Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Comparing alternative risk-adjustment models.

M S Hendryx1, G B Teague

  • 1Washington Institute for Mental Illness Research and Training, Washington State University, Spokane 99201, USA. hendryx@wsu.edu

The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research
|August 11, 2001
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Science and regulation. Mountaintop mining consequences.

Science (New York, N.Y.)·2010
Same author

An examination of methods for risk-adjustment of rehospitalization rates.

Mental health services research·2001
Same author

Introduction: risk-adjustment issues in mental health services.

The journal of behavioral health services & research·2001
Same author

Access to mental health services and health sector social capital.

Administration and policy in mental health·2001
Same author

Management of negative symptoms among patients with schizophrenia attending multiple-family groups.

Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.)·2000
Same author

Community characteristics as predictors of perceived HMO quality.

Health & place·2000
Same journal

An Evaluation of the Michigan Mental Health Workforce: Addiction Training and Competence.

The journal of behavioral health services & research·2026
Same journal

Workforce Investments in Telehealth Suicide Prevention in Emergency Departments: Implementation Costs of a Centralized Behavioral Health Consultation Service.

The journal of behavioral health services & research·2026
Same journal

Helping Teens Thrive with Teen Mental Health First Aid 2.0.

The journal of behavioral health services & research·2026
Same journal

Observed Differences in Burnout Between Master's-Level and Doctoral-Level Psychotherapists.

The journal of behavioral health services & research·2026
Same journal

Association Between Integrated Treatment Services and Access to Detoxification and MOUD Across US Treatment Facilities.

The journal of behavioral health services & research·2026
Same journal

Use of and Barriers to Mental Health Services for Youth with Physical-Mental Multimorbidity: A Nationally Representative Study.

The journal of behavioral health services & research·2026
See all related articles

Fairly comparing mental health provider performance requires risk adjustment for client factors. The study shows different risk adjustment models yield varied provider performance conclusions, necessitating careful model selection.

Area of Science:

  • Health Services Research
  • Mental Health Services
  • Healthcare Quality Measurement

Background:

  • Comparing mental health provider performance using indicators necessitates fair comparisons.
  • Fairness requires risk adjustment for client characteristics beyond provider control.
  • Publicly funded mental health services data from Washington State were utilized.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare alternative specifications of multiple regression-based risk-adjustment models.
  • To determine how model specification impacts conclusions about comparative treatment agency performance.
  • To emphasize the need for correct risk-adjustment model selection for fair performance evaluation.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of data from 336 outpatients receiving publicly funded mental health services.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Comparison of various multiple regression-based risk-adjustment model specifications.
  • Evaluation of how different model forms influence assessments of provider performance.

    • Main Results:

    • The specific form of the risk-adjustment model significantly influences conclusions about comparative agency performance.
    • Different model specifications lead to divergent evaluations of treatment provider effectiveness.
    • The choice of risk-adjustment methodology is critical for accurate performance comparisons.

    Conclusions:

    • Accurate mental health provider performance evaluation demands appropriate risk adjustment.
    • Identifying and validating the most suitable risk-adjustment model is crucial for fairness.
    • Further research is needed to develop and test robust risk-adjustment models for specific populations and indicators.