Assessing Overall Functioning With Adolescent Inpatients

• Published in: The journal of nervous and mental disease Vol. 202; no. 11; pp. 822 - 828
• Main Authors: Haggerty, Greg, Forlenza, Nicholas, Poland, Charlotte, Ray, Sagarika, Zodan, Jennifer, Mehra, Ashwin, Goyal, Ajay, Baity, Matthew R, Siefert, Caleb J, Sobin, Sean, Leite, David, Sinclair, Samuel J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 01-11-2014; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Ovid Technologies
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adolescent Behavior - psychology; Adult; Child psychology; Female; Humans; Inpatient care; Inpatients - psychology; Male; Mental health; Psychiatric Department, Hospital - standards; Psychiatric Department, Hospital - trends; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales - standards; Psychotherapy; Quality of life; Reproducibility of Results; Teenagers
• ISSN: 0022-3018; 1539-736X
• DOI: 10.1097/NMD.0000000000000200

ABSTRACTThe current study sought to evaluate the validity and reliability of a brief measure of overall functioning for adolescents. Clinicians were asked to complete the Overall Functioning Scale (OFS) for 72 adolescents consecutively admitted to the adolescent psychiatric inpatient service of a community safety net medical center. The results revealed that this new measure is related to the patients’ length of stay, clinician-rated measures of social cognition and object relations, Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score at admission, as well as global rating of engagement in individual psychotherapy. The results also showed that the OFS was related to the patients’ history of nonsuicidal self-harm as well as treatment outcome as assessed by measures of psychological health and well-being as well as symptoms. Hierarchical regressions reveal that the OFS shows incremental validity greater than the admission GAF score in predicting length of stay. The results also showed that the OFS demonstrates interrater reliability in the excellent range (intraclass correlation coefficient1,2) of 0.88. Clinical implications of the use of this tool and areas of future research are discussed.