Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T21:28:50.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recovery assessment scale: Examining the factor structure of the German version (RAS-G) in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 December 2016

M. Cavelti ,
M. Wirtz ,
P. Corrigan  and
R. Vauth
M. Cavelti*
Affiliation:
Translational research center, university hospital of psychiatry and psychotherapy, university of Bern, 111, Bolligenstrasse, 3000Bern 60, Switzerland Orygen, The National centre of excellence in youth mental health, centre for youth mental health, the university of Melbourne, 35, Poplar road, VIC 3052Parkville, Australia
M. Wirtz
Affiliation:
University of education Freiburg, 21, Kunzenweg, 79117Freiburg, Germany
P. Corrigan
Affiliation:
Department of psychology, Illinois institute of technology, 3300 South Federal Street, IL 60616Chicago, USA
R. Vauth
Affiliation:
Psychiatric university clinics basel, center for psychotic disorders, Kornhausgasse 7, 4501Basel, Switzerland
*
⁎Corresponding author. Orygen, The National centre of excellence in youth mental health, centre for youth mental health, the university of Melbourne, 35, Poplar road, VIC 3052 Parkville, Australia. Tel.: +61 (0)411 871 273. E-mail addresses: marialuisa.cavelti@puk.unibe.ch, marialuisa.cavelti@orygen.org.au (M. Cavelti).
Get access

Abstract

Background

The recovery framework has found its way into local and national mental health services and policies around the world, especially in English speaking countries. To promote this process, it is necessary to assess personal recovery validly and reliably. The Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS) is the most established measure in recovery research. The aim of the current study is to examine the factor structure of the German version of the RAS (RAS-G).

Methods

One hundred and fifty-six German-speaking clients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder from a community mental health service completed the RAS-G plus measures of recovery attitudes, self-stigma, psychotic symptoms, depression, and functioning. A confirmatory factor analysis of the original 24-item RAS version was conducted to examine its factor structure, followed by reliability and validity testing of the extracted factors.

Results

The CFA yielded five factors capturing 14 items which showed a substantial overlap with the original subscales Personal Confidence and Hope, Goal and Success Orientation, Willingness to Ask for Help, Reliance on Others, and No Domination by Symptoms. The factors demonstrated mean to excellent reliability (0.59–0.89) and satisfactory criterial validity by positive correlations with measures of recovery attitudes and functioning, and negative correlations with measures of self-stigma, and psychotic and depressive symptoms.

Conclusions

The study results are discussed in the light of other studies examining the factor structure of the RAS. Overall, they support the use of the RAS-G as a means to promote recovery oriented services, policies, and research in German-speaking countries.

Keywords

PsychosisSerious mental illnessMeasureReliabilityValidity
Type
Original article
Information
European Psychiatry , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 60 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © European Psychiatric Association 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

