Corrie L Vilsaint1, John F Kelly2, Brandon G Bergman3, Teodora Groshkova4, David Best5, William White6. 1. Recovery Research Institute,Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School 151 Merrimac Street 6(th) Floor, Boston MA 02114-4709, USA. Electronic address: cvilsaint@mgh.harvard.edu. 2. Recovery Research Institute,Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School 151 Merrimac Street 6(th) Floor, Boston MA 02114-4709, USA. Electronic address: jkelly11@mgh.harvard.edu. 3. Recovery Research Institute,Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School 151 Merrimac Street 6(th) Floor, Boston MA 02114-4709, USA. Electronic address: bgbergman@mgh.harvard.edu. 4. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Praça Europa 1, Cais do Sodré 1249-289 Lisbon, Portugal. Electronic address: teodora.groshkova@emcdda.eurpa.eu. 5. Sheffield Hallam University, Room HC.2.14,Heart of the Campus Building, Collegiate Crescent, Collegiate Campus, Sheffield, S10 2BQ, UK. Electronic address: D.Best@shu.ac.uk. 6. Chestnut Health Systems, 3329 Sunset Key Circle # 203, Punta Gorda, FL 33955, USA. Electronic address: bwhite@chestnut.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been long established that achieving recovery from an alcohol or other drug use disorder is associated with increased biobehavioral stress. To enhance the chances of recovery, a variety of psychological, physical, social, and environmental resources, known as "recovery capital", are deemed important as they can help mitigate this high stress burden. A 50-item measure of recovery capital was developed (Assessment of Recovery Capital [ARC]), with 10 subscales; however, a briefer version could enhance further deployment in research and busy clinical/recovery support service settings. To help increase utility of the measure, the goal of the current study was to create a shorter version using Item Response Theory models. METHOD: Items were pooled from the original treatment samples from Scotland and Australia (N=450) for scale reduction. A reduced version was tested in an independent sample (N=123), and a Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve was constructed to determine optimal cut-off for sustained remission (>12months abstinence). RESULTS: An abbreviated 10-item measure of recovery capital captured item representation from all 10 original subscales, was invariant across participant's locality and gender, had high internal consistency (α=.90), concurrent validity with the original measure (rpb=.90), and predictive validity with sustained remission using a cut-off score of 47. CONCLUSION: The brief assessment of recovery capital 10-item version (BARC-10) concisely measures a single unified dimension of recovery capital that may have utility for researchers, clinicians, and recovery support services.
BACKGROUND: It has been long established that achieving recovery from an alcohol or other drug use disorder is associated with increased biobehavioral stress. To enhance the chances of recovery, a variety of psychological, physical, social, and environmental resources, known as "recovery capital", are deemed important as they can help mitigate this high stress burden. A 50-item measure of recovery capital was developed (Assessment of Recovery Capital [ARC]), with 10 subscales; however, a briefer version could enhance further deployment in research and busy clinical/recovery support service settings. To help increase utility of the measure, the goal of the current study was to create a shorter version using Item Response Theory models. METHOD: Items were pooled from the original treatment samples from Scotland and Australia (N=450) for scale reduction. A reduced version was tested in an independent sample (N=123), and a Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve was constructed to determine optimal cut-off for sustained remission (>12months abstinence). RESULTS: An abbreviated 10-item measure of recovery capital captured item representation from all 10 original subscales, was invariant across participant's locality and gender, had high internal consistency (α=.90), concurrent validity with the original measure (rpb=.90), and predictive validity with sustained remission using a cut-off score of 47. CONCLUSION: The brief assessment of recovery capital 10-item version (BARC-10) concisely measures a single unified dimension of recovery capital that may have utility for researchers, clinicians, and recovery support services.
Authors: John F Kelly; Robert L Stout; Leonard A Jason; Nilofar Fallah-Sohy; Lauren A Hoffman; Bettina B Hoeppner Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: David Eddie; Corrie L Vilsaint; Lauren A Hoffman; Brandon G Bergman; John F Kelly; Bettina B Hoeppner Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2020-03-09
Authors: Amanda K Haik; M Claire Greene; Brandon G Bergman; Alexandra W Abry; John F Kelly Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2022-01-10 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: John F Kelly; Nilofar Fallah-Sohy; Julie Cristello; Robert L Stout; Leonard A Jason; Bettina B Hoeppner Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2021-01-13