Italian
Afrikaans
Albanian
Arabic
Belarusian
Bulgarian
Catalan
Chinese (Simplified)
Croatian
Czech
Danish
English
French
German
Dutch
Spanish
Estonian
Finnish
Galician
Greek
Hungarian
Irish
Japanese
Luxembourgish
Maltese
Norwegian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Scottish Gaelic
Swedish
Turkish
UkrainianPROBLEM RESOLUTION SCALE: A SINGLE‐ITEM INSTRUMENT FOR EASILY ASSESSING CLINICAL IMPROVEMENT
Autore:
Monson, C., Kearon, E., Jackson, Jackson, J. B., Vitry, G., Pakrosnis, R., Gallin, E., & Hoyt, M. F.
Anno:
2025
Editore:
Society for Psychotherapy Research Annual Conference, Krakow, Poland. [Paper presentation]
Collana:
Assessing client progress in therapy is fundamental in shaping treatment decisions. Major barriers to routinely implementing multi‐item clinical progress measures in clinical practice include required training, time to administer measures, complex scoring processes, and the need for different measures to assess different clinical issues. By contrast, a universal single‐item measure of clinical progress requires no training, is quick for clients to complete, is easy to score, and increases accuracy by decreasing client cognitive demands and promoting greater response deliberation. The purpose of this study was to validate the single‐item 11‐point Problem Resolution Scale (PRS). Data were collected through the Systemic Practice Research Network from 747 clients in France and Italy seeking brief strategic therapy for a wide range of clinical issues. Clients completed the PRS, Outcome Rating Scale, and General Health Questionnaire at termination; therapists completed the PRS at termination. PRS face, construct, and criterion validity were calculated using a linear mixed model and stratified correlations. Results suggested good construct validity, supported by a strong correlation between client and therapist PRS scores (r = 0.71, p < 0.001). Good criterion validity was supported by strong correlations between client‐reported psychological well‐being and functioning at termination and both client (r = −0.63; p < 0.001) and therapist (r = −0.66; p < 0.001) PRS scores. Results provide initial evidence for the validity and utility of the PRS. The use with various clinical problems along with the simplicity of administration and interpretation make the PRS a valuable tool for clinicians and researchers.