RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The illness management and recovery scale-clinician version (IMRS-C) is a measure of outcomes thought to be important indicators of progress for consumers participating in illness management and recovery (IMR). Prior research has examined the psychometric properties of the IMRS-C; extant research supports certain aspects of the scale's reliability (test-retest) and validity (sensitivity to interventions). Analyses based on Rasch provide certain advantages and have not been applied to the IMRS-C. METHOD: This study used an archival IMRS database including responses regarding 697 participants with severe mental illness from a variety of community-based settings. Rasch analyses were utilized to determine item functioning and utility of the IMRS-C. RESULTS: Results of Rasch analyses using the IMRS-C as one unidimensional scale were problematic. Analyses grouping items into three separate scales measuring recovery, management and biological vulnerability were more promising, but the third scale had other limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that the items included in the IMRS-C can form two screeners, one for recovery and one for management; items regarding biological vulnerability were inadequate. The assessment could be supplemented by more refined measures of coping/self-management and recovery constructs. Published 2014. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The illness management and recovery scale-clinician version (IMRS-C) is a measure of outcomes thought to be important indicators of progress for consumers participating in illness management and recovery (IMR). Prior research has examined the psychometric properties of the IMRS-C; extant research supports certain aspects of the scale's reliability (test-retest) and validity (sensitivity to interventions). Analyses based on Rasch provide certain advantages and have not been applied to the IMRS-C. METHOD: This study used an archival IMRS database including responses regarding 697 participants with severe mental illness from a variety of community-based settings. Rasch analyses were utilized to determine item functioning and utility of the IMRS-C. RESULTS: Results of Rasch analyses using the IMRS-C as one unidimensional scale were problematic. Analyses grouping items into three separate scales measuring recovery, management and biological vulnerability were more promising, but the third scale had other limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that the items included in the IMRS-C can form two screeners, one for recovery and one for management; items regarding biological vulnerability were inadequate. The assessment could be supplemented by more refined measures of coping/self-management and recovery constructs. Published 2014. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
Authors: Dominique A White; Alan B McGuire; Lauren Luther; Adrienne I Anderson; Peter Phalen; John H McGrew Journal: Psychiatr Rehabil J Date: 2017-09-14
Authors: Alan B McGuire; Tom Bartholomew; Adrienne I Anderson; Sarah M Bauer; John H McGrew; Dominique A White; Lauren Luther; Angela Rollins; Angela Pereira; Michelle P Salyers Journal: Psychiatr Rehabil J Date: 2016-08-08