COMPARISON ::: Psychological Wellbeing Scales
scale characteristics and quality framework scores

EVI.jpg

Psychological wellbeing is one dimension of addiction - the other dimensions being substance use itself and social wellbeing. It may be included as part of a Quality of Life scale - see below. The ten item Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (CORE10) scale comes out as the best to use for routine practice. The score can be used as a measure of general distress or as a screening tool for mental illness. The DASS21 was intended to distinguish different aspects of mental health but actually works best as a general measure of psychological distress. The SOS10 is also a general measure of psychological distress but has aspects of quality of life.

CORE10 :: Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Β designed for routine clinical practice and research

The CORE Information Management System is provided by a not-for-profit organisation which has been developing CORE products for over 10yrs. The CORE system was designed to support practitioners using psychological therapies. The scales have been extensively evaluated and are widely used by both public and private sector organisations as well as in research. Products can be downloaded in many languages from the CORE website. CORE10 is a ten item scale measuring a single construct, psychological distress, and is also a screening questionnaire for the identification of mental illness Q1: anxiety  Q2: close relationships  Q3: general functioning  Q4: social relationships  Q5:anxiety  Q6: risk  Q7: physical  Q8: depression  Q9: depression  Q10: trauma. Timeframe :: The last 7 days. Scoring :: Each item is scored 0 'not at all' to 4 'most or all of the time' - range 0-40. One missing item can be pro-rated as the mean of the other scores. Questions 2 and 3 are reverse scored. Completion time :: <3minutes. Cut-off score :: A score of 10 or below is within the non-clinical range Within the clinical range scores 11-15=mild; 16-20=moderate; 21-25=moderate/severe; 25 or over is severe. Clinically significant change :: The reliable change score is β‰₯6 and functional population score is β‰₯10.

Quality framework score...

  • Completion time βž•

  • Universal βž•

  • Content validity βž•βž•

  • Face validity βž•βž•

  • Internal consistency βž•βž•

  • Convergent validity βž•βž•

  • Discriminant validity βž•

  • Concurrent validity βž•

  • Predictive validity ?

  • Significant change βž•βž•

  • Floor & ceiling effects ?

  • Independent evaluation βž•βž•

  • Cross cultural evaluation βž•

  • Language checked βž•

  • Use without staff training βž•βž•

  • Copyright & permissions βž•

  • Free to use βž•

  • Interpretability βž•

 

Points to consider...

Features in RESULT My Addiction package of measures πŸ”΄

Clinically important and readily interpretable questions

Published values to calculate clinically significant change

Extensive supporting materials available

DASS21 ::: Depression, Anxiety, Stress ScalesΒ  designed for outcomes for general distress or neuroses

The DASS21 is a short version of the original DASS and is designed to discriminate between depression, anxiety, and physical arousal. There are seven items for each sub-scale measuring depression, anxiety, and stress. Depression items: Q3, 5, 10, 13, 16, 17, 21  Anxiety items: Q2, 4, 7, 9, 15, 19, 20  Stress items: Q1, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 18  The scale has been extensively evaluated in mental health populations and normative data are available. Timeframe :: The last 7 days. Scoring :: Each item is scored 0 'Did not apply to me at all' 1 'Applied to me to some degree or some of the time' 2 'Applied to me a considerable degree or a good part of the time' 3 'Applied to me very much or most of the time'. Total the score for each subscale and multiply by x2 in order to make scores compatible with the full DASS. Completion time :: <3minutes. Cut-off score :: DASS is not intended as a diagnostic tool, rather a measure of severity. The developers also suggest categories (for full DASS): Depression  Normal 0-9  Mild 10-13  Moderate 14-20  Severe 21-27  Extremely Severe 28+; Anxiety  Normal 0-7  Mild 8-9  Moderate 10-14  Severe 15-19  Extremely Severe 20+; Stress  Normal  0-14  Mild 15-18  Moderate 19-25  Severe 26-33  Extremely Severe 33

Quality framework score...

  • Completion time βž–

  • Universal βž•

  • Content validity βž•

  • Face validity βž•

  • Internal consistency βž•βž•

  • Convergent validity βž•βž•

  • Discriminant validity βž•

  • Concurrent validity βž•

  • Predictive validity ?

  • Significant change ?

  • Floor & ceiling effects ?

  • Independent evaluation βž•

  • Cross cultural evaluation ?

  • Language checked ?

  • Use without staff training βž•βž•

  • Copyright & permissions βž•

  • Free to use βž•

  • Interpretability βž•

 

Points to consider...

For printed versions 21 items may stretch beyond one A4 page

The evidence for the sub-scales is weak

There is a nominal charge for the user manual

The scale has been widely used in mental health services

SOS10 ::: Schwartz Outcome ScaleΒ Β designed for general outcome measure especially for mental health problems

The SOS10 was designed as a general treatment outcome measure across a range of treatment settings and modalities. A high score indicates better functioning. The scale was designed to assess improvement in mental health rather than having a narrow, condition specific, or broad, quality of life, scope. There are 10 items: Q1: physical health Q2: relationships Q3: future Q4: interest Q5: fun Q6: psychological health Q7: deal with failure Q8: general satisfaction Q9: deal with conflicts Q10: peace of mind. Timeframe :: The last 7 days. Scoring :: All questions are responded to on a seven point scale  0 'never' and 6 'all of the time or nearly all of the time' - range 0-60. Completion time :: <3minutes. Cut-off score :: No cut-offs have been designated  - a number of studies suggest scores for a non clinical population will be ≀30 and for a clinical population β‰₯45.

 

Quality framework score...

  • Completion time βž•

  • Universal βž•

  • Content validity βž•βž•

  • Face validity βž•βž•

  • Internal consistency βž•βž•

  • Convergent validity βž•βž•

  • Discriminant validity βž•

  • Concurrent validity βž•

  • Predictive validity ?

  • Significant change ?

  • Floor & ceiling effects ?

  • Independent evaluation βž•

  • Cross cultural evaluation ?

  • Language checked ?

  • Use without staff training βž•βž•

  • Copyright & permissions βž•

  • Free to use βž•

  • Interpretability βž•

 

Points to consider...

Good psychometrics

Items reflect both psychological wellbeing and functioning

Interpretation of scores needs clarity

Strong face validity and appeal to service users


Quality of Life scales typically include both Social Wellbeing and Psychological Wellbeing and may be considered as an alternative to both

Look at Quality of Life from the Evidence menu