Discussion
Organizations that provide mental health services are burdened with a complicated milieu of providing the best care possible in a complicated system of assessment, reimbursement, admissions/discharges, and a variety of other tasks. Using multiple measures complicates assessment and increases costs because of training staff, developing and interpreting the tool results, data storage and more comprehensive analysis and communication of results back to stakeholders and staff. Complicated measures are often times not understood by the staff and those responsible for care, nor are measures understood by the clients and their families. While a wide array of psychometric assessment tools exist, most are applicable to only specific diagnosis groups or illnesses.
Our study showed that the CASII may be used to monitor progress and reassess the level of service intensity needed, and therefore may be useful as an outcome measure. There are benefits in having a single score as an outcome measure. A single score for each client is quick and easy to understand by board members, staff of the organization as well as clients outside of the organization such as funders, client, press etc. Also the use of a single score is cost effective as costs for interpretation, training and communication within and outside of the organization are reduced.
A number of limitations must be mentioned. Although a change in score represents a change in client condition, this change in condition can have a wide variety of explanations. Change can be related to the therapy received, to changes in the client’s environment, support services, and many other factors. Our research did not allow us to discern what aspects of care may have reduced level of service intensity needed at discharge. In addition, our study involved clients of low and moderate acuity. The study does not address if CASII would be sensitive to change in upper acuity ranges. Therefore, our findings may not be generalizable in these settings.
Tolan and Dodge [10] called for the enhancement or an elevation in the assessment of psychology as a matter of public policy. An approach that involves all levels of scientific inquiry including economics, political science and other sciences is desperately needed. Assessment of the type presented in this article, even if instruments such as the CASII are not used, can help to shape that policy by providing unquestionably accurate assessment of a client’s condition which demonstrates the need for that support. Further research looking at specific attributes of therapy and the client’s condition and environment may be helpful in applying CASII composite ratings and dimension scores as outcome measures.
Corresponding author: Dr. Lorrie Henderson, Jewish Family and Children’s Service, 4747 North 7th St., Suite 100, Phoenix, AZ 850142.
Financial disclosures: None.