M Cavelti1, M Wirtz2, P Corrigan3, R Vauth4. 1. Translational research center, university hospital of psychiatry and psychotherapy, university of Bern, 111, Bolligenstrasse, 3000 Bern 60, Switzerland; Orygen, The National centre of excellence in youth mental health, centre for youth mental health, the university of Melbourne, 35, Poplar road, VIC 3052 Parkville, Australia. Electronic address: marialuisa.cavelti@puk.unibe.ch. 2. University of education Freiburg, 21, Kunzenweg, 79117 Freiburg, Germany. 3. Department of psychology, Illinois institute of technology, 3300 South Federal Street, IL 60616 Chicago, USA. 4. Psychiatric university clinics basel, center for psychotic disorders, Kornhausgasse 7, 4501 Basel, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The recovery framework has found its way into local and national mental health services and policies around the world, especially in English speaking countries. To promote this process, it is necessary to assess personal recovery validly and reliably. The Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS) is the most established measure in recovery research. The aim of the current study is to examine the factor structure of the German version of the RAS (RAS-G). METHODS: One hundred and fifty-six German-speaking clients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder from a community mental health service completed the RAS-G plus measures of recovery attitudes, self-stigma, psychotic symptoms, depression, and functioning. A confirmatory factor analysis of the original 24-item RAS version was conducted to examine its factor structure, followed by reliability and validity testing of the extracted factors. RESULTS: The CFA yielded five factors capturing 14 items which showed a substantial overlap with the original subscales Personal Confidence and Hope, Goal and Success Orientation, Willingness to Ask for Help, Reliance on Others, and No Domination by Symptoms. The factors demonstrated mean to excellent reliability (0.59-0.89) and satisfactory criterial validity by positive correlations with measures of recovery attitudes and functioning, and negative correlations with measures of self-stigma, and psychotic and depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The study results are discussed in the light of other studies examining the factor structure of the RAS. Overall, they support the use of the RAS-G as a means to promote recovery oriented services, policies, and research in German-speaking countries.
BACKGROUND: The recovery framework has found its way into local and national mental health services and policies around the world, especially in English speaking countries. To promote this process, it is necessary to assess personal recovery validly and reliably. The Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS) is the most established measure in recovery research. The aim of the current study is to examine the factor structure of the German version of the RAS (RAS-G). METHODS: One hundred and fifty-six German-speaking clients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder from a community mental health service completed the RAS-G plus measures of recovery attitudes, self-stigma, psychotic symptoms, depression, and functioning. A confirmatory factor analysis of the original 24-item RAS version was conducted to examine its factor structure, followed by reliability and validity testing of the extracted factors. RESULTS: The CFA yielded five factors capturing 14 items which showed a substantial overlap with the original subscales Personal Confidence and Hope, Goal and Success Orientation, Willingness to Ask for Help, Reliance on Others, and No Domination by Symptoms. The factors demonstrated mean to excellent reliability (0.59-0.89) and satisfactory criterial validity by positive correlations with measures of recovery attitudes and functioning, and negative correlations with measures of self-stigma, and psychotic and depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The study results are discussed in the light of other studies examining the factor structure of the RAS. Overall, they support the use of the RAS-G as a means to promote recovery oriented services, policies, and research in German-speaking countries.
Authors: Robin Michael Van Eck; Thijs Jan Burger; Astrid Vellinga; Frederike Schirmbeck; Lieuwe de Haan Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Johanna Baumgardt; Julian Schwarz; Sebastian Von Peter; Stefan Weinmann; Andreas Bechdolf; Konstantinos Nikolaidis; Martin Heinze; Johannes Hamann; Martin Holzke; Gerhard Längle; Janina Richter; Peter Brieger; Reinhold Kilian; Jürgen Timm; Constance Hirschmeier Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2021-03-30 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Justus Tönnies; Mechthild Hartmann; Michel Wensing; Joachim Szecsenyi; Andrea Icks; Hans-Christoph Friederich; Markus W Haun Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-09-04 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Justus Tönnies; Mechthild Hartmann; Michel Wensing; Joachim Szecsenyi; Frank Peters-Klimm; Regina Brinster; Dorothea Weber; Markus Vomhof; Andrea Icks; Hans-Christoph Friederich; Markus W Haun Journal: JMIR Ment Health Date: 2021-03-12
Authors: Markus W Haun; Justus Tönnies; Regina Krisam; Dorothea Kronsteiner; Michel Wensing; Joachim Szecsenyi; Markus Vomhof; Andrea Icks; Beate Wild; Mechthild Hartmann; Hans-Christoph Friederich Journal: Trials Date: 2021-05-05 Impact factor: 2.279