BACKGROUND: The Mental Health Recovery Star (MHRS) is a popular outcome measure rated collaboratively by staff and service users, but its psychometric properties are unknown. AIMS: To assess the MHRS's acceptability, reliability and convergent validity. METHOD: A total of 172 services users and 120 staff from in-patient and community services participated. Interrater reliability of staff-only ratings and test-retest reliability of staff-only and collaborative ratings were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Convergent validity between MHRS ratings and standardised measures of social functioning and recovery was assessed using Pearson correlation. The influence of collaboration on ratings was assessed using descriptive statistics and ICCs. RESULTS: The MHRS was relatively quick and easy to use and had good test-retest reliability, but interrater reliability was inadequate. Collaborative ratings were slightly higher than staff-only ratings. Convergent validity suggests it assesses social function more than recovery. CONCLUSIONS: The MHRS cannot be recommended as a routine clinical outcome tool but may facilitate collaborative care planning.
BACKGROUND: The Mental Health Recovery Star (MHRS) is a popular outcome measure rated collaboratively by staff and service users, but its psychometric properties are unknown. AIMS: To assess the MHRS's acceptability, reliability and convergent validity. METHOD: A total of 172 services users and 120 staff from in-patient and community services participated. Interrater reliability of staff-only ratings and test-retest reliability of staff-only and collaborative ratings were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Convergent validity between MHRS ratings and standardised measures of social functioning and recovery was assessed using Pearson correlation. The influence of collaboration on ratings was assessed using descriptive statistics and ICCs. RESULTS: The MHRS was relatively quick and easy to use and had good test-retest reliability, but interrater reliability was inadequate. Collaborative ratings were slightly higher than staff-only ratings. Convergent validity suggests it assesses social function more than recovery. CONCLUSIONS: The MHRS cannot be recommended as a routine clinical outcome tool but may facilitate collaborative care planning.
Authors: Nicola Hancock; Justin Newton Scanlan; Anne Honey; Anita C Bundy; Katrina O'Shea Journal: Aust N Z J Psychiatry Date: 2014-12-19 Impact factor: 5.744
Authors: B W M Siu; M M Y Tsang; V C K Lee; A C Y Liu; S Tse; H S M Luk; N K Y Lo; P H Lo; Y L Leung Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Barry G Frost; Megan Turrell; Ketrina A Sly; Terry J Lewin; Agatha M Conrad; Suzanne Johnston; Srinivasan Tirupati; Kerry Petrovic; Sadanand Rajkumar Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 2.655