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.
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. 2
Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory Child Outcomes—Preliminary Data 3
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. 4
ECBI: Clinical Definitions Eyberg Child Inventory (ECBI) Scoring Process If four or more items are unanswered the scale is invalid and Intensity Scale: should not be scored. Missed responses count as 1 (Never). Total the circled responses to derive the raw score Measures the frequency of behavior (e.g., never to always) that child's behaviors reportedly occur (minimum score = 36, maximum score = 252). Raw Scores Cutoff for Clinical Significance: ≥ 131 T- Scores Cutoff for Clinical Significance: ≥ 60 When there are four or more missed items, the scale is invalid and should not be scored. Missed responses Problem Scale: Allows parents to identify the degree to which count as a “No” response. Total “Yes” responses to derive the child’s/youth’s behavior is problematic 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 5
ECBI Outcomes ECBI Intensity Score: Pre vs. Post-test ECBI Problem Score: Pre vs. Post-test Clinical Profile (based on T-Scores) Clinical Profile (based on T-scores) 96% 100% 90% 85% 90% 80% 80% 70% 66% 70% 57% 60% 60% 50% 43% 50% 40% 40% 34% 30% 30% 20% 15% 20% 10% 10% 4% 0% 0% Pre Post Pre Post Below clinical cutoff Above Clinical Cutoff Below clinical cutoff Above Clinical Cutoff Pre-test N = 155; Post-test N = 27 Changes were statistically significant a p < 0.05 6
UCLA PTSD RI Initial Data 7
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? 8
UCLA PTSD-RI Child Profile Clinical Profile of Children--Initial PTSD-RI severity PTSD-RI Severity Scores score based on Community Grand counts ARCC EMQ Solutions Total ARCC EMQ Community Solutions Not in clinical range 1 1 1 3 75% Total N = 14 60% 60% Sub-clinical (26-37) 3 1 4 Clinical range (38+) 1 3 3 7 25% Grand Total 5 4 5 14 20% 20% 20% 20% 0% Not in clinical range SUBCLINICAL (26-37) Clinical range (38+) 9
YOQ, YOQ-SR Child Outcomes—Preliminary Data 10
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.” 11
YOQ Percentages Above Clinical Cutoff Pre % Above Clinical Range Post % Above Clinical Range 63% 56% 53% 48% 43% 42% 41% 36% 32% 24% 22% 21% 13% 12% Intrapersonal Somatic Interpersonal Social Problems Behavioral Critical Items YOQ Total Score Distress Relations Dysfunction 12
YOQ-SR Percentages Above Clinical Cutoff Pre % Above Clinical Range Post % Above Clinical Range 76% 68% 65% 65% 63% 62% 53% 48% 48% 43% 38% 35% 33% 33% YOQ-SR Pre % Above Post % Above Intrapersonal Somatic Interpersonal Social Behavioral Critical Items YOQ Total Item Clinical Range Clinical Range Distress Relations Problems Dysfunction Score 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% 13
YOQ Outcomes YOQ Outcomes All improvements All improvements were statistically were statistically Intake Discharge significant at p < 0.01 significant at p < 0.01 0 10 20 30 40 50 Clinical Means n = Means n = YOQ Scale Cutoff 205 63 Intrapersonal Distress Intrapersonal Distress (ID) 14.64 (ID) 16 14.64 8.68 8.68 Somatic (S) 5 3.87 2.30 Somatic (S) Interpersonal 3.87 2.30 Relations (IR) 4 5.93 4.38 Social Problems (SP) 3 3.68 2.54 Interpersonal Relations (IR) 5.93 Behavioral 4.38 Dysfunction (BD) 12 11.35 7.40 Critical Items (CI) 5 3.90 2.73 Social Problems (SP) 3.68 Total Score 46 42.25 24.87 2.54 Behavioral Dysfunction (BD) 11.35 7.40 Critical Items (CI) 3.90 2.73 Total Score 42.25 24.87 Clinical Cutoff Intake Means n = 205 Discharge Means n = 63 14
YOQ-SR Outcomes All improvements 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 were statistically significant at p < 0.01 Intrapersonal Distress (ID) 20.30 12.95 Somatic (S) 7.43 Intake 4.67 Clinical Means n = Discharge YOQ-SR Scale Cutoff 40 Means n = 20 Interpersonal Relations (IR) 5.80 Intrapersonal Distress (ID) 17 20.30 12.95 4.67 Somatic (S) 6 7.43 4.67 Interpersonal Relations Social Problems (SP) 3.55 (IR) 3 5.80 4.67 2.52 Social Problems (SP) 3 3.55 2.52 Behavioral Dysfunction Behavioral Dysfunction (BD) 14.70 (BD) 11 14.70 8.67 8.67 Critical Items (CI) 6 6.88 4.43 Total Score 47 58.18 34.62 Critical Items (CI) 6.88 4.43 Total Score 58.18 34.62 Clinical Cutoff Intake Means n = 40 Discharge Means n = 20 15
OQ Caregiver Outcomes—Preliminary Data 16
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? 17
OQ Scale Outcomes (Ages 19+) Average Scores All improvements were statistically 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 significant at p < 0.01 Symptom Distress (SD) 22.44 15.31 Intake Interpersonal Relations (IR) 11.29 OQ Scale (19+ years Clinical Means n = Discharge old)* Cutoff 170 Means n =58 8.31 Symptom Distress (SD) 36 22.44 15.31 Interpersonal Social Role (SR) 20.52 Relations (IR) 25 11.29 8.31 8.49 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 Total Score 41.42 identifier 29.00 Clinical Cutoff Intake Means n = 170 Discharge Means n =58 18
CSQ – 18b Caregiver Outcomes—Preliminary Data 19
Average Score for all Reporting Agencies: CSQ-18 n = 74 1 2 3 4 Promptness at Initial Visit 3.7 Facility Comfort 3.3 Office/Building 3.6 Amount of Help Received 3.4 Appropriateness of Services 3.6 Service Effectiveness 3.9 Listening Skills 3.9 Received Desired Service 3.8 Service Needs 2.6 Therapist Level of Understanding 3.8 Therapist Competence 3.6 Service Quality 3.8 Overall Satisfaction 3.9 Recommend Service to Others 3.9 Program Staff Level of… 3.8 Extent to Which Needs Were Met 3.5 Respect of Rights 3.7 Would Return for Services 3.9 20
Lowest Highest N = 74 Mean SD Score 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 Therapist Level of Q10 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 Program Staff Level of Q15 Understanding 3.76 0.43 3 4 Extent to Which Needs Were Q16 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 21
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
Recommend
More recommend
