PEI Outcomes Data Presentation Mental Health Board Family, Adolescent, and Children’s Committee January 9, 2014 Special thanks to: Alum Rock Counseling Center, EMQ Families First, Community Solutions, Rebekah Children’s Services, and Catholic Charities.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
PEI Outcomes Data Presentation Mental Health Board
Family, Adolescent, and Children’s Committee January 9, 2014
Special thanks to: Alum Rock Counseling
Center, EMQ Families First, Community Solutions, Rebekah Children’s Services,
and Catholic Charities.
2
Numbers Served : Year 1 • PEI outcomes data is built on a
comprehensive package of assessment tools; Numbers served is just the beginning.
Total served since program inception: 1,320 • January 2013 – March 2013 = 298 • April – June 2013 = 464 • July – September 2013 = 558 Not inclusive of outreach, promotion, or one time case management – Trending up.
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory
Child Outcomes—Preliminary Data
3
4
PEI Assessment Tools: • ECBI:
“My child gets angry when doesn’t get own way.” “My child refuses to obey until threatened with punishment.”
• SESBI: – Sutter-Eyberg Student Behavior Inventory – Teacher ratings of conduct problem behavior.
5
ECBI: Clinical Definitions Eyberg Child Inventory (ECBI) Scoring Process
Intensity Scale: If four or more items are unanswered the scale is invalid and
should not be scored.
Measures the frequency of behavior (e.g., never to always) that child's behaviors reportedly occur
Missed responses count as 1 (Never).
Total the circled responses to derive the raw score (minimum score = 36, maximum score = 252).
Raw Scores Cutoff for Clinical Significance: ≥ 131 T-Scores Cutoff for Clinical Significance: ≥ 60
Problem Scale: Allows parents to identify the degree to which the child’s/youth’s behavior is problematic
When there are four or more missed items, the scale is invalid and should not be scored. Missed responses count as a “No” response. Total “Yes” responses to derive the raw score (minimum score = 0, maximum score = 36).
Raw Scores Cutoff for Clinical Significance: ≥ 15 T-Scores Cutoff for Clinical Significance: ≥ 60
Note: Because scores are weighted, higher scores (over clinical cutoff) reflect greater concern about the child's behaviors
ECBI Outcomes
6
66%
96%
34%
4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Pre Post
ECBI Intensity Score: Pre vs. Post-test Clinical Profile (based on T-Scores)
Below clinical cutoff Above Clinical Cutoff
57%
85%
43%
15%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Pre Post
ECBI Problem Score: Pre vs. Post-test Clinical Profile (based on T-scores)
Below clinical cutoff Above Clinical Cutoff
Pre-test N = 155; Post-test N = 27 Changes were statistically significant a p < 0.05
UCLA PTSD RI Initial Data
7
8
PEI Assessment Tools: TF-CBT • UCLA PTSD – RI • Mapped onto DSM IV • Also includes identification of trauma
– “Right after the bad thing happened to you, were you scared that you would die?”
– “I have dreams about what happened or other bad dreams.”
– “Did you feel that you could not stop what was happening?
9
UCLA PTSD-RI Child Profile
PTSD-RI severity score based on counts ARCC EMQ
Community Solutions
Grand Total
Not in clinical range 1 1 1 3
Sub-clinical (26-37) 3 1 4
Clinical range (38+) 1 3 3 7
Grand Total 5 4 5 14 20%
60%
20% 25%
0%
75%
20% 20%
60%
Not in clinical range SUBCLINICAL (26-37) Clinical range (38+)
Clinical Profile of Children--Initial PTSD-RI Severity Scores
ARCC EMQ Community Solutions
Total N = 14
YOQ, YOQ-SR
Child Outcomes—Preliminary Data
10
11
PEI Assessment Tools - YOQ • YOQ: Child’s general quality of life and
functioning. – Child completed version (Never to always): “I want to be alone more than others my age.” “I feel that I would be better off dead.” “I have a hard time trusting friends and family.” – Parent completed version “My child appears sad or unhappy.”
