Psychometric properties of three instruments to measure recovery

Authors

  • Greet Wilrycx MA, PhD (Student),

    1. Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Scientific Research Center for Health and Social Care, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands
    2. Institute of Mental Health Care, Breburg, Breda, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Marcel A. Croon PhD,

    1. Department of Methodology and Statistics, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Anneloes van den Broek PhD,

    1. Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Scientific Research Center for Health and Social Care, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands
    2. Institute of Mental Health Care, Breburg, Breda, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Chijs van Nieuwenhuizen PhD (Professor)

    1. Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Scientific Research Center for Health and Social Care, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands
    2. Institute of Mental Health Care, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
    Search for more papers by this author

Greet K.M.L. Wilrycx, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Scientific Research Center for Health and Social Care, Tilburg University, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands.
E-mail: G.K.M.L.Wilrycx@uvt.nl

Abstract

Scand J Caring Sci; 2012; 26; 607–614

Psychometric properties of three instruments to measure recovery

Background:  The process of recovery is gaining more and more attention within health care for patients with severe mental illness. Therefore, instruments to measure recovery can be useful for clinical and research purposes.

Aims:  This study evaluates the psychometric properties of three instruments pertaining to recovery for possible application in the Netherlands. The Recovery Attitude Questionnaire and the Recovery Knowledge Inventory were investigated among 210 mental health professionals, and the Recovery Promoting Relationship Scale was administered to 142 mental health consumers.

Methods:  The factor structure, reliability and internal consistency were examined using the same analysis strategy. First, each questionnaire was submitted to a confirmatory factor analysis based on the factorial structure proposed by the original developers of the questionnaire. In case of a bad fit, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted. Based on factor analyses, subscales were formed for each questionnaire and the internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was assessed. In all three cases the final principal axes solution was obliquely rotated by means of the OBLIMIN rotation procedure.

Results:  The originally proposed factor structure did not yield an acceptable fit in any of the Dutch samples. After analyses, three instruments are proposed that are suitable for research on recovery-oriented competencies and the recovery-promoting relationship for professionals working with people with serious mental illness in the Netherlands.

Conclusions:  The results in this study may be a step forward and give a new impulse to stimulate research in mental health recovery.

Ancillary