Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research

Validation of the 24-item recovery assessment scale-revised (RAS-R) in the Norwegian language and context: a multi-centre study

Authors: Eva Biringer, Marit Tjoflåt

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The Recovery Assessment Scale-revised (RAS-R) is a self-report instrument measuring mental health recovery. The purpose of the present study was to translate and adapt the RAS-R into the Norwegian language and to investigate its psychometric properties in terms of factor structure, convergent and discriminant validity and reliability in the Norwegian context.

Methods

The present study is a cross-sectional multi-centre study. After a pilot test, the Norwegian version of the RAS-R was distributed to 231 service users in mental health specialist and community services. The factor structure of the instrument was investigated by a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha.

Results

The RAS-R was found to be acceptable and feasible for service users. The original five-factor structure was confirmed. All model fit indices, including the standardised root mean square residual (SRMR), which is independent of the χ2-test, met the criteria for an acceptable model fit. Internal consistencies within sub-scales as measured by Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.65 to 0.85. Cronbach’s alpha for the total scale was 0.90. As expected, some redundancy between factors existed (in particular among the factors Personal confidence and hope, Goal and success orientation and Not dominated by symptoms).

Conclusions

The Norwegian RAS-R showed acceptable psychometric properties in terms of convergent validity and reliability, and fit indices from the CFA confirmed the original factor structure. We recommend the Norwegian RAS-R as a tool in service users’ and health professionals’ collaborative work towards the service users’ recovery goals and as an outcome measure in larger evaluations.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Andresen R, Caputi P, Oades L. Do clinical outcome measures assess consumer-defined recovery? Psychiatry Res. 2010;177:309–17.CrossRefPubMed Andresen R, Caputi P, Oades L. Do clinical outcome measures assess consumer-defined recovery? Psychiatry Res. 2010;177:309–17.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Connell J, Brazier J, O'Cathain A, Lloyd-Jones M, Paisley S. Quality of life of people with mental health problems: a synthesis of qualitative research. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:138.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Connell J, Brazier J, O'Cathain A, Lloyd-Jones M, Paisley S. Quality of life of people with mental health problems: a synthesis of qualitative research. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012;10:138.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
go back to reference Anthony WA. Recovery from mental illness: the guiding vision of the mental health service system in the 1990s. Psychosoc Rehab J. 1993;16:11–23. Anthony WA. Recovery from mental illness: the guiding vision of the mental health service system in the 1990s. Psychosoc Rehab J. 1993;16:11–23.
4.
go back to reference Davidson L, Roe D. Recovery from versus recovery in serious mental illness: one strategy for lessening confusion plaguing recovery. J Ment Health. 2007;16:459–70.CrossRef Davidson L, Roe D. Recovery from versus recovery in serious mental illness: one strategy for lessening confusion plaguing recovery. J Ment Health. 2007;16:459–70.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Anthony WA. A recovery-oriented service system: setting some system level standards. Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2000;24:159–68.CrossRef Anthony WA. A recovery-oriented service system: setting some system level standards. Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2000;24:159–68.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Davidson L, O'Connell M, Tondora J, Lawless M, Evans A. Recovery in serious mental illness: a new wine or just a new bottle? Prof Psychol: Res Practice. 2005;36:480–7.CrossRef Davidson L, O'Connell M, Tondora J, Lawless M, Evans A. Recovery in serious mental illness: a new wine or just a new bottle? Prof Psychol: Res Practice. 2005;36:480–7.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Slade M, Leamy M, Bacon F, Janosik M, Le Boutillier C, Williams JJ, Bird V. International differences in understanding recovery: systematic review. Epidemiol Psychiatr Serv. 2012;21:353–64.CrossRef Slade M, Leamy M, Bacon F, Janosik M, Le Boutillier C, Williams JJ, Bird V. International differences in understanding recovery: systematic review. Epidemiol Psychiatr Serv. 2012;21:353–64.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Chambers E, Cook S, Thake A, Foster A, Shaw S, Hutten R, Parry G, Ricketts T. The self-management of longer-term depression: learning from the patient, a qualitative study. BMC Psychiatry. 