Measuring recovery: Validity of the “Recovery Process Inventory” and the “Recovery Attitudes Questionnaire”

Abstract Considerable lack of publications and inconsistent results on construct validity make it difficult to choose an appropriate instrument to measure recovery. The aim of the present study was to evaluate additional psychometric aspects of two established measures of personal recovery with diff...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Psychiatry research 2013-11, Vol.210 (1), p.363-367
Hauptverfasser: Jaeger, Matthias, Konrad, Albrecht, Rueegg, Sebastian, Rabenschlag, Franziska
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Considerable lack of publications and inconsistent results on construct validity make it difficult to choose an appropriate instrument to measure recovery. The aim of the present study was to evaluate additional psychometric aspects of two established measures of personal recovery with differing focusses. Bivariate associations of the recovery measures with personal, clinical and subjective factors were conducted as indicators of concurrent (convergent and divergent) validity. The scales were also tested concerning internal consistency. The sample comprised of 81 inpatients on an acute psychiatric ward (main diagnoses: 27% substance-related disorders, 27% schizophrenic disorders, 25% affective disorders, 10% neurotic or stress-related disorders, and 11% personality disorders). The “Recovery Attitudes Questionnaire (RAQ)” has to be reevaluated before further administration due to serious psychometric shortcomings concerning internal consistency and concurrent validity. The “Recovery Process Inventory (RPI)” total scale showed acceptable concurrent and within-scale validity and can be recommended in order to measure the personal recovery process for clinical and scientific purposes.
ISSN:0165-1781
1872-7123
DOI:10.1016/j.psychres.2013.06.002