J Williams1, M Leamy, V Bird, C Harding, J Larsen, C Le Boutillier, L Oades, M Slade. 1. Section for Recovery, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, De Crespigny Park, London, Box PO29, SE5 8AF, UK. julie.williams@kcl.ac.uk
Abstract
PURPOSE: The review aimed to (1) identify measures that assess the recovery orientation of services; (2) discuss how these measures have conceptualised recovery, and (3) characterise their psychometric properties. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken using seven sources. The conceptualisation of recovery within each measure was investigated by rating items against a conceptual framework of recovery comprising five recovery processes: connectedness; hope and optimism; identity; meaning and purpose; and empowerment. Psychometric properties of measures were evaluated using quality criteria. RESULTS: Thirteen recovery orientation measures were identified, of which six met eligibility criteria. No measure was a good fit with the conceptual framework. No measure had undergone extensive psychometric testing and none had data on test-retest reliability or sensitivity to change. CONCLUSIONS: Many measures have been developed to assess the recovery orientation of services. Comparisons between the measures were hampered by the different conceptualisations of recovery used and by the lack of uniformity on the level of organisation at which services were assessed. This situation makes it a challenge for services and researchers to make an informed choice on which measure to use. Further work is needed to produce measures with a transparent conceptual underpinning and demonstrated psychometric properties.
PURPOSE: The review aimed to (1) identify measures that assess the recovery orientation of services; (2) discuss how these measures have conceptualised recovery, and (3) characterise their psychometric properties. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken using seven sources. The conceptualisation of recovery within each measure was investigated by rating items against a conceptual framework of recovery comprising five recovery processes: connectedness; hope and optimism; identity; meaning and purpose; and empowerment. Psychometric properties of measures were evaluated using quality criteria. RESULTS: Thirteen recovery orientation measures were identified, of which six met eligibility criteria. No measure was a good fit with the conceptual framework. No measure had undergone extensive psychometric testing and none had data on test-retest reliability or sensitivity to change. CONCLUSIONS: Many measures have been developed to assess the recovery orientation of services. Comparisons between the measures were hampered by the different conceptualisations of recovery used and by the lack of uniformity on the level of organisation at which services were assessed. This situation makes it a challenge for services and researchers to make an informed choice on which measure to use. Further work is needed to produce measures with a transparent conceptual underpinning and demonstrated psychometric properties.
Authors: Sean A Kidd; Lindsey George; Maria O'Connell; John Sylvestre; Helen Kirkpatrick; Gina Browne; Adefowope O Odueyungbo; Larry Davidson Journal: Psychiatr Rehabil J Date: 2011