2015;15:172.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Chambers E, Cook S, Thake A, Foster A, Shaw S, Hutten R, Parry G, Ricketts T. The self-management of longer-term depression: learning from the patient, a qualitative study. BMC Psychiatry. 2015;15:172.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Law H, Morrison A, Byrne R, Hodson E. Recovery from psychosis: a user informed review of self-report instruments for measuring recovery. J Ment Health. 2012;21:192–207.CrossRefPubMed Law H, Morrison A, Byrne R, Hodson E. Recovery from psychosis: a user informed review of self-report instruments for measuring recovery. J Ment Health. 2012;21:192–207.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Shanks V, Williams J, Leamy M, Bird VJ, Le Boutillier C, Slade M. Measures of personal recovery: a systematic review. Psychiatr Serv. 2013;64:974–80.CrossRefPubMed Shanks V, Williams J, Leamy M, Bird VJ, Le Boutillier C, Slade M. Measures of personal recovery: a systematic review. Psychiatr Serv. 2013;64:974–80.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Burgess P, Pirkis J, Coombs T, Rosen A. Assessing the value of existing recovery measures for routine use in Australian mental health services. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2011;45:267–80.CrossRefPubMed Burgess P, Pirkis J, Coombs T, Rosen A. Assessing the value of existing recovery measures for routine use in Australian mental health services. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2011;45:267–80.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Cavelti M, Kvrgic S, Beck EM, Kossowsky J, Vauth R. Assessing recovery from schizophrenia as an individual process. A review of self-report instruments. Eur Psychiatry. 2012;27:19–32.CrossRefPubMed Cavelti M, Kvrgic S, Beck EM, Kossowsky J, Vauth R. Assessing recovery from schizophrenia as an individual process. A review of self-report instruments. Eur Psychiatry. 2012;27:19–32.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Salzer MS, Brusilovskiy E. Advancing recovery science: reliability and validity properties of the recovery assessment scale. Psychiatr Serv. 2014;65:442–53.CrossRefPubMed Salzer MS, Brusilovskiy E. Advancing recovery science: reliability and validity properties of the recovery assessment scale. Psychiatr Serv. 2014;65:442–53.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Giffort D, Schmook A, Woody C, Vollendorf C, Germain M. Construction of a scale to measure consumer recovery. Springfield: Illinois Office of Mental Health; 1995. Giffort D, Schmook A, Woody C, Vollendorf C, Germain M. Construction of a scale to measure consumer recovery. Springfield: Illinois Office of Mental Health; 1995.
15.
go back to reference Corrigan PW, Giffort D, Rashid F, Leary M, Okeke I. Recovery as a psychological construct. Community Ment Health J. 1999;35:231–9.CrossRefPubMed Corrigan PW, Giffort D, Rashid F, Leary M, Okeke I. Recovery as a psychological construct. Community Ment Health J. 1999;35:231–9.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Campbell-Orde T, Chamberlin J, Carpenter J, Leff H. Measuring the promise: a compendium of recovery measures, vol. II. Cambridge: Human Services Research Institute; 2005. Campbell-Orde T, Chamberlin J, Carpenter J, Leff H. Measuring the promise: a compendium of recovery measures, vol. II. Cambridge: Human Services Research Institute; 2005.
17.
go back to reference Khanam D, McDonald K, Neils C. In: NYC Department of Mental Health and Hygiene, editor. Measuring recovery: a toolkit for mental health providers in new York City, vol. 1. N.Y.C: Bureau of Mental Health; 2013. Khanam D, McDonald K, Neils C. In: NYC Department of Mental Health and Hygiene, editor. Measuring recovery: a toolkit for mental health providers in new York City, vol. 1. N.Y.C: Bureau of Mental Health; 2013.
18.
go back to reference Corrigan PW, Salzer M, Ralph RO, Sangster Y, Keck L. Examining the factor structure of the recovery assessment scale. Schizophr Bull. 2004;30:1035.CrossRefPubMed Corrigan PW, Salzer M, Ralph RO, Sangster Y, Keck L. Examining the factor structure of the recovery assessment scale. Schizophr Bull. 2004;30:1035.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Schön UK, Rosenberg D. Transplanting recovery: research and practice in the Nordic countries. J Ment Health. 2013;22:563–9.CrossRefPubMed Schön UK, Rosenberg D. Transplanting recovery: research and practice in the Nordic countries. J Ment Health. 2013;22:563–9.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Andresen R, Oades L, Caputi P. The experience of recovery from schizophrenia: towards an empirically validated stage model. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2003;37:586–94.CrossRefPubMed Andresen R, Oades L, Caputi P. The experience of recovery from schizophrenia: towards an empirically validated stage model. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2003;37:586–94.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research, vol. 455. New York: The Guilford Press; 2006. Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research, vol. 455. New York: The Guilford Press; 2006.
