Literature DB >> 28726086

Factor Structure and Sensitivity to Change of the Recovery Assessment Scale.

Salene M W Jones1, Evette J Ludman2.   

Abstract

The focus on recovery, not just symptom reduction, in mental health care brings a need for psychometrically sound measures of recovery. This study examined the factor structure and sensitivity to change of a common measure of mental health recovery, the Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS). We conducted a secondary data analysis from a randomized clinical trial of self-management for depression (n = 302). We tested both bifactor and the previously found five-factor model. Sensitivity to change was examined three ways: (1) between the intervention and control group; (2) across time in the intervention group; and (3) in those whose depression remitted. The previous five-factor model was supported. One subscale, no domination by symptoms, was particularly sensitive to change and showed sensitivity to change whereas the subscale reliance on others did not show change in any of the comparisons. Results suggest that the subscales of the RAS should be examined separately in future studies of recovery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 28726086      PMCID: PMC5775058          DOI: 10.1007/s11414-017-9563-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Behav Health Serv Res        ISSN: 1094-3412            Impact factor:   1.505


  7 in total

1.  Organized Self-Management Support Services for Chronic Depressive Symptoms: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Evette J Ludman; Gregory E Simon; Louis C Grothaus; Julie Elissa Richards; Ursula Whiteside; Christine Stewart
Journal:  Psychiatr Serv       Date:  2015-08-17       Impact factor: 3.084

2.  Examining the factor structure of the recovery assessment scale.

Authors:  Patrick W Corrigan; Mark Salzer; Ruth O Ralph; Yvette Sangster; Lorraine Keck
Journal:  Schizophr Bull       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 9.306

3.  Prevalence, severity, and comorbidity of 12-month DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication.

Authors:  Ronald C Kessler; Wai Tat Chiu; Olga Demler; Kathleen R Merikangas; Ellen E Walters
Journal:  Arch Gen Psychiatry       Date:  2005-06

4.  The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures.

Authors:  Steven P Reise; Julien Morizot; Ron D Hays
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-05-04       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Recovery as a psychological construct.

Authors:  P W Corrigan; D Giffort; F Rashid; M Leary; I Okeke
Journal:  Community Ment Health J       Date:  1999-06

6.  Assessing recovery of people with serious mental illness: development of a new scale.

Authors:  Amy L Drapalski; Deborah Medoff; George J Unick; Dawn I Velligan; Lisa B Dixon; Alan S Bellack
Journal:  Psychiatr Serv       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 3.084

7.  Testing the validity of the Recovery Assessment Scale using an Australian sample.

Authors:  Mandy McNaught; Peter Caputi; Lindsay G Oades; Frank P Deane
Journal:  Aust N Z J Psychiatry       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 5.744

  7 in total
  1 in total

1.  Assessing the Recovery Assessment Scale Across Time.

Authors:  Sadaaki Fukui; Michelle P Salyers
Journal:  Psychiatr Serv       Date:  2021-03-18       Impact factor: 4.157

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.