Measures of Personal Recovery: A Systematic Review

The definition and measurement of personal recovery remain somewhat amorphous, but a rubric called CHIME has emerged as a useful standard to identify the essential elements of this very personal process. This review identified 13 measures of recovery and compared how well they assessed the five domains of recovery identified by the CHIME framework—connectedness, hope and optimism, identity, meaning and purpose, and empowerment. Although several measures showed a range of range of psychometric properties, none could be considered a gold standard. ObjectiveMental health systems internationally have adopted a goal of supporting recovery. Measurement of the experience of recovery is, therefore, a priority. The aim of this review was to identify and analyze recovery measures in relation to their fit with recovery and their psychometric adequacy.MethodsA systematic search of six data sources for articles, Web-based material, and conference presentations related to measurement of recovery was conducted by using a defined search strategy. Results were filtered by title and by abstract (by two raters in the case of abstracts), and the remaining papers were reviewed to identify any suitable measures of recovery. Measures were then evaluated for their fit with the recovery processes identified in the CHIME framework (connectedness, hope, identity, meaning, and empowerment) and for demonstration of nine predefined psychometric properties.ResultsThirteen measures of personal recovery were identified from 336 abstracts and 35 articles. The Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS) was published most, and the Questionnaire About the Process of Recovery (QPR) was the only measure to have all items map to the CHIME framework. No measure demonstrated all nine psychometric properties. The Stages of Recovery Instrument demonstrated the most psychometric properties (N=6), followed by the Maryland Assessment of Recovery (N=5), and the QPR and the RAS (N=4). Criterion validity, responsiveness, and feasibility were particularly underinvestigated properties.ConclusionsNo recovery measure can currently be unequivocally recommended, although the QPR most closely maps to the CHIME framework of recovery and the RAS is most widely published.