22.
go back to reference Ullman JB. Structural equation modeling: reviewing the basics and moving forward. J Person Assess. 2006;87:35–50.CrossRef Ullman JB. Structural equation modeling: reviewing the basics and moving forward. J Person Assess. 2006;87:35–50.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Schumacker R, Lomax R. A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. 2nd ed. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2004. Schumacker R, Lomax R. A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. 2nd ed. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2004.
24.
go back to reference Kline RB. Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2005. Kline RB. Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2005.
26.
go back to reference Schreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, Barlow EA, King J. Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: a review. J Educ Res. 2006;99:323–38.CrossRef Schreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, Barlow EA, King J. Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: a review. J Educ Res. 2006;99:323–38.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Hair JB, Babin B, Anderson R. Multivarate data analysis. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, Inc.; 2010. Hair JB, Babin B, Anderson R. Multivarate data analysis. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall, Inc.; 2010.
28.
go back to reference Farrell AM. Insufficient discriminant validity: a comment on Bove, Pervan, Beatty, and Shiu (2009). J Bus Res. 2010;63:324–7.CrossRef Farrell AM. Insufficient discriminant validity: a comment on Bove, Pervan, Beatty, and Shiu (2009). J Bus Res. 2010;63:324–7.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Rosseel Y. Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw. 2012;48:1–46.CrossRef Rosseel Y. Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw. 2012;48:1–46.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisc J. 1999;6:1–55.CrossRef Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisc J. 1999;6:1–55.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Jackson DL, Gillaspy JA, Purc-Stephenson R. Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: an overview and some recommendations. Psychol Methods. 2009;14:6–23.CrossRefPubMed Jackson DL, Gillaspy JA, Purc-Stephenson R. Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: an overview and some recommendations. Psychol Methods. 2009;14:6–23.CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Davidson L, Borg M, Martin I, Topor A, Mezzina R, Sells D. Processes of recovery in serious mental illness: findings from a multi-national study. Am J Psychiatr Rehabil. 2005;8:177–201.CrossRef Davidson L, Borg M, Martin I, Topor A, Mezzina R, Sells D. Processes of recovery in serious mental illness: findings from a multi-national study. Am J Psychiatr Rehabil. 2005;8:177–201.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Chiu MY, Ho WW, Lo WT, Yiu MG. Operationalization of the SAMHSA model of recovery: a quality of life perspective. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:1–13.CrossRefPubMed Chiu MY, Ho WW, Lo WT, Yiu MG. Operationalization of the SAMHSA model of recovery: a quality of life perspective. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:1–13.CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Fukui S, Shimizu Y, Rapp CA. A cross-cultural study of recovery for people with psychiatric disabilities between U.S. and Japan. Community Ment Health J. 2012;48:804–12.CrossRefPubMed Fukui S, Shimizu Y, Rapp CA. A cross-cultural study of recovery for people with psychiatric disabilities between U.S. and Japan. Community Ment Health J. 2012;48:804–12.CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Cavelti M, Wirtz M, Corrigan P, Vauth R. Recovery assessment scale: examining factor structure of the German version (RAS-G) in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Eur Psychiatry. 2017;41:60–7.CrossRefPubMed Cavelti M, Wirtz M, Corrigan P, Vauth R. Recovery assessment scale: examining factor structure of the German version (RAS-G) in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Eur Psychiatry. 2017;41:60–7.CrossRefPubMed
36.
go back to reference Hoe S. Issues and procedures in adopting structural equation modeling techniques. JAQM. 2008;3:76–83. Hoe S. Issues and procedures in adopting structural equation modeling techniques. JAQM. 2008;3:76–83.
Metadata
Title
Validation of the 24-item recovery assessment scale-revised (RAS-R) in the Norwegian language and context: a multi-centre study
Authors
Eva Biringer
Marit Tjoflåt
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0849-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2018 Go to the issue