Created for original site 1/1/2015, last updated 11/8/19, author CE, licence: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) .
The CORE-SF/A and CORE-SF/B were the only short forms in the suite of instruments at the launch of the system in 1998. The aim was to provide two measures that could be used weekly (on the assumption that most therapies would be weekly ones) and would be very comparable but not identical to try to minimise memory effects.
Both the Short Forms are 18 item measures and all four of the wellbeing items from the CORE-OM appear in both so the wellbeing domain scores are based on exactly the same four items and should be strictly comparable across the CORE-OM, CORE-SF/A and CORE-SF/B. Apart from the four wellbeing items, the SF/A and SF/B have different items and each has one self-directed risk item and one other-directed risk item, six problem and six functioning items. Care was taken to chose similarly focused, keyed and tuned (high/low) items so domain scores from the CORE-SF/A and CORE-SF/B should be comparable. The somewhat different composition of the items in the total and non-risk scores between the Short Forms and the CORE-OM mean that though those scores for the SF/A and SF/B should be comparable, some caution should be exercised when comparing those scores from Short Forms with those from the full CORE-OM.
We haven’t published a single paper about the short forms to date but they were first used in:
Barkham, M., Margison, F., Leach, C., Lucock, M., Mellor-Clark, J., Evans, C., … 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. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.69.2.184.
Download the English language PDF of the CORE-SF/A using link below, for other languages, go to the translations page.
Broken: coming shortly. Meanwhile contact me for a copy.