ASSESSING THE CLINICAL-SIGNIFICANCE OF OUTCOME IN AGORAPHOBIA RESEARCH - A COMPARISON OF 2 APPROACHES

We evaluated two methods for characterizing clinically significant cha nge in agoraphobia treatment research: The method proposed by Jacobson and colleagues (1991) and an alternative method, in which the endstat e functioning of patients (low, medium, or high) was assessed by sever al criteria relevant for panic disorder with agoraphobia. Whenever pos sible, statistically determined cutoff points were applied on these cr iteria. Comparison of the outcome revealed considerable consonance bet ween both methods, although the Jacobson approach was somewhat more le nient in considering patients recovered. The reliable change index, an additional criterion proposed by Jacobson et al. in order to assess w hether patients had experienced true change as a result of treatment, had little informational value: All patients who met the criterion of clinically meaningful change had reliably changed as well. Moreover, t he reliable change index did not discriminate between patients with me dium and low clinical endstatus.