How reliable are case formulations?: a systematic literature review
Objectives: This systematic literature review investigated the inter-rater and test–retest reliability of case formulations. We considered the reliability of case formulations across a range of theoretical modalities and the general quality of the primary research studies. Methods: A systematic s...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Wiley
2015
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/34978/ |
| _version_ | 1848794975154733056 |
|---|---|
| author | Flinn, Lucinda Braham, Louise das Nair, Roshan |
| author_facet | Flinn, Lucinda Braham, Louise das Nair, Roshan |
| author_sort | Flinn, Lucinda |
| building | Nottingham Research Data Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | Objectives: This systematic literature review investigated the inter-rater and test–retest reliability of case formulations. We considered the reliability of case formulations across a range of theoretical modalities and the general quality of the primary research studies.
Methods: A systematic search of five electronic databases was conducted in addition to reference list trawling to find studies that assessed the reliability of case formulation. This yielded 18 studies for review. A methodological quality assessment tool was developed to assess the quality of studies, which informed interpretation of the findings.
Results: Results indicated inter-rater reliability mainly ranging from slight (.1–.4) to substantial (.81–1.0). Some studies highlighted that training and increased experience led to higher levels of agreement. In general, psychodynamic formulations appeared to generate somewhat increased levels of reliability than cognitive or behavioural formulations; however, these studies also included methods that may have served to inflate reliability, for example, pooling the scores of judges. Only one study investigated the test–retest reliability of case formulations yielding support for the stability of formulations over a 3-month period.
Conclusions: Reliability of case formulations is varied across a range of theoretical modalities, but can be improved; however, further research is required to strengthen our conclusions. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T19:24:44Z |
| format | Article |
| id | nottingham-34978 |
| institution | University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus |
| institution_category | Local University |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T19:24:44Z |
| publishDate | 2015 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | nottingham-349782020-05-04T17:12:26Z https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/34978/ How reliable are case formulations?: a systematic literature review Flinn, Lucinda Braham, Louise das Nair, Roshan Objectives: This systematic literature review investigated the inter-rater and test–retest reliability of case formulations. We considered the reliability of case formulations across a range of theoretical modalities and the general quality of the primary research studies. Methods: A systematic search of five electronic databases was conducted in addition to reference list trawling to find studies that assessed the reliability of case formulation. This yielded 18 studies for review. A methodological quality assessment tool was developed to assess the quality of studies, which informed interpretation of the findings. Results: Results indicated inter-rater reliability mainly ranging from slight (.1–.4) to substantial (.81–1.0). Some studies highlighted that training and increased experience led to higher levels of agreement. In general, psychodynamic formulations appeared to generate somewhat increased levels of reliability than cognitive or behavioural formulations; however, these studies also included methods that may have served to inflate reliability, for example, pooling the scores of judges. Only one study investigated the test–retest reliability of case formulations yielding support for the stability of formulations over a 3-month period. Conclusions: Reliability of case formulations is varied across a range of theoretical modalities, but can be improved; however, further research is required to strengthen our conclusions. Wiley 2015-07-24 Article PeerReviewed Flinn, Lucinda, Braham, Louise and das Nair, Roshan (2015) How reliable are case formulations?: a systematic literature review. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54 (3). pp. 266-290. ISSN 2044-8260 case formulation; case conceptualization; reliability http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjc.12073/abstract doi:10.1111/bjc.12073 doi:10.1111/bjc.12073 |
| spellingShingle | case formulation; case conceptualization; reliability Flinn, Lucinda Braham, Louise das Nair, Roshan How reliable are case formulations?: a systematic literature review |
| title | How reliable are case formulations?: a systematic literature review |
| title_full | How reliable are case formulations?: a systematic literature review |
| title_fullStr | How reliable are case formulations?: a systematic literature review |
| title_full_unstemmed | How reliable are case formulations?: a systematic literature review |
| title_short | How reliable are case formulations?: a systematic literature review |
| title_sort | how reliable are case formulations?: a systematic literature review |
| topic | case formulation; case conceptualization; reliability |
| url | https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/34978/ https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/34978/ https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/34978/ |