Background: An acceptable, standardised outcome measure to assess efficacy and effectiveness is needed across multiple disciplines offering psychological therapies.Aims: To present psychometric data on reliability, validity and sensitivity to change for the CORE–OM (Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation – Outcome Measure).Method: A 34-item self-report instrument was developed, with domains of subjective well-being, symptoms, function and risk. Analysis includes internal reliability, test–retest reliability, socio-demographic differences, exploratory principal-component analysis, correlations with other instruments, differences between clinical and non-clinical samples and assessment of change within a clinical group.Results: Internal and test–retest reliability were good (0.75–0.95), as was convergent validity with seven other instruments, with large differences between clinical and non-clinical samples and good sensitivity to change.Conclusions: The CORE–OM is a reliable and valid instrument with good sensitivity to change. It is acceptable in a wide range of practice settings.

Background: There is a need for a generic, short, and easy‐to‐use assessment measure for common presentations of psychological distress in UK primary care mental health settings. This paper sets out the development of the CORE‐10 in response to this need. Method: Items were drawn from the CORE‐OM and 10 items were selected according to a combination of usefulness, coverage of item clusters, and statistical procedures. Three CORE‐OM datasets were employed in the development phase: (1) a primary care sample, (2) a sample from an MRC platform trial of enhanced collaborative care of depression in primary care, and (3) a general population sample derived from the Office of National Statistics Psychiatric Morbidity Follow‐up survey. A fourth dataset comprising a sample from an occupational health setting was used to evaluate the CORE‐10 in its standalone format. Results: The internal reliability (alpha) of the CORE‐10 was .90 and the score for the CORE‐10 correlated with the CORE‐OM at .94 in a clinical sample and .92 in a non‐clinical sample. The clinical cut‐off score for general psychological distress was 11.0 with a reliable change index (90% CI) of 6. For depression, the cut‐off score for the CORE‐10 was 13 and yielded sensitivity and specificity values of .92 (CI=.83–1.0) and 0.72 (CI=.60–.83) respectively. Conclusion: The CORE‐10 is an acceptable and feasible instrument that has good psychometric properties and is practical to use with people presenting with common mental health problems in primary care settings.

Can different therapists, motivated by different theories and working in different settings, find a single measure - a 'core' - for monitoring their work? This paper introduces the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (CORE) outcome measure, its philosophy, practice and utility. The measure is brief and acceptable to clients and therapists. It covers well being, problems/symptoms, life functioning and risk to self and others. It is easy to score by hand and is computer scannable. It measures individual differences on entry into therapy and change. Analyses of over 2,000 responses show good reliability and convergent validity against longer and less general measures; small gender effects; large clinical/non-clinical differences and good sensitivity to change. Referential clinical and non-clinical distributions and reliability enable calculation of clinically significant and reliable change criteria. Two short forms are available for frequent use within therapy and a centrally supported system will scan questionnaires and provide standardised reports and raw data.

Summary: A series of editorials in this Journal have argued that psychiatry is in the midst of a crisis. The various solutions proposed would all involve a strengthening of psychiatry's identity as essentially ‘applied neuroscience’. Although not discounting the importance of the brain sciences and psychopharmacology, we argue that psychiatry needs to move beyond the dominance of the current, technological paradigm. This would be more in keeping with the evidence about how positive outcomes are achieved and could also serve to foster more meaningful collaboration with the growing service user movement.