Symposia
Assessment
Nichole Baker, M.A.
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas
Amanda Bowling, MA
Associate Professor
University of texas at austin
Austin, Texas
Rafaella Sale, Ph.D.
Virginia Commonwealth University
Richmond, Virginia
Rebecca Woo, MA
Graduate Student
University of texas at austin
austin, Texas
Sarah Kate Bearman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX
Method: Historical data from the Youth Outcome Questionnaire among a sample of 252 youth (age 4 - 17) in a community clinic was used to calculate a reliable change index. Individuals classified as “recovered” were removed from the group of individuals who were considered “retention failures” based on the clinic’s standard procedures. Discriminant function analysis was used to explore potential differences between the resulting groups: individuals who completed therapy per clinic procedures, individuals classified as retention failures that had recovered, and individuals classified as retention failures who had not recovered.
Results: Seventeen percent of the original clinic-rated individuals classified as retention failure were reclassified as recovered. Treatment completers had more sessions (M=10.6) than either retention failure groups (recovered M=6.8, p = .016; unrecovered M=6.5, p < .001), but only differed in treatment length from the unrecovered retention failure group (p = .028). Discriminant function analysis indicated that treatment completers were distinct from both retention failure groups in client characteristics; no differences were found between retention failure groups.
Conclusions: Youth who have recovered should be considered distinct from both individuals who successfully complete clinic termination procedures and those who are considered retention failures. This reconceptualization could standardize the way retention failure is operationalized and provide more accurate insight into retention failure.