The Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms Distress Index: A pragmatic exploration of general factors to enhance a multidimensional scale

Samuel S. Nordberg, Andrew A. McAleavey, Elizabeth Duszak, Benjamin D. Locke, Jeffrey Hayes, Louis Georges Castonguay

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: The authors attempted to develop and validate a general distress index for a multidimensional psychological symptom/outcome measure used in over 300 college counseling centers with more than 100,000 cases annually: the Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms (CCAPS). Method: Four models were compared for fit indices (n = 19,247): the existing first-order factor model (without a general factor), a second-order factor model, a bifactor model, and a single factor or “total score” model. In separate clinical and non-clinical samples, concurrent and divergent validity were examined using several well-established measures of psychological symptoms, as well as two-week test–retest and treatment utilization data. Results: Second-order and bifactor models which captured a single “distress” factor both exhibited good fit to the data relative to the baseline and “total score” model. Validity data indicated that factors adequately measured meaningful clinical onstructs. Conclusion: Both the bifactor and second-order models indicated the presence of a “distress index” comprised items across many of the CCAPS subscales. This distress scale has strong applicability for benchmarking the overall severity and complexity of patients at different centers, and can be used to help identify colleges and universities with areas of clinical strength, which can be studied to improve the field. Clinically, the distress index offers a parsimonious and efficient method for clinicians to monitor patients’ progress through treatment.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)25-41
Number of pages17
JournalCounselling Psychology Quarterly
Volume31
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2 2018

Fingerprint

Symptom Assessment
Counseling
Psychology
Benchmarking
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Therapeutics

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Clinical Psychology
  • Applied Psychology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

@article{d0c0b73320164085817b856ee39ffc27,
title = "The Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms Distress Index: A pragmatic exploration of general factors to enhance a multidimensional scale",
abstract = "Objective: The authors attempted to develop and validate a general distress index for a multidimensional psychological symptom/outcome measure used in over 300 college counseling centers with more than 100,000 cases annually: the Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms (CCAPS). Method: Four models were compared for fit indices (n = 19,247): the existing first-order factor model (without a general factor), a second-order factor model, a bifactor model, and a single factor or “total score” model. In separate clinical and non-clinical samples, concurrent and divergent validity were examined using several well-established measures of psychological symptoms, as well as two-week test–retest and treatment utilization data. Results: Second-order and bifactor models which captured a single “distress” factor both exhibited good fit to the data relative to the baseline and “total score” model. Validity data indicated that factors adequately measured meaningful clinical onstructs. Conclusion: Both the bifactor and second-order models indicated the presence of a “distress index” comprised items across many of the CCAPS subscales. This distress scale has strong applicability for benchmarking the overall severity and complexity of patients at different centers, and can be used to help identify colleges and universities with areas of clinical strength, which can be studied to improve the field. Clinically, the distress index offers a parsimonious and efficient method for clinicians to monitor patients’ progress through treatment.",
author = "Nordberg, {Samuel S.} and McAleavey, {Andrew A.} and Elizabeth Duszak and Locke, {Benjamin D.} and Jeffrey Hayes and Castonguay, {Louis Georges}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "2",
doi = "10.1080/09515070.2016.1202809",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "31",
pages = "25--41",
journal = "Counselling Psychology Quarterly",
issn = "0951-5070",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "1",

}

The Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms Distress Index : A pragmatic exploration of general factors to enhance a multidimensional scale. / Nordberg, Samuel S.; McAleavey, Andrew A.; Duszak, Elizabeth; Locke, Benjamin D.; Hayes, Jeffrey; Castonguay, Louis Georges.

In: Counselling Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 1, 02.01.2018, p. 25-41.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms Distress Index

T2 - A pragmatic exploration of general factors to enhance a multidimensional scale

AU - Nordberg, Samuel S.

AU - McAleavey, Andrew A.

AU - Duszak, Elizabeth

AU - Locke, Benjamin D.

AU - Hayes, Jeffrey

AU - Castonguay, Louis Georges

PY - 2018/1/2

Y1 - 2018/1/2

N2 - Objective: The authors attempted to develop and validate a general distress index for a multidimensional psychological symptom/outcome measure used in over 300 college counseling centers with more than 100,000 cases annually: the Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms (CCAPS). Method: Four models were compared for fit indices (n = 19,247): the existing first-order factor model (without a general factor), a second-order factor model, a bifactor model, and a single factor or “total score” model. In separate clinical and non-clinical samples, concurrent and divergent validity were examined using several well-established measures of psychological symptoms, as well as two-week test–retest and treatment utilization data. Results: Second-order and bifactor models which captured a single “distress” factor both exhibited good fit to the data relative to the baseline and “total score” model. Validity data indicated that factors adequately measured meaningful clinical onstructs. Conclusion: Both the bifactor and second-order models indicated the presence of a “distress index” comprised items across many of the CCAPS subscales. This distress scale has strong applicability for benchmarking the overall severity and complexity of patients at different centers, and can be used to help identify colleges and universities with areas of clinical strength, which can be studied to improve the field. Clinically, the distress index offers a parsimonious and efficient method for clinicians to monitor patients’ progress through treatment.

AB - Objective: The authors attempted to develop and validate a general distress index for a multidimensional psychological symptom/outcome measure used in over 300 college counseling centers with more than 100,000 cases annually: the Counseling Center Assessment of Psychological Symptoms (CCAPS). Method: Four models were compared for fit indices (n = 19,247): the existing first-order factor model (without a general factor), a second-order factor model, a bifactor model, and a single factor or “total score” model. In separate clinical and non-clinical samples, concurrent and divergent validity were examined using several well-established measures of psychological symptoms, as well as two-week test–retest and treatment utilization data. Results: Second-order and bifactor models which captured a single “distress” factor both exhibited good fit to the data relative to the baseline and “total score” model. Validity data indicated that factors adequately measured meaningful clinical onstructs. Conclusion: Both the bifactor and second-order models indicated the presence of a “distress index” comprised items across many of the CCAPS subscales. This distress scale has strong applicability for benchmarking the overall severity and complexity of patients at different centers, and can be used to help identify colleges and universities with areas of clinical strength, which can be studied to improve the field. Clinically, the distress index offers a parsimonious and efficient method for clinicians to monitor patients’ progress through treatment.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84978764831&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84978764831&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/09515070.2016.1202809

DO - 10.1080/09515070.2016.1202809

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84978764831

VL - 31

SP - 25

EP - 41

JO - Counselling Psychology Quarterly

JF - Counselling Psychology Quarterly

SN - 0951-5070

IS - 1

ER -