Assessing the Content Validity of the Revised Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS 2018)

Meredith G. Harris (), Caley Tapp, Urska Arnautovska, Tim Coombs, Rosemary Dickson, Mick James, Jon Painter, Mark Smith, Angela Jury, Jennifer Lai and Philip M. Burgess
Additional contact information
Meredith G. Harris: School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Public Health Building, Herston, QLD 4006, Australia
Caley Tapp: School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Public Health Building, Herston, QLD 4006, Australia
Urska Arnautovska: School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Public Health Building, Herston, QLD 4006, Australia
Tim Coombs: Australian Mental Health Outcomes Classification Network (AMHOCN), c/- HETI, Locked Bag 2030, St Leonards, NSW 1590, Australia
Rosemary Dickson: Australian Mental Health Outcomes Classification Network (AMHOCN), c/- HETI, Locked Bag 2030, St Leonards, NSW 1590, Australia
Mick James: Royal College of Psychiatrists, 21 Prescot Street, London E1 8BB, UK
Jon Painter: Department of Nursing and Midwifery, Collegiate Crescent, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield S10 2BP, UK
Mark Smith: Te Pou, Kakariki House, Waikato Mail Centre, 293 Grey St, Hamilton East P.O. Box 307, Hamilton 3240, New Zealand
Angela Jury: Te Pou, Millennium Centre, Phase II, Building B, Ground Floor, 600 Great South Road, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051, New Zealand
Jennifer Lai: Te Pou, Millennium Centre, Phase II, Building B, Ground Floor, 600 Great South Road, Ellerslie, Auckland 1051, New Zealand
Philip M. Burgess: School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Public Health Building, Herston, QLD 4006, Australia

IJERPH, 2022, vol. 19, issue 16, 1-13

Abstract: The Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) comprises 12 scales that cover the kinds of problems that may be experienced by working-age adults in contact with specialised mental health services. Drawing on 20 years’ experience in clinical practice, a collaborative, international review of the HoNOS was undertaken and a revised measure (known as the HoNOS 2018) was published. In this study, 32 experts from Australia, England and New Zealand completed an anonymous web-based survey to assess the relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility (aspects of content validity) of the HoNOS 2018. The experts rated 11 of the 12 HoNOS 2018 scales as ‘important’ or ‘very important’ for determining the overall clinical severity (item-level content validity index or I-CVI ≥ 0.75). Evaluations of the scales’ ability to capture change, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility were more variable, but generally positive. Experts’ comments provided further insights into this variability; for example, they noted that some scales combine multiple phenomena, which can result in ambiguity in item wording and assessment challenges. Results from this study suggest that the revisions have not altered the importance of the scales. Given the measure’s breadth of content, training remains important for ensuring rating fidelity. Inter-rater reliability and utility testing are indicated.

Keywords: content validity; measurement properties; mental health services; routine outcome measurement (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/16/9895/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/16/9895/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:16:p:9895-:d:885499

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().