12
42%
32%
63%
53%
48%
36%
41%
22%
13%
56%
43%
21% 24%
12%
IntrapersonalDistress
Somatic InterpersonalRelations
Social Problems BehavioralDysfunction
Critical Items YOQ Total Score
YOQ Percentages Above Clinical Cutoff Pre % Above Clinical Range Post % Above Clinical Range
13
65% 65% 63%
48%
68%
53%
62%
35%
48%
76%
33%
43%
33% 38%
IntrapersonalDistress
Somatic InterpersonalRelations
SocialProblems
BehavioralDysfunction
Critical Items YOQ TotalScore
YOQ-SR Percentages Above Clinical Cutoff Pre % Above Clinical Range Post % Above Clinical Range
YOQ-SR
Item Pre % Above Clinical Range
Post % Above Clinical Range
Intrapersonal Distress 65% 35% Somatic 65% 48% Interpersonal Relations 63% 76% Social Problems 48% 33% Behavioral Dysfunction 68% 43% Critical Items 53% 33% YOQ Total Score 62% 38%
14
YOQ Scale Clinical Cutoff
Intake Means n = 205
Discharge Means n = 63
Intrapersonal Distress (ID) 16 14.64 8.68 Somatic (S) 5 3.87 2.30 Interpersonal Relations (IR) 4 5.93 4.38 Social Problems (SP) 3 3.68 2.54 Behavioral Dysfunction (BD) 12 11.35 7.40 Critical Items (CI) 5 3.90 2.73 Total Score 46 42.25 24.87
14.64
3.87
5.93
3.68
11.35
3.90
42.25
8.68
2.30
4.38
2.54
7.40
2.73
24.87
0 10 20 30 40 50
Intrapersonal Distress (ID)
Somatic (S)
Interpersonal Relations (IR)
Social Problems (SP)
Behavioral Dysfunction (BD)
Critical Items (CI)
Total Score
YOQ Outcomes
Clinical Cutoff Intake Means n = 205 Discharge Means n = 63
All improvements were statistically significant at p < 0.01
All improvements were statistically significant at p < 0.01
YOQ Outcomes
15
YOQ-SR Scale Clinical Cutoff
Intake Means n = 40
Discharge Means n = 20
Intrapersonal Distress (ID) 17 20.30 12.95 Somatic (S) 6 7.43 4.67 Interpersonal Relations (IR) 3 5.80 4.67 Social Problems (SP) 3 3.55 2.52 Behavioral Dysfunction (BD) 11 14.70 8.67 Critical Items (CI) 6 6.88 4.43 Total Score 47 58.18 34.62
20.30
7.43
5.80
3.55
14.70
6.88
58.18
12.95
4.67
4.67
2.52
8.67
4.43
34.62
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Intrapersonal Distress (ID)
Somatic (S)
Interpersonal Relations (IR)
Social Problems (SP)
Behavioral Dysfunction (BD)
Critical Items (CI)
Total Score
YOQ-SR Outcomes
Clinical Cutoff Intake Means n = 40 Discharge Means n = 20
All improvements were statistically significant at p < 0.01
OQ
Caregiver Outcomes—Preliminary Data
16
17
PEI Assessment Tools: OQ • OQ: Parents’/ Adults’ functioning
“I am concerned with family troubles.” “I feel loved and wanted.” “I have thoughts of ending my life.”
• If the interventions are for the child, why are we asking about the parents well-being?
• What has the data shown?
18
22.44
11.29
20.52
41.42
15.31
8.31
8.49
29.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Symptom Distress (SD)
Interpersonal Relations (IR)
Social Role (SR)
Total Score
OQ Scale Outcomes (Ages 19+) Average Scores
Clinical Cutoff Intake Means n = 170 Discharge Means n =58
All improvements were statistically significant at p < 0.01
OQ Scale (19+ years old)*
Clinical Cutoff
Intake Means n = 170
Discharge Means n =58
Symptom Distress (SD) 36 22.44 15.31 Interpersonal Relations (IR) 25 11.29 8.31 Social Role (SR) 12 20.52 8.49 Total Score 63 41.42 29.00
* counts lower than total submissions due to missing data on pre/post identifier
CSQ – 18b
Caregiver Outcomes—Preliminary Data
19
20
3.7
3.3
3.6
3.4
3.6
3.9
3.9
3.8
2.6
3.8
3.6
3.8
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.5
3.7
3.9
1 2 3 4
Promptness at Initial Visit
Facility Comfort
Office/Building
Amount of Help Received
Appropriateness of Services
Service Effectiveness
Listening Skills
Received Desired Service
Service Needs
Therapist Level of Understanding
Therapist Competence
Service Quality
Overall Satisfaction
Recommend Service to Others
Program Staff Level of…
Extent to Which Needs Were Met
Respect of Rights
Would Return for Services
Average Score for all Reporting Agencies: CSQ-18 n = 74
21
N = 74 Mean SD Lowest Score
Highest Score
Q1 Promptness at Initial Visit 3.68 0.50 2 4 Q2 Facility Comfort 3.34 1.17 1 4 Q3 Office/Building 3.63 0.87 1 4 Q4 Amount of Help Received 3.45 1.04 1 4 Q5 Appropriateness of Services 3.55 0.92 1 4 Q6 Service Effectiveness 3.92 0.27 3 4 Q7 Listening Skills 3.92 0.27 3 4 Q8 Received Desired Service 3.76 0.43 3 4 Q9 Service Needs 2.57 1.06 1 5
Q10 Therapist Level of Understanding 3.81 0.49 1 4
Q11 Therapist Competence 3.65 0.63 1 4 Q12 Service Quality 3.83 0.38 3 4 Q13 Overall Satisfaction 3.89 0.32 3 4 Q14 Recommend Service to Others 3.88 0.33 3 4
Q15 Program Staff Level of Understanding 3.76 0.43 3 4
Q16 Extent to Which Needs Were Met 3.53 0.58 2 4
Q17 Respect of Rights 3.72 0.45 3 4 Q18 Would Return for Services 3.90 0.30 3 4
PEI Panelists Deanna Flores, EMQ – North County/Central Region Veronica Guzman, EMQ – Central Scott Lafraconi, ARCC – Central/East Regions Ava Pham, ARCC – East Region Angela Albright, Catholic Charities – East Region Marianne Marafino, Community Solutions – South County Diana Wilson, Rebekah Children’s Services – South County
22
Related Documents
