From the Associate Editor
Michael Brickey, Ph.D.
For psychologists there are two critical issues in the race to develop outcomes. The first is whether outcome measures will just be "report cards" to look good in managed care reports, or will be dynamic, clinically useful instruments that foster research and continuous quality improvement. The second critical issue is whether psychologists will take a leadership role in developing clearly superior outcome measurement systems. If we do not seize the opportunity now, we may be relegated to using another profession's troublesome system, as we are with the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual).
Our series on outcomes began with an overview of who is developing outcomes programs and why ("Outcomes yes, but whose agenda?"). Our second article examined how the Pennsylvania Psychological Association is taking a leadership role in selecting a very versatile outcomes instrument which is rich in clinical applications and research and developing a large data base for norms and research. It is a system they plan to make available to psychologists nationwide. Arthur Kovacs' article on t e Tri-Care project with our armed forces is the third in our series. It describes how psychologists are taking a leadership role in developing an outcomes system that meets our dream criteria and has a reasonable chance of being adopted on a large scale, now only by the armed services, but by people who will look tot he Tri-Care project as the standard.
It is our scientist practitioner skills that most distinguish psychologists from other behavioral professions. Psychologists are the experts in behavioral research methodology and most outcomes instruments were developed by psychologists Outcomes measurement is still new enough that there is a window of opportunity to develop outcomes measurement systems that are clinically useful processes rather than mere report cards. If we don't act decisively and effectively in developing and marketing such measurers and systems, we will be stuck with outcomes instruments designed to meet the needs of managed care administrators. In addition to the Pennsylvania Psychological Association's project and the Practice Directorate's project with the armed services, several psychologists and psychology groups are developing impressive outcomes systems, including groups led by Ken Howard, Ph.D., Barry Schlosser, Ph.D. and James Fidelibus, Ph.D.
It is heartening to see the Practice Directorate and a State Psychological Association (with grants from the Practice Directorate and the Pennsylvania State University) taking a leadership role in developing outcomes systems. Without much fanfare, they stepped up to the plate and just did it. Our Practice Directorate dues are being well spent on an investment in the future of psychology. Psychology's future includes employment for psychologists who develop and conduct outcomes research as well as employment generated by outcomes that show the value of psychological services.