United Kingdom (UK)

Sleepy seal on Skye, Scotland 2022

This was where CORE started formally for me at least at a Mental Health Foundation funded research priority setting meeting I think in York in 1995 though the challenge of having some change measures that would be usable across a diversity of therapies had been something I’d been thinking about for some years before that, in my head I take it back to around 1992 and a meeting of therapists in what was then South West Thames Regional Health Authority which addressed anxieties about that idea. The official launch of CORE was in 1998. (I couldn’t find any meaningful images from the UK whether from York, or from 1995 which would fit as header images so you get a sleepy looking seal on the rocks on the Island of Skye in Scotland from 2022!) In keeping with my framework for these country pages here are:

Wikipedia tells me that “Scots, Ulster Scots, Welsh, Cornish, Scottish Gaelic and Irish are classed as regional or minority languages under the Council of Europe’s European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.” Well I didn’t know that. I do know that there are many, many languages used in the UK by the many immigrant groups, first, second or older, much older, in immigration history. The mainstream languages we have translations into at present are as follows.

English and translations

  • English (hardly a translation, that was the starting point). CORE-OM and short forms, YP-CORE, LD-CORE-14 and LD-CORE-30 and the original CORE-A forms, download all in one zip: here.
  • Welsh (CORE-OM and short forms, YP-CORE and work perhaps starting on the LD-CORE): here.
  • British Sign Language (BSL). CORE-OM and CORE-10: here.

Publications

Here are some of the canonical publications about the English and BSL translations (no papers about the Welsh yet sadly).

  • Barkham, M., Evans, C., Margison, F., McGrath, G., Mellor-Clark, J., Milne, D., & Connell, J. (1998). The rationale for developing and implementing core outcome batteries for routine use in service settings and psychotherapy outcome research. Journal of Mental Health, 7(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638239818328. (The original rationale paper.)
  • Mellor-Clark, J., Barkham, M., Connell, J., & Evans, C. (1999). Practice-based evidence and need for a standardised evaluation system: Informing the design of the CORE system. European Journal of Psychotherapy, Counselling and Health, 3, 357–374. (More on the rationale.)
  • Evans, C., Mellor-Clark, J., Margison, F., Barkham, M., Audin, K., Connell, J., & McGrath, G. (2000). CORE: Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation. Journal of Mental Health, 9(3), 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/jmh.9.3.247.255. (Canonical paper about the design of the CORE-OM.)
  • Margison, F. R., Barkham, M., Evans, C., McGrath, G., Mellor-Clark, J., Audin, K., & Connell, J. (2000). Measurement and psychotherapy: Evidence-based practice and practice-based evidence. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 177(2), 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.177.2.123. (Key paper about the PBE rationale of the CORE system.)
  • Barkham, M., Margison, F., Leach, C., Lucock, M., Mellor-Clark, J., Evans, C., Benson, L., Connell, J., Audin, K., & McGrath, G. (2001). Service profiling and outcomes benchmarking using the CORE-OM: toward practice-based evidence in the psychological therapies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.69.2.184. First paper that mentioned the CORE-SF/A and CORE-SF/B.
  • Barkham, M., Margison, F., Leach, C., Lucock, M., Mellor-Clark, J., Evans, C., Benson, L., Connell, J., Audin, K., & McGrath, G. (2001). Service profiling and outcomes benchmarking using the CORE-OM: toward practice-based evidence in the psychological therapies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.69.2.184. (Canonical paper exploring the psychometrics of the CORE-OM in UK English samples.)
  • Sinclair, A., Barkham, M., Evans, C., Connell, J., & Audin, K. (2005). Rationale and development of a general population well-being measure: Psychometric status of the GP-CORE in a student sample. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 33(2), 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069880500132581. (Canonical paper about the GP-CORE.)
  • Lyne, K. J., Barrett, P., Evans, C., & Barkham, M. (2006). Dimensions of variation on the CORE-OM. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45(2), 185–203. (Key paper that should have killed the wish to map the domains of the CORE-OM to clean factors in EFA or CFA, it didn’t!)
  • Barkham, M., Bewick, B., Mullin, T., Gilbody, S., Connell, J., Cahill, J., Mellor-Clark, J., Richards, D., Unsworth, G., & Evans, C. (2013). The CORE-10: A short measure of psychological distress for routine use in the psychological therapies. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 13(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733145.2012.729069. (Canonical paper about the CORE-10.)
  • Barrowcliff, Alastair. L., Oathamshaw, SStephen. C., & Evans, C. (2018). Psychometric properties of the Clinical Outcome Routine Evaluation-Learning Disabilities 30-Item (CORE-LD30): Psychometric properties of the CORE-LD30. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 62(11), 962–973. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12551. (Canonical paper about the LD-CORE-30.)
  • Brooks, M., Davies, S., & Twigg, E. (2013). A measure for feelings—Using inclusive research to develop a tool for evaluating psychological therapy (Clinical Outcomes in routine evaluation—Learning disability). British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(4), 320–329. https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12020. (With the next paper, the key papers about the development of the LD-CORE and particularly the LD-CORE-14.)
  • Marshall, K., & Willoughby-Booth, S. (2007). Modifying the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation measure for use with people who have a learning disability. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3156.2006.00422.x.
  • Evans, C. (2012). The CORE-OM (Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation) and its derivatives. Integrating Science and Practice, 2(2), 12–15. (Though I say it myself, a pretty good review of the CORE system to 2012 and most of it is still useful.)
  • Rogers, K. D., Young, A., Lovell, K., & Evans, C. (2013). The challenges of translating the clinical outcomes in routine evaluation-outcome measure (CORE-OM) into British Sign Language. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 18(3), 287–298. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/ent002. (Background to the translation of the CORE-OM into BSL, with next paper forms the canonical references for the BSL translation.)
  • Rogers, K. D., Evans, C., Campbell, M., Young, A., & Lovell, K. (2013). The reliability of British Sign Language and English versions of the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation – Outcome Measure with d/Deaf populations in the UK: An initial study. Health & Social Care in the Community, 22(3), 278–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12078.

If you want a copy of any of those papers and can’t get one, and if I am an author, do contact me saying which you need and I’ll send you a copy (for your personal use only of course: I don’t want publishers grumbling at me!)

Credits and copyright

Created 18/8/24. Page and header image creator CE, licence, both licensed under the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). Measures, like all CORE instruments, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence so they may be reproduced, unchanged, without specific permission or payment of fees but no new translations or derivative works may be created without permission from CORE System Trust.

Scroll to Top