An der Heiden, W.Hafner, H.Investigating the long-term course of schizophrenia by sequence analysis. Psychiatry Res. 2015;228(3):551–559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrow, M.Jobe, T.H.How frequent is chronic multiyear delusional activity and recovery in schizophrenia: a 20-year multi-follow-up. Schizophr Bull. 2010;36(1):192–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrow, M.Jobe, T.H.Faull, R.N.Does treatment of schizophrenia with antipsychotic medications eliminate or reduce psychosis? A 20-year multi-follow-up study. Psychol Med. 2014;44(14):3007–3016.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Revier, C.J.Reininghaus, U.Dutta, R.Fearon, P.Murray, R.M.Doody, G.A.et al.Ten-year outcomes of first-episode psychoses in the MRC AESOP-10 study. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2015;203(5):379–386.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strauss, G.P.Harrow, M.Grossman, L.S.Rosen, C.Periods of recovery in deficit syndrome schizophrenia: a 20-year multi-follow-up longitudinal study. Schizophr Bull. 2010;36(4):788–799.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ben-David, S.Birnbaum, M.L.Eilenberg, M.E.DeVylder, J.E.Gill, K.E.Schienle, J.et al.The subjective experience of youths at clinically high risk of psychosis: a qualitative study. Psychiatr Serv. 2014;65(12):1499–1501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frese, F.J. 3rd. Knight, E.L.Saks, E.Recovery from schizophrenia: with views of psychiatrists, psychologists, and others diagnosed with this disorder. Schizophr Bull. 2009;35(2):370–380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Helman, D.S.Schizophrenia is normal: my journey through diagnosis, treatment, and recovery. Schizophr Bull. 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbu131.Google Scholar
Liberman, R.P.Kopelowicz, A.Recovery from schizophrenia: a concept in search of research. Psychiatr Serv. 2005;56(6):735–742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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(2):192–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bellack, A.S.Scientific and consumer models of recovery in schizophrenia: concordance, contrasts, and implications. Schizophr Bull. 2006;32(3):432–442.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jose, D.Ramachandra, Lalitha, K.Gandhi, S.Desai, G.Nagarajaiah, Consumer perspectives on the concept of recovery in schizophrenia: a systematic review. Asian J Psychiatr. 2015;14:13–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soundy, A.Stubbs, B.Roskell, C.Williams, S.E.Fox, A.Vancampfort, D.Identifying the facilitators and processes which influence recovery in individuals with schizophrenia: a systematic review and thematic synthesis. J Ment Health. 2015;24(2):103–110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kidd, S.A.McKenzie, K.Collins, A.Clark, C.Costa, L.Mihalakakos, G.et al.Advancing the recovery orientation of hospital care through staff engagement with former clients of inpatient units. Psychiatr Serv. 2014;65(2):221–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosen, A.O’Halloran, P.Recovery entails bridging the multiple realms of best practice: towards a more integrated approach to evidence-based clinical treatment and psychosocial disability support for mental health recovery. East Asian Arch Psychiatry. 2014;24(3):104–109.Google ScholarPubMed
Slade, M.Leamy, M.Bacon, F.Janosik, M.Le Boutillier, C.Williams, J.et al.International differences in understanding recovery: systematic review. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2012;21(4):353–364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slade, M.Hayward, M.Recovery, psychosis and psychiatry: research is better than rhetoric. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2007;116(2):81–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cavelti, M.Kvrgic, S.Beck, E.M.Kossowsky, J.Vauth, R.Assessing recovery from schizophrenia as an individual process. A review of self-report instruments. Eur Psychiatry. 2012;27(1):19–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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(4):267–280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shanks, V.Williams, J.Leamy, M.Bird, V.J.Le Boutillier, C.Slade, M.Measures of personal recovery: a systematic review. Psychiatr Serv. 2013;64(10):974–980.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corrigan, P.W.Giffort, D.Rashid, F.Leary, M.Okeke, I.Recovery as a psychological construct. Community Ment Health J 1999;35(3):231–239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corrigan, P.W.Salzer, M.Ralph, R.O.Sangster, Y.Keck, L.Examining the factor structure of the recovery assessment scale. Schizophr Bull. 2004;30(4):1035–1041.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salzer, M.S.Brusilovskiy, E.Advancing recovery sience: reliability and validity properties of the Recovery assessment scale. Psychiatr Serv. 2015;65:442–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
First, M.B.Gribbon, M.Spitzer, R.L.Williams, J.B.W.User's guide for the Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV axis i disorders – research version. New York: Biometrics Research; 1996.Google Scholar
Borkin, J.R.Recovery attitudes questionnaire: development and evaluation. Psychiatr Rehabil J 2000;24:95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corrigan, P.W.Watson, A.C.The self-stigma of mental illness: implications for self-esteem and self-efficacy. J Soc Clin Psychol. 2006;25:875–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, M.J.Marx-Dannigkeit, P.Schlosser, R.Wetzel, H.Addington, D.Benkert, O.The Calgary depression rating scale for schizophrenia: development and interrater reliability of a German version (CDSS-G). J Psychiatr Res. 1999;33(5):433–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhner, C.Burger, C.Keller, F.Hautzinger, M.[Reliability and validity of the Revised Beck depression inventory (BDI-II). Results from German samples]. Nervenarzt. 2007;78(6):651–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, R.C.Concurrent validity of the Global assessment of functioning scale for clients with schizophrenia. Psychol Rep. 2007;100(2):571–574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brislin, R.W.Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J Cross Cult Psychol. 1971;1:185–2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schafer, J.L.Graham, J.W.Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychol Methods. 2002;7(2):147–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kline, R.B.Structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press; 2010.Google Scholar
Hoogland, J.J.Boomsma, A.Robustness studies in covariance structure modeling: an overview and a meta-analysis. Sociol Method Res. 1998;26:329–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arbuckle, J.L.Wothke, W.AMOS 7. 0 user's guide. Chicago: Small-Waters Corporation; 2006.Google Scholar
Boosma, A.Reporting analyses of covariance structures. Struct Equ Modeling. 2000;7(3):461–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, L.Bentler, P.M.Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999;6:1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, H.W.Balla, J.R.McDonald, R.P.Goodness of fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size. Psychol Bull. 1988;103:391–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fornell, C.Larcker, D.F.Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18:39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavelti, M.Rusch, N.Vauth, R.Is living with psychosis demoralizing?: insight, self-stigma, and clinical outcome among people with schizophrenia across 1 year. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2014;202(7):521–529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNaught, M.Caputi, P.Oades, L.G.Deane, F.P.Testing the validity of the Recovery assessment scale using an Australian sample. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2007;41(5):450–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chiba, R.Miyamoto, Y.Kawakami, N.Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Recovery assessment scale (RAS) for people with chronic mental illness: scale development. Int J Nurs Stud. 2010;47(3):314–322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fukui, S.Shimizu, Y.Rapp, C.A.A cross-cultural study of recovery for people with psychiatric disabilities between U.S. and Japan. Community Ment Health J 2012;48(6):804–812.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pelletier, J.F.Corbiere, M.Lecomte, T.Briand, C.Corrigan, P.Davidson, L.et al.Citizenship and recovery: two intertwined concepts for civic-recovery. BMC Psychiatry. 2015;15:37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Girard, V.Tinland, A.Mohamed, E.the French housing first study group Boyer, L.Auquier, P.Psychometric properties of the recovery measurement in homeless people with severe mental illness. Schizophr Res 2015;169:292–297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roe, D.Mashiach-Eizenberg, M.Corrigan, P.Confirmatory factor analysis of the brief version of the recovery assessment scale. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2012;200(10):847–851.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jorge-Monteiro, M.F.Ornelas, J.H.Recovery assessment scale: testing validity with portuguese community-based mental health organization users. Psychol Assess 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000176.Google ScholarPubMed
Gonzales, R.Hernandez, M.Douglas, S.B.Yu, C.H.Exploring the factor structure of a recovery assessment measure among substance-abusing youth. J Psychoactive Drugs 2015;47(3):187–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Macpherson, R.Pesola, F.Leamy, M.Bird, V.Le Boutillier, C.Williams, J.et al.The relationship between clinical and recovery dimensions of outcome in mental health. Schizophr Res. 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2015.10.031.Google ScholarPubMed
Jorgensen, R.Zoffmann, V.Munk-Jorgensen, P.Buck, K.D.Jensen, S.O.Hansson, L.et al.Relationships over time of subjective and objective elements of recovery in persons with schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res. 2015;228(1):14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kukla, M.Lysaker, P.H.Roe, D.Strong subjective recovery as a protective factor against the effects of positive symptoms on quality of life outcomes in schizophrenia. Compr Psychiatry. 2014;55(6):1363–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slade, M.Amering, M.Oades, L.Recovery: an international perspective. Epidemiol Psychiatr Soc. 2008;17(2):128–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, S.R.Fiszbein, A.Opler, L.A.The positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 1987;13(2):261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, R.C.Global assessment of functioning. A modified scale. Psychosomatics. 1995;36(3):267–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, S.Assessment of obsessions and compulsions: reliability, validity, and sensitivity to treatment effects. Clin Psychol Rev. 1995;15(4):261–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zumbo, B.D.Rupp, A.A.Responsible modelling of measurement data for appropriate inferences: important advances in reliability and validity theory. In: Kaplan, D.The SAGE handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences Thousand Oaks, C.A: Sage Press; 2004. p. 73–92.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.