BACKGROUND: During the past decade, the mental health consumer movement has drawn the attention of mental health providers, researchers and policy makers to the concept of recovery. Traditionally, recovery primarily refers to the remission of symptoms. Nowadays, recovery is also regarded in a sense that all individuals, even those with severe psychiatric disabilities, can improve. Accordingly, recovery for people with severe mental illness refers to hope and optimism, empowerment, regained control and increased self-esteem, illness self-management and engagement in meaningful daily activities (Corrigan, Giffort, Rashid, Leary & Okeke, 1999; Jacobson & Greenley, 2001; Leamy, Bird, le Boutillier, Williams & Slade, 2011; van Gestel-Timmermans, Brouwers, van Assen, Bongers & van Nieuwenhuizen, 2012). Little empirical research, however, has been done and instruments to measure recovery are scarce. AIMS: In the current study, the psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the Mental Health Recovery Measure (MHRM) are explored. Convergent and divergent validity of the MHRM was assessed using standardized measures of hope (Hope Herth Index (HHI)), recovery-promoting professional competence (Recovery Promoting Relationships Scale (RPRS)) and general physical health and well-being (RAND Measure of Health-Related Quality of Life (RAND-36)). METHODS: A factor analysis was conducted and Cronbach's α of the MHRM scales was assessed. The construct validity was assessed by computing the intercorrelations of the MHRM, HHI, RPRS and RAND-36. RESULTS: Data were available for 212 patients: 70 patients completed the MHRM, HHI and RAND 36 and 142 filled out the MHRM and RPRS. Exploratory factor analysis resulted in an interpretable three-factor solution. Cronbach's α ranged from 0.86 to 0.94. The convergent validity of the instrument was satisfactory; the divergent validity was less clear. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers evidence to suggest that the Dutch version of the MHRM is a reliable measure (in terms of internal consistency) with a generally acceptable convergent and divergent validity. Further research is needed to clarify the extent to which the MHRM is sensitive enough to capture the individual recovery process of patients.
BACKGROUND: During the past decade, the mental health consumer movement has drawn the attention of mental health providers, researchers and policy makers to the concept of recovery. Traditionally, recovery primarily refers to the remission of symptoms. Nowadays, recovery is also regarded in a sense that all individuals, even those with severe psychiatric disabilities, can improve. Accordingly, recovery for people with severe mental illness refers to hope and optimism, empowerment, regained control and increased self-esteem, illness self-management and engagement in meaningful daily activities (Corrigan, Giffort, Rashid, Leary & Okeke, 1999; Jacobson & Greenley, 2001; Leamy, Bird, le Boutillier, Williams & Slade, 2011; van Gestel-Timmermans, Brouwers, van Assen, Bongers & van Nieuwenhuizen, 2012). Little empirical research, however, has been done and instruments to measure recovery are scarce. AIMS: In the current study, the psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the Mental Health Recovery Measure (MHRM) are explored. Convergent and divergent validity of the MHRM was assessed using standardized measures of hope (Hope Herth Index (HHI)), recovery-promoting professional competence (Recovery Promoting Relationships Scale (RPRS)) and general physical health and well-being (RAND Measure of Health-Related Quality of Life (RAND-36)). METHODS: A factor analysis was conducted and Cronbach's α of the MHRM scales was assessed. The construct validity was assessed by computing the intercorrelations of the MHRM, HHI, RPRS and RAND-36. RESULTS: Data were available for 212 patients: 70 patients completed the MHRM, HHI and RAND 36 and 142 filled out the MHRM and RPRS. Exploratory factor analysis resulted in an interpretable three-factor solution. Cronbach's α ranged from 0.86 to 0.94. The convergent validity of the instrument was satisfactory; the divergent validity was less clear. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers evidence to suggest that the Dutch version of the MHRM is a reliable measure (in terms of internal consistency) with a generally acceptable convergent and divergent validity. Further research is needed to clarify the extent to which the MHRM is sensitive enough to capture the individual recovery process of patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
MHRM; Recovery; instrument development; severe mental illness
Authors: Titus A A Beentjes; Betsie G I van Gaal; Peter J J Goossens; Lisette Schoonhoven Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Gillian Strudwick; Craig Kuziemsky; Richard G Booth; Sarah Collins; Anna Chyjek; Moshe Sakal; Alexandra Harris; John Strauss Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-08-23 Impact factor: 2.692