Cargando…

Assessing the Content Validity of the Revised Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS 2018)

The Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) comprises 12 scales that cover the kinds of problems that may be experienced by working-age adults in contact with specialised mental health services. Drawing on 20 years’ experience in clinical practice, a collaborative, international review of the Ho...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Harris, Meredith G., Tapp, Caley, Arnautovska, Urska, Coombs, Tim, Dickson, Rosemary, James, Mick, Painter, Jon, Smith, Mark, Jury, Angela, Lai, Jennifer, Burgess, Philip M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9408525/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36011532
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19169895
_version_ 1784774622546231296
author Harris, Meredith G.
Tapp, Caley
Arnautovska, Urska
Coombs, Tim
Dickson, Rosemary
James, Mick
Painter, Jon
Smith, Mark
Jury, Angela
Lai, Jennifer
Burgess, Philip M.
author_facet Harris, Meredith G.
Tapp, Caley
Arnautovska, Urska
Coombs, Tim
Dickson, Rosemary
James, Mick
Painter, Jon
Smith, Mark
Jury, Angela
Lai, Jennifer
Burgess, Philip M.
author_sort Harris, Meredith G.
collection PubMed
description The Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) comprises 12 scales that cover the kinds of problems that may be experienced by working-age adults in contact with specialised mental health services. Drawing on 20 years’ experience in clinical practice, a collaborative, international review of the HoNOS was undertaken and a revised measure (known as the HoNOS 2018) was published. In this study, 32 experts from Australia, England and New Zealand completed an anonymous web-based survey to assess the relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility (aspects of content validity) of the HoNOS 2018. The experts rated 11 of the 12 HoNOS 2018 scales as ‘important’ or ‘very important’ for determining the overall clinical severity (item-level content validity index or I-CVI ≥ 0.75). Evaluations of the scales’ ability to capture change, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility were more variable, but generally positive. Experts’ comments provided further insights into this variability; for example, they noted that some scales combine multiple phenomena, which can result in ambiguity in item wording and assessment challenges. Results from this study suggest that the revisions have not altered the importance of the scales. Given the measure’s breadth of content, training remains important for ensuring rating fidelity. Inter-rater reliability and utility testing are indicated.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9408525
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94085252022-08-26 Assessing the Content Validity of the Revised Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS 2018) Harris, Meredith G. Tapp, Caley Arnautovska, Urska Coombs, Tim Dickson, Rosemary James, Mick Painter, Jon Smith, Mark Jury, Angela Lai, Jennifer Burgess, Philip M. Int J Environ Res Public Health Article The Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) comprises 12 scales that cover the kinds of problems that may be experienced by working-age adults in contact with specialised mental health services. Drawing on 20 years’ experience in clinical practice, a collaborative, international review of the HoNOS was undertaken and a revised measure (known as the HoNOS 2018) was published. In this study, 32 experts from Australia, England and New Zealand completed an anonymous web-based survey to assess the relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility (aspects of content validity) of the HoNOS 2018. The experts rated 11 of the 12 HoNOS 2018 scales as ‘important’ or ‘very important’ for determining the overall clinical severity (item-level content validity index or I-CVI ≥ 0.75). Evaluations of the scales’ ability to capture change, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility were more variable, but generally positive. Experts’ comments provided further insights into this variability; for example, they noted that some scales combine multiple phenomena, which can result in ambiguity in item wording and assessment challenges. Results from this study suggest that the revisions have not altered the importance of the scales. Given the measure’s breadth of content, training remains important for ensuring rating fidelity. Inter-rater reliability and utility testing are indicated. MDPI 2022-08-11 /pmc/articles/PMC9408525/ /pubmed/36011532 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19169895 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Harris, Meredith G.
Tapp, Caley
Arnautovska, Urska
Coombs, Tim
Dickson, Rosemary
James, Mick
Painter, Jon
Smith, Mark
Jury, Angela
Lai, Jennifer
Burgess, Philip M.
Assessing the Content Validity of the Revised Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS 2018)
title Assessing the Content Validity of the Revised Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS 2018)
title_full Assessing the Content Validity of the Revised Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS 2018)
title_fullStr Assessing the Content Validity of the Revised Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS 2018)
title_full_unstemmed Assessing the Content Validity of the Revised Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS 2018)
title_short Assessing the Content Validity of the Revised Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS 2018)
title_sort assessing the content validity of the revised health of the nation outcome scales (honos 2018)
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9408525/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36011532
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19169895
work_keys_str_mv AT harrismeredithg assessingthecontentvalidityoftherevisedhealthofthenationoutcomescaleshonos2018
AT tappcaley assessingthecontentvalidityoftherevisedhealthofthenationoutcomescaleshonos2018
AT arnautovskaurska assessingthecontentvalidityoftherevisedhealthofthenationoutcomescaleshonos2018
AT coombstim assessingthecontentvalidityoftherevisedhealthofthenationoutcomescaleshonos2018
AT dicksonrosemary assessingthecontentvalidityoftherevisedhealthofthenationoutcomescaleshonos2018
AT jamesmick assessingthecontentvalidityoftherevisedhealthofthenationoutcomescaleshonos2018
AT painterjon assessingthecontentvalidityoftherevisedhealthofthenationoutcomescaleshonos2018
AT smithmark assessingthecontentvalidityoftherevisedhealthofthenationoutcomescaleshonos2018
AT juryangela assessingthecontentvalidityoftherevisedhealthofthenationoutcomescaleshonos2018
AT laijennifer assessingthecontentvalidityoftherevisedhealthofthenationoutcomescaleshonos2018
AT burgessphilipm assessingthecontentvalidityoftherevisedhealthofthenationoutcomescaleshonos2018