HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS Psychiatric Bulletin Advances in Psychiatric Treatment All RCPsych Journals		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit an eLetter Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by CONNELL, J. Articles by MILES, J. N. V. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by CONNELL, J. Articles by MILES, J. N. V.

Distribution of CORE–OM scores in a general population, clinical cut-off points and comparison with the CIS–R

Psychological Therapies Resaerch Centre, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

WILLIAM B. STILES, PhD

Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, USA

ELSPETH TWIGG, BSc

Psychological Therapies Research Centre, University of Leeds

NICOLA SINGLETON, MSc and OLGA EVANS, PhD

Office for National Statistics, London

JEREMY N. V. MILES, PhD

Department of Health Sciences, University of York, UK

Correspondence: Janice Connell, Psychological Therapies Research Centre, 17 Blenheim Terrace, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK. Email: j.connell{at}leeds.ac.uk

Declaration of interest M.B. was funded by the Mental Health Foundation to develop the CORE–OM.

Background Although measures of psychopathology are designed for use in clinical populations, their meaning derives from comparison with normal populations.

Aims To compare the distribution of scores on the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation – Outcome Measure (CORE –OM) from a general population sample with the distribution in an aggregated clinical sample to derive recommended cut-off points for determining clinical significance.

Method The CORE–OM general population sample was based on a weighted subsample of participants in the psychiatric morbidity follow-up survey who completed valid CORE–OM forms following their interview (effective n=535).

Results Comparison of the CORE–OM general population sample with a clinical sample aggregated from previous studies (n=10761) yielded a cut-off score of 9.9 on the 0–40 scale of the CORE–OM. The CORE–OM was highly correlated (r=0.77) with the Clinical Interview Schedule–Revised, supporting convergent validity.

Conclusions We recommend rounding the CORE–OM cut-off score to 10. However, cut-off scores must be used thoughtfully and adjusted to fit context and purpose.