[Research progress on vascular endothelial growth factor C in meningeal lymphatic vessel-mediated clearance of amyloid β-protein].

Although psychotherapy is effective for a large proportion of clients (Sexton et al. ), not all benefit from treatment. In fact, some clients' symptoms even get worse (Ogles ). To better understand and explain why some clients benefit while others do not, quantitative systems consisting of standardized questionnaires—known as Routine Outcome Monitoring systems (ROM)—have been developed in recent years (Lambert ; Ogles ; Tilden and Wampold ). These measurement systems tap into various aspects of clients' lives, and when completed regularly, the resulting mean scores allow both therapists and clients to monitor progress throughout the course of therapy (Duncan et al. ; Zahl‐Olsen and Oanes ). One such popular system is the “Systemic Therapy Inventory of Change” (STIC) developed by Pinsof et al. (). The STIC addresses therapeutic change through a battery of six large thematic sets of questionnaires. One of these, the “Individual Problems and Strengths” (IPS) theme, taps into eight typical aspects of distress and everyday difficulties that clients individually experience during therapy. These aspects include, for example, clients' degree of in changing plans and coping with changes; or the ability to express and share feelings; , such as managing daily work and household tasks; and managing or coping with negative emotional states. As the IPS is considered clinically important, this thematic component of the STIC has seen increasing application in psychotherapy, particularly within couple and family therapy settings (Tilden and Wampold ). When implementing a ROM system, researchers must ensure that the system demonstrates construct validity—measuring what it intends to measure—and internal consistency, where scale items function as reliable indicators of that construct (i.e., its scale‐reliability). One system consistently argued to be valid and reliable is the “Individual Problems and Strengths” (IPS) measurement scale (He et al. , ; Pinsof et al. , , ; Zinbarg et al. ).