Porównaj metody
Przeglądaj wybrane metody obok siebie; wiersze, które się różnią, są wyróżnione.
| Rapid Assessment Instrument× | Standardized Clinical Cutoff× | |
|---|---|---|
| Dziedzina | Social Work | Social Work |
| Rodzina | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Rok powstania≠ | 2002 | 1991 |
| Twórca≠ | Walter W. Hudson and the clinical-measurement tradition; codified by Springer, Abell & Hudson | Neil S. Jacobson & Paula Truax |
| Typ≠ | Brief, standardized, self-report measure for repeated use in practice | Method for judging whether individual change on a standardized measure is reliable and clinically meaningful |
| Źródło pierwotne≠ | Springer, D. W., Abell, N., & Hudson, W. W. (2002). Creating and validating rapid assessment instruments for practice and research: Part 1. Research on Social Work Practice, 12(3), 408–439. DOI ↗ | Jacobson, N. S., & Truax, P. (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(1), 12–19. DOI ↗ |
| Inne nazwy | RAI, Rapid Assessment Instruments, Brief Standardized Self-Report Scale, Clinical Measurement Package Scales | Clinical Cutoff Score, Clinical Significance Method, Reliable Change Index, Jacobson-Truax Method |
| Pokrewne≠ | 4 | 3 |
| Podsumowanie≠ | A rapid assessment instrument (RAI) is a short, standardized, self-report measure designed to be completed quickly and repeatedly so that a social worker can assess the magnitude of a client's problem, compare it against a validated clinical cutoff, and monitor change over the course of an intervention. The format was championed by Walter Hudson, whose Clinical Measurement Package scales set the template, and was systematized for practitioners by Springer, Abell, and Hudson, who laid out how to create and validate such instruments for practice and research. | The standardized clinical cutoff approach, developed by Jacobson and Truax, judges whether an individual client's change on a standardized measure is both statistically reliable and clinically meaningful. It pairs a Reliable Change Index — which asks whether a pre-to-post change is larger than the measurement error of the instrument — with a cutoff score that marks the boundary between the dysfunctional and functional (normal) populations. A client who moves reliably across that cutoff is counted as recovered, giving practice and research a defensible, individual-level definition of meaningful improvement. |
| ScholarGateZbiór danych ↗ |
|
|