpatients and 850 outpatients. The proportion showing clinically meaningful change using each method was compared to the proportion showing change in global mental health, retrospectively reported change, and clinician-assessed change. BASIS-24© demonstrated responsiveness at both aggregate and individual levels. Regarding clinically meaningful improvement and decline, SEM was most concordant with all three outcome measures; regarding no change, RCI was most concordant with all three measures.

Reliability and Validity of the BASIS-24© Mental Health Survey for Whites, African-Americans, and Latinos

Increasing racial and ethnic diversity calls for mental health assessment instruments that are appropriate, reliable, and valid for the wide range of cultures that comprise the current US population. However, most assessment instruments have not been tested on diverse samples. This study assessed psychometric properties and sensitivity to change of the revised Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale (BASIS-24©) among the three largest race/ethnicity groups in the USA: Whites, African-Americans, and Latinos. BASIS-24© assessments were obtained for 2436 inpatients and 2975 outpatients treated at one of 27 mental health and/or substance abuse programs. Confirmatory factor analysis and several psychometric tests supported the factor structure, reliability, concurrent validity, and sensitivity of the instrument within each race/ethnicity group, although discriminant validity may be weaker for African-Americans and Latinos than for Whites. Further research is needed to test and validate assessment instruments with other race/ethnicity groups.

Content validity in the PROMIS social health domain: a qualitative analysis of focus group data

PurposeOur aim was to assess the content validity of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) social health item banks by comparing a prespecified conceptual model with concepts that focus-group participants identified as important social-health-related outcomes. These data will inform the process of improving health-related quality-of-life measures.MethodsTwenty-five patients with a range of social limitations due to chronic health conditions were recruited at two sites; four focus groups were conducted. Raters independently classified participants’ statements using a hierarchical, nested schema that included health-related outcomes, role performance, role satisfaction, family/friends, work, and leisure.ResultsKey themes that emerged were fulfilling both family and work responsibilities and the distinction between activities done out of responsibility versus enjoyment. Although focus-group participants identified volunteerism and pet ownership as important social-health-related concepts, these were not in our original conceptual model. The concept of satisfaction was often found to overlap with the concept of performance.ConclusionOur conceptual model appears comprehensive but is being further refined to more appropriately (a) distinguish between responsibilities versus discretionary activities, and (b) situate the outcome of satisfaction as it relates to impairment in social and other domains of health.

Toward a national consumer survey: evaluation of the CABHS and MHSIP instruments.

This article describes a study evaluating the Consumer Assessment of Behavioral Health Survey (CABHS) and the Mental Health Statistics Improvement Program (MHSIP) surveys. The purpose of the study was to provide data that could be used to develop recommendations for an improved instrument. Subjects were 3,443 adults in six behavioral health plans. The surveys did not differ significantly in response rate or consumer burden. Both surveys reliably assessed access to treatment and aspects of appropriateness and quality. The CABHS survey reliably assessed features of the insurance plan; the MHSIP survey reliably assessed treatment outcome. Analyses of comparable items suggested which survey items had greater validity. Results are discussed in terms of consistency with earlier research using these and other consumer surveys. Implications and recommendations for survey development, quality improvement, and national policy initiatives to evaluate health plan performance are presented.

Psychometric properties of the BASIS-24© (Behaviour and Symptom Identification Scale–Revised) Mental Health Outcome Measure

Objective. Outcome measurement in mental health services is an area of considerable clinical interest and policy priority. This study sought to assess the Behaviour and Symptom Identification Scale-24 (BASIS-24©), a brief, patient self-reported measure of psychopathology and functioning, in a UK sample, including establishing population norms for comparative purposes. Methods. Participants were 588 adults recruited from psychiatric inpatient, outpatient and primary care settings; and 630 adults randomly sampled from primary care lists who completed the BASIS-24©, and the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) at two time points. Results. BASIS-24© demonstrated adequate reliability (coefficient α values for combined clinical sample across subscales ranged from 0.75 to 0.91), validity and responsiveness to change (effect size for change of the BASIS-24© was 0.56 compared with 0.48 for BSI Global Severity Index). Population norms were established for the general population and adult in-patients (at in-take). The scale proved straightforward to complete across clinical settings. Variable rates of questionnaire distribution across clinical settings highlighted the ongoing challenge of incorporating outcome measures in clinical settings. Conclusion. BASIS-24© is a brief, easily administered, self-complete measure of mental well-being and functioning that adequately meets the requirements of reliability, validity and responsiveness to change required of an outcome measure.