ArticleThe British journal of clinical psychology2026
Inter-rater reliability of the Team Formulation Quality Rating Scale (TFQS) in inpatient mental health teams.
Article in The British journal of clinical psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTeam formulation is associated with better working relationships between staff and service users. However, there is a need for greater standardization of practice. We aimed to investigate the inter-rater reliability of the Team Formulation Quality Rating Scale (TFQS) and explore what aspects of team formulation practices were most frequently adhered to.
methodStaff at nine acute mental health wards participated in team formulation sessions facilitated by Health Care Professions Council registered psychologists. Formulation sessions were audio recorded, and raters used recordings to complete the TFQS. At least two raters rated 19 team formulation sessions.
resultsThe TFQS demonstrated excellent inter-reliability for the total scale (ICC = .926, 95% CI = .820 to .971) and moderate inter-rater reliability for subsection A (ICC = .660; 95% CI = .278 to .862) and subsection B (ICC = .733; 95% CI = .361 to .898). Overall, the items for 'collaboration' and 'consideration of life events' were rated better in terms of quality, compared with items relating to 'close of meeting' and 'consideration of goals and values' which tended to receive lower quality ratings.
conclusionThe TFQS is a reliable tool for measuring quality of team formulation within inpatient settings and should be used in future research and clinical practice. Psychometric properties should be assessed across different clinical settings. Training and supervision should ensure that psychologists' formulations incorporate a focus on the individual's goals and values impacting problem development and resolution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.