Search

Objective: The Mental Health Self‐Direction Scale (MHSD) measures the extent to which clients are able to resolve mental problems by themselves. Because this scale had not yet been evaluated, the aims of this paper were (a) to evaluate and improve the MHSD and (b) to explore the sensitivity to change of the improved scale. Method: The MHSD was evaluated and improved by means of confirmatory factor analyses of data from one longitudinal and two cross‐sectional outpatient sample. Inconsistent items were removed in a stepwise fashion. Subsequently, the scale's sensitivity to change was explored in the longitudinal sample by using latent growth curve models. Results: The original 31‐item scale was reduced to a more stable version with 19 items that yielded four factors named: actorship, demoralization, commitment, and understanding. Throughout clients' treatment, actorship and understanding tended to increase; demoralization tended to decrease; and commitment remained consistently high. Conclusions: The abridged MHSD scale is stable and sensitive to change. It measures the extent to which clients experience and develop self‐direction throughout their treatment. With the use of the new MHSD scale, new views on mental health that emphasize clients' ability to actively engage and cope with health‐challenges can be incorporated into clinical treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although studies have shown that client feedback can improve treatment outcome, little is known about which factors might possibly moderate the effects of such feedback. The present study investigated potential therapist variables that might influence whether frequent client feedback is effective, including the Big Five personality traits, internal/external feedback propensity and self‐efficacy. Data from two previous studies, a quasi‐experimental study and a randomized controlled trial, were combined. The sample consisted of 38 therapists and 843 clients (55.4% females, mean age = 42.05 years, SD = 11.75) from an outpatient mental health institution. The control condition consisted of cognitive‐behavioural therapies combined with low frequency monitoring of clients' symptoms. In the experimental condition, high‐intensity (i.e., frequent) client feedback as an add‐on to treatment as usual was provided. Outcomes were measured as adjusted post‐treatment symptom severity on the Symptom Checklist‐90 and drop out from treatment. The final model of the multilevel analyses showed that therapists with higher levels of self‐efficacy had poorer treatment outcomes, but when high‐intensity client feedback was provided, their effectiveness improved. Furthermore, higher self‐efficacy was associated with a higher estimation of therapists' own effectiveness, but therapists' self‐assessment of effectiveness was not correlated with their actual effectiveness. The results of this study might indicate that therapists with high levels of self‐efficacy benefit from client feedback because it can correct their biases. However, for therapists with low self‐efficacy, client feedback might be less beneficial, possibly because it can make them more insecure. These hypotheses need to be investigated in future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]