Predicting response to intensive multimodal inpatient treatment: A comparison of single-and multiple-class growth modeling approaches

Justin D. Smith*, Mark J. Van Ryzin, J. Christopher Fowler, Leonard Handler

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In a modest body of research, personality functioning assessed via performance-based instruments has been found to validly predict treatment outcome and, to some extent, differential response to treatment. However, state-of-the-science longitudinal and mixture modeling techniques, which are common in many areas of clinical psychology, have rarely been used. In this article, we compare multilevel growth curve modeling (MLM) and latent class growth modeling (LCGM) approaches with the same data set to illustrate the different research questions that can be addressed by each method. Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scores collected at 6 points during the course of a long-term multimodal inpatient treatment of 58 severely and persistently mentally ill adults were used to model the trajectory of treatment outcome. Pretreatment Rorschach-based markers of personality functioning and other markers of psychiatric severity were examined as covariates in each modeling approach. The results of both modeling approaches generally indicated that more psychologically impaired clients responded less favorably to treatment. The LCGM approach revealed 2 unique trajectories of improvement (a persistently low group and a higher starting, improving group). Personality functioning and baseline psychiatric variables significantly predicted group membership and the rate of change within the groups. A side-by-side examination of these 2 methods was found to be useful in predicting differential treatment response with personality functioning variables.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)306-315
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Personality Assessment
Volume96
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 4 2014

Fingerprint

Combined Modality Therapy
Personality
Inpatients
Growth
Psychiatry
Clinical Psychology
Mentally Ill Persons
Research
Therapeutics
Modeling

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Psychology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis

Cite this

@article{1c6610b2da0845a7bb73784cde6d6138,
title = "Predicting response to intensive multimodal inpatient treatment: A comparison of single-and multiple-class growth modeling approaches",
abstract = "In a modest body of research, personality functioning assessed via performance-based instruments has been found to validly predict treatment outcome and, to some extent, differential response to treatment. However, state-of-the-science longitudinal and mixture modeling techniques, which are common in many areas of clinical psychology, have rarely been used. In this article, we compare multilevel growth curve modeling (MLM) and latent class growth modeling (LCGM) approaches with the same data set to illustrate the different research questions that can be addressed by each method. Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scores collected at 6 points during the course of a long-term multimodal inpatient treatment of 58 severely and persistently mentally ill adults were used to model the trajectory of treatment outcome. Pretreatment Rorschach-based markers of personality functioning and other markers of psychiatric severity were examined as covariates in each modeling approach. The results of both modeling approaches generally indicated that more psychologically impaired clients responded less favorably to treatment. The LCGM approach revealed 2 unique trajectories of improvement (a persistently low group and a higher starting, improving group). Personality functioning and baseline psychiatric variables significantly predicted group membership and the rate of change within the groups. A side-by-side examination of these 2 methods was found to be useful in predicting differential treatment response with personality functioning variables.",
author = "Smith, {Justin D.} and {Van Ryzin}, {Mark J.} and Fowler, {J. Christopher} and Leonard Handler",
year = "2014",
month = "5",
day = "4",
doi = "10.1080/00223891.2013.834439",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "96",
pages = "306--315",
journal = "Journal of Personality Assessment",
issn = "0022-3891",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "3",

}

Predicting response to intensive multimodal inpatient treatment : A comparison of single-and multiple-class growth modeling approaches. / Smith, Justin D.; Van Ryzin, Mark J.; Fowler, J. Christopher; Handler, Leonard.

In: Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 96, No. 3, 04.05.2014, p. 306-315.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Predicting response to intensive multimodal inpatient treatment

T2 - A comparison of single-and multiple-class growth modeling approaches

AU - Smith, Justin D.

AU - Van Ryzin, Mark J.

AU - Fowler, J. Christopher

AU - Handler, Leonard

PY - 2014/5/4

Y1 - 2014/5/4

N2 - In a modest body of research, personality functioning assessed via performance-based instruments has been found to validly predict treatment outcome and, to some extent, differential response to treatment. However, state-of-the-science longitudinal and mixture modeling techniques, which are common in many areas of clinical psychology, have rarely been used. In this article, we compare multilevel growth curve modeling (MLM) and latent class growth modeling (LCGM) approaches with the same data set to illustrate the different research questions that can be addressed by each method. Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scores collected at 6 points during the course of a long-term multimodal inpatient treatment of 58 severely and persistently mentally ill adults were used to model the trajectory of treatment outcome. Pretreatment Rorschach-based markers of personality functioning and other markers of psychiatric severity were examined as covariates in each modeling approach. The results of both modeling approaches generally indicated that more psychologically impaired clients responded less favorably to treatment. The LCGM approach revealed 2 unique trajectories of improvement (a persistently low group and a higher starting, improving group). Personality functioning and baseline psychiatric variables significantly predicted group membership and the rate of change within the groups. A side-by-side examination of these 2 methods was found to be useful in predicting differential treatment response with personality functioning variables.

AB - In a modest body of research, personality functioning assessed via performance-based instruments has been found to validly predict treatment outcome and, to some extent, differential response to treatment. However, state-of-the-science longitudinal and mixture modeling techniques, which are common in many areas of clinical psychology, have rarely been used. In this article, we compare multilevel growth curve modeling (MLM) and latent class growth modeling (LCGM) approaches with the same data set to illustrate the different research questions that can be addressed by each method. Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scores collected at 6 points during the course of a long-term multimodal inpatient treatment of 58 severely and persistently mentally ill adults were used to model the trajectory of treatment outcome. Pretreatment Rorschach-based markers of personality functioning and other markers of psychiatric severity were examined as covariates in each modeling approach. The results of both modeling approaches generally indicated that more psychologically impaired clients responded less favorably to treatment. The LCGM approach revealed 2 unique trajectories of improvement (a persistently low group and a higher starting, improving group). Personality functioning and baseline psychiatric variables significantly predicted group membership and the rate of change within the groups. A side-by-side examination of these 2 methods was found to be useful in predicting differential treatment response with personality functioning variables.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84897977996&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84897977996&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/00223891.2013.834439

DO - 10.1080/00223891.2013.834439

M3 - Article

C2 - 24066712

AN - SCOPUS:84897977996

VL - 96

SP - 306

EP - 315

JO - Journal of Personality Assessment

JF - Journal of Personality Assessment

SN - 0022-3891

IS - 3

ER -