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...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Psychiatry research 2013-11, Vol.210 (1), p.363-367 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 367 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 363 |
| container_title | Psychiatry research |
| container_volume | 210 |
| creator | Jaeger, Matthias Konrad, Albrecht Rueegg, Sebastian Rabenschlag, Franziska |
| description | 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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.psychres.2013.06.002 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1443996204</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0165178113003181</els_id><sourcerecordid>1443996204</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c519t-9bfa2ce2f539ed65e13d73cd906791885f6d748548f966ec8794239f2cc29cfd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFks1u1DAQgCMEotvCK1S5IHFJ8NiJE3NAVBWUSkX8c7Vce0y9ZO2tnayUWx8EXq5Pgle7BQkOnOYw3_x9mqI4BlIDAf5sWa_TrK8ippoSYDXhNSH0XrGAvqNVB5TdLxYZbCvoejgoDlNakkyAEA-LA8r6VgCDRZHeokpTdP5bGVGHDcb5eflVDc64cS6DLccrLG9vfnzcJ8v3MWhMqTz3G_RjiPPtzc9SefMPeDKObpwMpvLDhGl0wXvlImb8UfHAqiHh4308Kr68fvX59E118e7s_PTkotItiLESl1ZRjdS2TKDhLQIzHdNGEN4J6PvWctM1fdv0VnCOuu9EQ5mwVGsqtDXsqHi667uO4Xq7g1y5pHEYlMcwJQlNw4TglDQZ5TtUx5BSRCvX0a1UnCUQuRUul_JOuNwKl4TLrDMXHu9nTJcrNL_L7gxn4MkeUEmrwUbltUt_uC4f0oPI3Msdh9nIxmGUSTv0Gk2Wpkdpgvv_Li_-aqEH512e-h1nTMswRZ99S5CJSiI_bd9j-x3ACGHQA_sFQru8og</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1443996204</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Measuring recovery: Validity of the “Recovery Process Inventory” and the “Recovery Attitudes Questionnaire”</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Jaeger, Matthias ; Konrad, Albrecht ; Rueegg, Sebastian ; Rabenschlag, Franziska</creator><creatorcontrib>Jaeger, Matthias ; Konrad, Albrecht ; Rueegg, Sebastian ; Rabenschlag, Franziska</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0165-1781</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-7123</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2013.06.002</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23859131</identifier><identifier>CODEN: PSRSDR</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Kidlington: Elsevier Ireland Ltd</publisher><subject>Adult ; Assessment ; Attitude to Health ; Biological and medical sciences ; Female ; General aspects ; Humans ; Instrument ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Mental Disorders - diagnosis ; Mental Disorders - psychology ; Middle Aged ; Outcome ; Personality Inventory ; Psychiatric Department, Hospital - statistics & numerical data ; Psychiatry ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychopathology. Psychiatry ; Recovery ; Reproducibility of Results ; Scale ; Severe mental illness ; Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><ispartof>Psychiatry research, 2013-11, Vol.210 (1), p.363-367</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Ireland Ltd</rights><rights>2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c519t-9bfa2ce2f539ed65e13d73cd906791885f6d748548f966ec8794239f2cc29cfd3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c519t-9bfa2ce2f539ed65e13d73cd906791885f6d748548f966ec8794239f2cc29cfd3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165178113003181$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3536,27903,27904,65309</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=27885819$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23859131$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Jaeger, Matthias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Konrad, Albrecht</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rueegg, Sebastian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rabenschlag, Franziska</creatorcontrib><title>Measuring recovery: Validity of the “Recovery Process Inventory” and the “Recovery Attitudes Questionnaire”</title><title>Psychiatry research</title><addtitle>Psychiatry Res</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Assessment</subject><subject>Attitude to Health</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Instrument</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Mental Disorders - diagnosis</subject><subject>Mental Disorders - psychology</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Outcome</subject><subject>Personality Inventory</subject><subject>Psychiatric Department, Hospital - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychopathology. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Recovery</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Scale</subject><subject>Severe mental illness</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><issn>0165-1781</issn><issn>1872-7123</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFks1u1DAQgCMEotvCK1S5IHFJ8NiJE3NAVBWUSkX8c7Vce0y9ZO2tnayUWx8EXq5Pgle7BQkOnOYw3_x9mqI4BlIDAf5sWa_TrK8ippoSYDXhNSH0XrGAvqNVB5TdLxYZbCvoejgoDlNakkyAEA-LA8r6VgCDRZHeokpTdP5bGVGHDcb5eflVDc64cS6DLccrLG9vfnzcJ8v3MWhMqTz3G_RjiPPtzc9SefMPeDKObpwMpvLDhGl0wXvlImb8UfHAqiHh4308Kr68fvX59E118e7s_PTkotItiLESl1ZRjdS2TKDhLQIzHdNGEN4J6PvWctM1fdv0VnCOuu9EQ5mwVGsqtDXsqHi667uO4Xq7g1y5pHEYlMcwJQlNw4TglDQZ5TtUx5BSRCvX0a1UnCUQuRUul_JOuNwKl4TLrDMXHu9nTJcrNL_L7gxn4MkeUEmrwUbltUt_uC4f0oPI3Msdh9nIxmGUSTv0Gk2Wpkdpgvv_Li_-aqEH512e-h1nTMswRZ99S5CJSiI_bd9j-x3ACGHQA_sFQru8og</recordid><startdate>20131130</startdate><enddate>20131130</enddate><creator>Jaeger, Matthias</creator><creator>Konrad, Albrecht</creator><creator>Rueegg, Sebastian</creator><creator>Rabenschlag, Franziska</creator><general>Elsevier Ireland Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20131130</creationdate><title>Measuring recovery: Validity of the “Recovery Process Inventory” and the “Recovery Attitudes Questionnaire”</title><author>Jaeger, Matthias ; Konrad, Albrecht ; Rueegg, Sebastian ; Rabenschlag, Franziska</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c519t-9bfa2ce2f539ed65e13d73cd906791885f6d748548f966ec8794239f2cc29cfd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Assessment</topic><topic>Attitude to Health</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Instrument</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Mental Disorders - diagnosis</topic><topic>Mental Disorders - psychology</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Outcome</topic><topic>Personality Inventory</topic><topic>Psychiatric Department, Hospital - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychopathology. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Recovery</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Scale</topic><topic>Severe mental illness</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jaeger, Matthias</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Konrad, Albrecht</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rueegg, Sebastian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rabenschlag, Franziska</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Psychiatry research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jaeger, Matthias</au><au>Konrad, Albrecht</au><au>Rueegg, Sebastian</au><au>Rabenschlag, Franziska</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Measuring recovery: Validity of the “Recovery Process Inventory” and the “Recovery Attitudes Questionnaire”</atitle><jtitle>Psychiatry research</jtitle><addtitle>Psychiatry Res</addtitle><date>2013-11-30</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>210</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>363</spage><epage>367</epage><pages>363-367</pages><issn>0165-1781</issn><eissn>1872-7123</eissn><coden>PSRSDR</coden><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>Kidlington</cop><pub>Elsevier Ireland Ltd</pub><pmid>23859131</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.psychres.2013.06.002</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0165-1781 |
| ispartof | Psychiatry research, 2013-11, Vol.210 (1), p.363-367 |
| issn | 0165-1781 1872-7123 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1443996204 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
| subjects | Adult Assessment Attitude to Health Biological and medical sciences Female General aspects Humans Instrument Male Medical sciences Mental Disorders - diagnosis Mental Disorders - psychology Middle Aged Outcome Personality Inventory Psychiatric Department, Hospital - statistics & numerical data Psychiatry Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry Psychopathology. Psychiatry Recovery Reproducibility of Results Scale Severe mental illness Surveys and Questionnaires |
| title | Measuring recovery: Validity of the “Recovery Process Inventory” and the “Recovery Attitudes Questionnaire” |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T21%3A25%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Measuring%20recovery:%20Validity%20of%20the%20%E2%80%9CRecovery%20Process%20Inventory%E2%80%9D%20and%20the%20%E2%80%9CRecovery%20Attitudes%20Questionnaire%E2%80%9D&rft.jtitle=Psychiatry%20research&rft.au=Jaeger,%20Matthias&rft.date=2013-11-30&rft.volume=210&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=363&rft.epage=367&rft.pages=363-367&rft.issn=0165-1781&rft.eissn=1872-7123&rft.coden=PSRSDR&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.psychres.2013.06.002&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1443996204%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1443996204&rft_id=info:pmid/23859131&rft_els_id=S0165178113003181&rfr_iscdi=true |