Table 4 Psychometric properties

1

Recovery Knowledge Inventory

(RKI, 20 items, no sub-scales)

RKI designed to include Clinical recovery and Personal recovery.

Yes

Not correlated with other measures.

Egeland and colleagues challenged previous four factor structure of RKI. Happell et al, 2015 argue conceptual underpinnings need reworking to improve reliability and validity of RKI (56).

Unknown

Reliability analysis (Cronbach’s alphas) estimates for the four components were .81, .70, .63, and .47, (33).

Cronbach alpha 0.72 (63).

Unknown

Unknown

15 minutes

2

Recovery Attitudes Questionnaire (RAQ. 7 items, no sub-scales)

RAQ designed to measure whether respondents believed people with mental illness could recover

Yes. Developed with service users, mental health professionals

Unknown

Unknown

Reliability analysis (Cronbach’s alpha) for RAQ-7 was 0.704.

Factor 1 (Recovery is possible and needs faith) − 0.655; Factor 2 (Recovery is difficult and differs among people) − .0644

Test-retest reliability coefficients 0.674 for RAQ – 7; 0.609 factor 1 and factor 2 0.619.

Unknown

5 minutes

3

Attitudes towards Recovery Questionnaire

(ARQ, 18 items, no sub-scales)

ARQ based on reviewing literature and existing measures, focus group discussions with service users, carers, staff.

Yes. Items reviewed by expert panel (service users, clinicians)

Yes. All five factors of the ARQ were positively and moderately associated with the Recovery Markers Questionnaire in the people in recovery sample (rs ranged from 0.31 to 0.46, p < .001).

Unknown

Cronbach’s alphas = 0.87 in the people in recovery sample, 0.90 in the carer sample, and 0.95 in the service provider sample.

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

4

Provider Expectations for Recovery Scale (PERS, 10 items, no sub-scales)

PERS assesses optimism about consumers’ recovery-related outcomes.

Yes

Construct related to optimism about role functioning.

PERS renamed 16 item Consumer Optimism Scale.

Convergent validity: PERS and Burnout subscales; lower levels of emotional exhaustion (r = 0.27) depersonalization (r = 0.29), greater sense of personal accomplishment (r = 0.37).

High internal consistency (α = 0.91)

High test-retest consistency over 2 weeks (r = 0.92)

Unknown

5 minutes

5

Recovery Promoting Relationships Scale (RPRS, 24 items, 3 sub-scales: Hopefulness, Empowerment and Acceptance)

RPRS based on reviewing literature and clinical experience. Designed to measure ways service user’s hopefulness and empowerment can be enhanced by clinicians

Yes. Relevance of items to recovery assessed by service users, peer-providers, and providers explored via survey.

Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Four factors: Hope, Empowerment, acceptance and Core relationship – reduced number of items from 38 to 24 with an acceptable fit.

Correlation of the overall RPRS with the overall Working Alliance Inventory suggests good convergent validity of 0.79.

High, 0.88 to 0.98 internal consistency.

Acceptable test–retest reliability. Coefficients of stability ranged from .61 to .72 for the total score and .75 for the Core Relationship Index

Unknown

Unknown

6

INSPIRE (27 items, 2 sub-scales: Support and Relationships)

INSPIRE based on a CHIME recovery processes and a review of best practice of recovery-oriented practice.

Yes, developed with Service users.

Exploratory factor analysis supported 5 factor solution for CHIME domains of support sub-scale.

Parallel analysis supported one factor solution for the relationship sub-scale.

Adequate convergent validity between Relationship sub-scale and RPRS (r = 0.69)

Low convergent validity between Support sub-scale and the SIMH*** (r = 0.47).

Relationship sub-scale, (α = 0.89) Good Support sub-scale, internal consistency was calculated for each CHIME domain. 0.82 (Identity), 0.83 (Hope), 0.84 (Connectedness), 0.85 (Meaning), adequate internal consistency. 0.95(Empowerment)

7 item relationship sub-scale test-retest reliability = 0.75

Adequate

7 minutes

7

Recovery -Oriented Services Assessment (ROSA, 15 items, no sub-scales)

ROSA based on revision of RSA (revised) provider version.

Developed with feedback from expert peer provider consultants to provide brief 15 item tool, with more recovery-oriented language than RSA.

Exploratory factor analysis supported a one-factor solution.

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

8

Recovery Self-Assessment (RSA, 30 items, 5 subscales: Life goals, Involvement, Diversity of treatment options, Choice and Individually-tailored services)

RSA based on literature reviews, recovery principles of empowerment, stakeholder involvement.

Developed with feedback from service users.

Unknown

Unknown

0.93–0.94

Unknown

Unknown

10 minutes

9

Recovery Enhancing Environment Measure (REE, 43 items, 4 sub-scales: importance of recovery/experience / organizational climate/ recovery markers

Based upon: consumers’ first person accounts of their recovery and the supports that assisted them in this process; an informal review of promising practices; and a review of literature on factors that promote resilience or “rebound from adversity” .

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

0.94–0.97

Unknown

Unknown

40 minutes

10

RECOLLECT checklist and fidelity measure (12 items, no sub-scales)

Based on literature review, expert consultation, semi-structured interviews with recovery college managers.

Developed with experts, peer trainers, recovery college managers, service users

Item hierarchy (ie. Construct validity) in terms of how easy to endorse (from highest to lowest).

Co-production, Learning, Available to all, Strengths based, Distinctiveness of courses, Location.

Unknown

α = 0.72

Test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients = 0.6

Unknown