Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorSechrest, Leeen_US
dc.contributor.authorJohnson, Gwendolyn Watkins
dc.creatorJohnson, Gwendolyn Watkinsen_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-04-11T08:52:09Z
dc.date.available2013-04-11T08:52:09Z
dc.date.issued2002en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/280189
dc.description.abstractLevel of functioning (LOF) has increasingly become a critical issue within the mental health field. Policy makers use LOF to compare costs and benefits, mental health care organizations use LOF to track client progress and evaluate new treatments, and agencies use LOF to evaluate individuals who are seeking services. Clients with serious mental illness (SMI) are an extremely heterogeneous group in terms of presentation, characteristics, and needs; however a great deal of uniformity exists in their high level of service utilization. This study examines the reliability and validity of a structured clinical interview designed to assess level of functioning in SMI populations. The interview is designed to assess experiences along six dimensions: interpersonal relationships, family living situation, socio-legal issues, medical/physical functioning, role performance, and self care/basic needs. Each scale consists of related questions and problem severity ratings that aid in the assignment of a functional score for each of the six subscales. A random sample of 355 assessments were drawn from a larger sample of interviews conducted with SMI clients in Southern Arizona. Three key relationships among the scale's components were investigated: (1) questions to problem severity ratings, (2) questions to functional scores and, (3) problem severity ratings to functional scores. Results of correlation analyses and confirmatory factor analysis provided evidence of internal consistency reliability and both convergent and discriminant validity for the structured interview.
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.en_US
dc.subjectPsychology, Clinical.en_US
dc.subjectPsychology, Psychometrics.en_US
dc.titleAssessing level of functioning in the seriously mentally illen_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeDissertation-Reproduction (electronic)en_US
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Arizonaen_US
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen_US
dc.identifier.proquest3073236en_US
thesis.degree.disciplineGraduate Collegeen_US
thesis.degree.disciplinePsychologyen_US
thesis.degree.namePh.D.en_US
dc.identifier.bibrecord.b43472011en_US
refterms.dateFOA2018-08-27T21:09:45Z
html.description.abstractLevel of functioning (LOF) has increasingly become a critical issue within the mental health field. Policy makers use LOF to compare costs and benefits, mental health care organizations use LOF to track client progress and evaluate new treatments, and agencies use LOF to evaluate individuals who are seeking services. Clients with serious mental illness (SMI) are an extremely heterogeneous group in terms of presentation, characteristics, and needs; however a great deal of uniformity exists in their high level of service utilization. This study examines the reliability and validity of a structured clinical interview designed to assess level of functioning in SMI populations. The interview is designed to assess experiences along six dimensions: interpersonal relationships, family living situation, socio-legal issues, medical/physical functioning, role performance, and self care/basic needs. Each scale consists of related questions and problem severity ratings that aid in the assignment of a functional score for each of the six subscales. A random sample of 355 assessments were drawn from a larger sample of interviews conducted with SMI clients in Southern Arizona. Three key relationships among the scale's components were investigated: (1) questions to problem severity ratings, (2) questions to functional scores and, (3) problem severity ratings to functional scores. Results of correlation analyses and confirmatory factor analysis provided evidence of internal consistency reliability and both convergent and discriminant validity for the structured interview.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
azu_td_3073236_sip1_m.pdf
Size:
1.107Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record