Skip to main content
Log in

A Test of the Reliability and Validity of the Multnomah Community Ability Scale

  • Published:
Community Mental Health Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Previous research shows that the Multnomah Community Ability Scale (MCAS) total score is reliable and has predictive validity. This study evaluates the MCAS total and sub-scale scores on a sample of 1,250 outpatient mental health clients in Washington State. The MCAS sub-scales are reliable, and there is evidence for their concurrent validity. However, the factor structure of the MCAS only partially replicated the hypothesized sub-scales, and the authors recommend that sub-scales as currently constructed not be used as performance indicators. If only the total MCAS is of interest to users, the authors recommend using the single-item SOFAS rather than the 17-item MCAS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Barker S, Barron N, McFarland BH, & Bigelow DA. (1994a). A community ability scale for chronically mentally ill consumers: Part I. Reliability and validity.Community Mental Health Journal, 30(4), 363–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker S, Barron N, McFarland BH, & Bigelow DA. (1994b). Multnomah Community Ability Scale: User's Manual. Western Mental Health Research Center, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, Oregon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker S, Barron N, McFarland BH, Bigelow DA, & Carnahan T. (1994). A community ability scale for chronically mentally ill consumers: Part II. Applications.Community Mental Health Journal, 30(5), 459–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV. 4thed. (1994.) Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association.

  • Dickerson FB. (1997). Assessing clinical outcomes: The community functioning of persons with serious mental illness.Psychiatric Services,48, 897–902.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendryx M, Dyck D, & Srebnik D. (1999). Risk-adjusted outcome models for public mental health outpatient programs.Health Services Research, 34, 171–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehman AF. (1991). Quality of Life Interview, Core Version.Baltimore, University of Maryland, Center for Mental Health Services Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • McHorney C, Ware J, & Raczek A. (1993). The MOS 36–item SF-36: II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity. Medical Care, 31,247–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors Research Institute. (1998). Five state feasibility study on state mental health agency performance measures. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen T, Attkisson C, & Stegner B. (1983). Assessment of patient satisfaction: Development and refinement of a service evaluation questionnaire.Evaluation and Program Planning, 6, 299–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srebnik D, Hendryx M, Stevenson J, Caverly S, Dyck D, & Cauce AM. (1997). Development of outcome indicators for monitoring the quality of public mental health care.Psychiatric Services, 48, 903–909.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stearns SC & Slifkin RT. (1995). State risk pools and mental health care use. Health Affairs, 14(3), 185–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zani B, McFarland B, Wachal M, Barker S, & Barron N. (1999). Statewide replication of predictive validation for the Multnomah Community Ability Scale. Community Mental Health Journal, 35(3), 223–229.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hendryx, M., Dyck, D.G., McBride, D. et al. A Test of the Reliability and Validity of the Multnomah Community Ability Scale. Community Ment Health J 37, 157–168 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1002713816110

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1002713816110

Navigation