Objective To explore the validity, reliability, and clinical utility of the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation – ten-item version (CORE-10: a ten-item questionnaire designed to measure psychological distress) in a stroke inpatient sample and calculate reliable and clinically significant change scores. Setting A post-acute stroke rehabilitation ward in the East of England. Participants A total of 53 patients with stroke, capable of completing the CORE-10 as part of their routine clinical assessment. Exclusion criteria included moderate to severe aphasia and/or alexia. Main measures Alongside the CORE-10, the Patient Health Questionnaire – 9, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Centre for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale, and the Beck Depression Inventory Second Edition were used as concurrent measures. Results To assess reliability, the internal consistency and test–retest reliability of the CORE-10 were calculated. The average number of days between CORE-10 test–retest administrations was 2.84 ( SD = 3.12, Mdn = 1). Concurrent validity was assessed by examining correlations between the CORE-10 and comparable measures, and clinical utility was assessed using the criteria of Burton and Tyson (2015). The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for the CORE-10 was .80, and test–retest reliability interclass correlation coefficient was .81. Total score correlations between the CORE-10 and concurrent measures ranged from r = .49 to r = .89. The CORE-10 achieved the maximum score (i.e. 6/6) on criteria for clinical utility. Calculations demonstrated a reliable change index of nine points and a clinically significant change cut point of 12 on the CORE-10. Percentiles for CORE-10 total scores are reported. Conclusions This study provides preliminary support for the CORE-10 as a valid and reliable measure that has clinical utility for screening distress in inpatients with stroke.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Steverson et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: