Data from clinical and nonclinical samples (Ns = 2,096, 618) were used to evaluate and replicate the measurement structure of the Outcome Questionnaire–45.2. Different measurement models and invariance tests were evaluated and the best psychometric support was found for a shortened measure of two factors: overall maladjustment and substance use.
BeretvasS. N.KearneyL. K. (2003). A shortened form of the Outcome Questionnaire: A validation of scores across groups (A research report of the Research Consortium of Counseling and Psychological Services for Higher Education). Austin: University of Texas at Austin, Counseling and Mental Health Center.
2.
BlancoC.OkudaM.WrightC.HasinD. S.GrantB. F.LiuS.OlfsonM. (2008). Mental health of college students and their non-college-attending peers: Results from the National Epidemiologic Study on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Archives of General Psychiatry, 65, 1429–1437. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.65.12.1429
3.
BludworthJ. L.TraceyT. J. G.Glidden-TraceyC. (2010).The bilevel structure of the Outcome Questionnaire-45. Psychological Assessment, 22, 350–355. doi:10.1037/a0019187
4.
BontempoD. E.HoferS. M. (2007). Assessing factorial invariance in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. In OngA. D.van DulmenM. H. M. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of methods in positive psychology (pp. 153–175). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
5.
BovairdJ. A.KoziolN. A. (2012). Measurement models for ordered-categorical indicators. In HoyleR. (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 495–511). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
6.
ChenF. (2008). What happens if we compare chopsticks with forks? The impact of making inappropriate comparisons in cross-cultural research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1005–1018. doi:10.1037/a0013193
7.
DimitrovD. M. (2010). Testing for factorial invariance in the context of construct validation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 43, 121–149. doi:10.1177/0748175610373459
8.
EllsworthJ. R.LambertM. J.JohnsonJ. (2006). A comparison of the Outcome Questionnaire-30 in classification and prediction of treatment outcome. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 13, 380–391. doi:10.1002/cpp.503
9.
GagnéP. (2006). Mean and covariance structure mixture models. In HancockG. R.MuellerR. D. (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 197–224). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
10.
HatfieldD.OglesB. M. (2004). The use of outcome measures by psychologists in clinical practice. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 35, 485–491. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.35.5.485
11.
HessT. R.RohlfingJ. E.HardyA. O.Glidden-TraceyC.TraceyT. J. G. (2010). An examination of the “interpersonalness” of the Outcome Questionnaire. Assessment, 17, 396–399. doi:10.1177/1073191110369761
12.
HorowitzL. M.AldenL. E.WigginsJ. S.PincusA. L. (2000). Inventory of Interpersonal Problems manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Corporation.
13.
KimS. H.BeretvasS. N.SherryA. R. (2010). A validation of the factor structure of OQ-45 scores using factor mixture modeling. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 42, 275–295. doi:10.1177/0748175609354616
14.
LambertM. J.BurlingameG. M.UmphressV.HansenN. B.VermeerschD. A.ClouseG. C.YancharS. C. (1996). The reliability and validity of the Outcome Questionnaire. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 3, 249–258. 10.1002/1099-0879
15.
LambertM. J.GregersenA. T.BurlingameG. M. (2004). The Outcome Questionnaire. In MaruishM. E. (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcome assessment: Vol. 3. Instruments for adults (3rd ed., pp. 191–234). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
LambertM. J.HansenN. B.UmpressV.LunnenK.OkiishiJ.BurlingameG. M. (1996). Administration and scoring manual for the OQ-45.2. Stevenson, MD: American Professional Credentialing Services.
17.
LambertM. J.LunnenK.UmphressV.HansenN. B.BurlingameG. M. (1994). Administration and scoring manual for the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45.1). Salt Lake City, UT: IHC Center for Behavioral Healthcare Efficacy.
18.
LubkeG. H.MuthénB. O. (2005). Investigating population heterogeneity with factor mixture models. Psychological Methods, 10, 21–39.
19.
LubkeG. H.MuthénB. O. (2007). Performance of factor mixture models as a function of model size, covariate effects, and class-specific parameters. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 26–47.
20.
MarshH. W.HauK.GraysonD. (2005). Goodness of fit in structural equation models. In Maydeu-OlivaresA.McArdleJ. J. (Eds.), Contemporary psychometrics: A festschrift for Roderick P. McDonald (pp. 275–340). Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
MillsapR. E. (2011). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. New York, NY: Routledge.
23.
MillsapR. E.Yun-TeinJ. (2004). Assessing factorial invariance in ordered-categorical measures. Journal of Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 479–515.
24.
MuellerR. M.LambertM. J.BurlingameG. M. (1998). Construct validity of the Outcome Questionnaire: A confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 70, 248–262. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa7002_5
25.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998–2012). Mplus Version 7. Los Angeles, CA: Author.
26.
NylundK. L.AsparouhovT.MuthénB. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling. A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 535–569.
27.
OkiishiJ. C.LambertM. J.EggettD.NielsenL.DaytonD. D.VermeerschD. A. (2006). An analysis of therapist treatment effects: Toward providing feedback to individual therapists on their clients’ psychotherapy outcomeJournal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 1157–1172. doi:10.1002/jclp.20272
28.
SassD. A. (2011). Testing measurement invariance and comparing latent factor means within a confirmatory factor analysis framework. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 347–363. doi:10.1177/0734282911406661
29.
VermeerschD. A.WhippleJ. L.LambertM. J.HawkinsE. J.BurchfieldC. M.OkiishiJ. C. (2004). Outcome Questionnaire: Is it sensitive to changes in counseling center clients?Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 38–49. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.38
