Changes in HSRS Ratings and Changes in IQ

From the very start in the creation of PRP, one rating instrument—the 100-point HSRS, anchored by 34 clinical case descriptions covering the whole scale range-was incorporated into the project design as an assessment tool, and as a predictive as well as an adjudged outcome measure. This scale had actually already been created and was at hand for use when PRP was designed. It had, in fact, been created by a group of clinicians and clinical researchers who were the precursor group to PRP, and who had agreed upon the need for such an instrument as a tool for the kind of psychotherapy research that the group wanted to plan (see p. 5). The way in which the HSRS was planned to be used at the three points in time of PRP research study (Initial, Termination, and Follow-Up)—as a global assessment of current level of psychological functioning at all three points, as well as a predictive assessment at Initial Study of future functioning after treatment, and at Termination Study of functioning after the period of follow-up observation—was stated in the very first publication from PRP (Wallerstein , 1956). (It is also presented in Section II of this book under the description of the organization of the research; see Chapter 6, pp. 79, 79, 99.) The scale itself, including the full definition of the range of scale points and the vignette case descriptions anchoring 34 scale points for detailed clinical comparison with patients being judged, as well as experiences in using the scale within PRP, has already been published (Luborsky, 1962a, 1975). A survey of 18 different experiences with the scale by a wide variety of psychotherapy research programs has also appeared (Luborsky & Bachrach, 1974).

Here, as part of the assessment of project results, I summarize some of the HSRS data from PRP. These data are used raw, without statistical correction for the fact that there is much more room to move within the 100-point scale when the initial position on it is a lo