4.3 Article

Assessing Recovery of People With Serious Mental Illness: Development of a New Scale

期刊

PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES
卷 63, 期 1, 页码 48-53

出版社

AMER PSYCHIATRIC PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.201100109

关键词

-

资金

  1. Rehabilitation Research and Development Service of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) [D7156-B]
  2. National Institute of Mental Health [R01 MH082793-03]
  3. VA Capitol Health Care Network VISN5 Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The authors describe the development of the Maryland Assessment of Recovery in People with Serious Mental Illness, or MARS, a 25-item self-report instrument that measures recovery of people with serious mental illness, and report a study of its psychometric properties. Methods: Doctoral-level scientists with expertise in serious mental illness drafted a set of survey items about the recovery process. Items reflected recovery domains outlined by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. After consultation with a panel of experts on recovery that included consumers and clinical scientists and with a small group of consumers, the instrument was narrowed to 67 items and administered to 166 individuals recruited from outpatient mental health clinics in two states. Item response theory and classical item analysis were used to select best-fitting items, reduce item redundancy, and improve the psychometric properties of the scale. Principal components analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were conducted to further examine dimensions of recovery measured by the scale. Results: The MARS is quite practical for use with individuals with serious mental illness. It demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=.95) and test-retest reliability (r=.898) and good face and content validity. Conclusions: The data provide initial support for use of the MARS to measure recovery of people with serious mental illness. (Psychiatric Services 63:48-53, 2012)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据