Information about the CORE-OM instrument and client intake on M50m

Updated 2025-01-13

CORE-OM (Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation – Outcome Measure) is a psychological evaluation tool consisting of 34 items. It assesses individual differences at the start of therapy and can track changes over time. CORE-OM demonstrates strong reliability and convergent validity when analysed across large respondent groups, showing small gender effects, significant differences between clinical and non-clinical populations, and excellent sensitivity to change.

The 34 items cover four domains: subjective well-being (four items), problems/symptoms (twelve items), life functioning (twelve items) and risk (to self and to others; six items). In the context of the services offered through M50m.eu (psychological therapies and counselling services), we score two scales: risk (all risk items) and psychological distress (all non-risk items) as the only scales used for the matching process. The assigned practitioner, of course, has access to the specific domain scores in case it should be deemed of value to note changes in these domains during the work with the client. The scales are presented as total score and mean score, so called clinical scores are not used.

The CORE-OM is considered a scientifically robust scale; however, like all assessments, its score does not provide an absolute representation of an individual’s mental state. Instead, it serves as a relative measure, making it a valuable benchmark and a reliable indicator of change within psychotherapy practice when used appropriately.

Scores for a sample of non-clinical (normal) Male (n=471) and Female (n=576) respondents in the UK

Domains	Mean score Women	Mean score Men
CORE-OM Wellbeing	1,10	0,68
CORE-OM Problems	1,00	0,78
CORE-OM Functioning	0,86	0,83
CORE-OM Risk	0,15	0,23
CORE-OM Non-risk	0,95	0,79
CORE-OM All items	0,81	0,69

Compare the All items mean scores in the table above with the rough estimate of the clients perceived distress level in the quick look chart below.

CORE-OM threshold scores

Threshold scores has been determined in a scientific context by comparing a group without issues (non-clinical) to a clinical group with confirmed problems (e.g., those with a diagnosed condition). These thresholds can provide an indication of the nature of the issue, whether further investigations should be conducted, and which aspects might warrant closer examination.

Men and women cut-off scores between clinical and non-clinical populations in Italy, UK and Sweden (mean scores)

Domains	Women (IT)	Men (IT)	Women (UK)	Men (UK)	Women (SE)	Men (SE)
Wellbeing	1,84	1,40	1,77	1,37	1,67	1,53
Problems	1,44	1,20	1,62	1,44	1,74	1,28
Functioning	1,31	1,29	1,30	1,29	1,19	1,24
Risk	0,22	0,25	0,30	0,43	0,20	0,26
Non-risk	1,44	1,25	1,50	1,36	1,49	1,41
Total	1,22	1,09	1,29	1,19	1,26	1,20

Both mean and threshold values provide valuable insights for practitioners. However, as noted earlier, these evaluations must always be interpreted within context and approached with caution. Practitioners bear the ultimate responsibility for making comprehensive assessments, relying on their experience and knowledge. Threshold scores should serve only as guiding tools, with additional information gathered to ensure a thorough evaluation.

CORE-OM: A Comprehensive Tool for Evaluating Therapy Outcomes Beyond Symptom Relief

Traditionally, the evaluation of therapy outcomes has relied on symptom-specific instruments, such as anxiety or depression inventories. However improvement in mental health often encompasses not only symptom relief but also broader, more general benefits. Capturing these potential effects is crucial, as it reflects a more comprehensive view of a client’s mental health (Howard et al).

The CORE-OM was developed to assess these social and functional benefits of therapy in relation to an individual’s overall life situation. Furthermore, the CORE-OM is designed to be both practical and minimally time-consuming, making it particularly useful in busy clinical environments. These qualities are why we have chosen to utilize the CORE-OM. It provides a clear initial understanding of the client’s issues, allowing the practitioner to effectively manage and monitor changes throughout the course of treatment, ultimately facilitating more efficient and effective therapy.

Why CORE-OM is the Foundation of Our Ethical and Effective Matching Engine

The reasonably clear initial understanding of a client’s issues–both the strengths and weaknesses, is the reason why CORE-OM was chosen as the basis for our matching engine. We also appreciate the neutrality of the distress scale, the threshold scores and the average scores in different areas.

Taken together this creates an ideal foundation to match each client’s unique needs with the skill sets of our practitioners. These advantages have meant that we could create algorithms that we host ourselves without sharing with AI or third parties, something that is necessary to meet our own ethical standards but not least the data privacy protection requirements set by the law in the European Union.

Learn more

More information can be found on the CORE official website, and in relation to the above, one particular article may be of special interest: What’s in a name (2): domains, scales, scores, factors & dimensions.

Highly recommended for all practitioners is the book Outcome Measures and Evaluation in Counselling and Psychotherapy, by Chris Evans and Jo-anne Carlyle (Amazon).

Copyright

CORE-OM, CORE-SF/A, CORE-SF/B, CORE-A TAF, CORE-A EoT, YP-CORE and CORE-10 are instruments copyrighted by The CORE System Trust and Chris Evans, and used with permission on m50m.org.

Sources

Chris Evans, Janice Connell, Michael Barkham, Frank Margison, Graeme McGrath, John Mellor-Clark and Kerry Audin: Towards a standardised brief outcome measure: Psychometric properties and utility of the CORE–OM. British Journal of Psychiatry (2002), 180, pp 51-60

Gaspare Palmieri, Chris Evans, Vidje Hansen, Greta Brancaleoni, Silvia Ferrari, Piero Porcelli, Francesco Reitano and Marco Rigatelli:Validation of the Italian version of the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Outcome Measure (CORE-OM). Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy 16, 444–449 (2009). Read online

Howard, Lueger, Maling and Martinovich: A phase model of psychotherapy outcome: causal mediation of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology: Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(4), 678–685. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.61.4.678