The Mental Health Statistics Improvement Program (MHSIP) Adult Consumer Satisfaction Survey Factor Structure and Relation to External Criteria

  • Alan ShaferEmail author
  • Rosemary Ang


The construct validity and generalizability of the Mental Health Statistics Improvement Program (MHSIP) adult consumer satisfaction survey was examined using a representative sample (N = 4242) of public mental health client surveys and assessment data. Factor analysis found five factors generally supporting the hypothesized scales of Satisfaction, Outcomes-Functioning, Access, Quality, and Social Connectedness that had acceptable reliability (average coefficient alpha = 0.91). The relation of the satisfaction survey scales to clinician-rated symptom scales, hospitalization, and functioning for 3 years prior to and after the survey was examined. Correlations were modest in magnitude but were in the predicted directions, with greater patient satisfaction being associated with lower symptoms and more positive outcomes. The largest predictors of the clinician-rated symptom scales were Outcomes-Functioning and Social Connectedness.


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. 1.
    TeagueGB, GanjuV, HornikJA, et al.The MHSIP Mental Health Report Card. A Consumer-Oriented Approach to Monitoring the Quality-Appropriateness of Mental Health Plans. Mental Health Statistics Improvement Program. Evaluation Review.1997;21(3):330–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    GanjuV. The MHSIP Consumer Survey: History, Development, Revisions, Applications, and Commonly Asked Questions. Austin, TX: Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    LebowJL. Consumer Satisfaction with Mental Health Treatment. Psychological Bulletin.1982;91(2):244–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    LebowJL. Research Assessing Consumer Satisfaction with Mental Health Treatment: A Review of Findings. Evaluation and Program Planning.1984;6(3–4):211–236.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    WackwitzJH. Consumer Survey Analysis: Memo to MHSIP Workgroup. Denver, CO: Colorado Mental Health Services, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    EisenSV, ShaulJA, LeffHS, et al.Toward a National Consumer Survey: Evaluation of the CABHS and MHSIP Instruments. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research.2001;28(3):347–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    LuttermanT, PhelanBE, BerhaneA. Development of Mental Health Measure of Social Connectedness. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors, 2007.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    JerrellJM. Psychometrics of the MHSIP Adult Consumer Survey. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research.2006;33(4):483–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    KaufmannC, PhillipsD. Survey of State Consumer Surveys. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2000.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    ShaferA, TempleJ. Factor Structure of the Mental Health Statistics Improvement Program (MHSIP) Family and Youth Satisfaction Surveys. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research.2013;40(3):306–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    RushAJ, TrivediMH, IbrahimHM, et al.The 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS) Clinician Rating (QIDS-C) and Self-Report (QIDS-SR): A Psychometric Evaluation in Patients with Chronic Major Depression. Biological Psychiatry.2003;54(5):573–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    DennehyEB, SuppesT, CrismonML, et al.Development of the Brief Bipolar Disorder Symptom Scale for Patients with Bipolar Disorder. Psychiatry Research.2004;127(1–2):137–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    AlphsL, MorlockR., CoonC, et al.The 4-Item Negative Symptom Assessment (NSA-4) Instrument: A Simple Tool for Evaluating Negative Symptoms in Schizophrenia Following Brief Training. Psychiatry (Edgmont).2010;7(7):26–32.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    OverallJE, GorhamDR. The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Psychological Reports.1962;10(3):799–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    ShaferA. Meta-Analysis of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale Factor Structure. Psychological Assessment.2005;17(3):324–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    DazziF, ShaferA, Lauriola, M. Meta-Analysis of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale-Expanded (BPRS-E) Structure and Arguments for a New Version. Journal of Psychiatric Research.2016;81:140–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Texas Department of State Health Services. User’s Manual for the Adult Texas Recommended Assessment Guidelines (Adult-TRAG).Austin, TX: Mental Health and Substance Abuse Division, 2011.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Council for Behavioral Health 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Texas Health and Human Services CommissionAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations