LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Publisher: Royal College of Psychiatrists
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
Background: Supporting recovery is the aim of national mental health policy in many countries, including England. There is a need for standardised measures of recovery, to assess policy implementation and inform clinical practice. Only one measure of recovery has been developed in England: the Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery (QPR) which measures recovery from the perspective of adult mental health service users with a psychosis diagnosis.\ud Aims: To independently evaluate the psychometric properties of the 15-item and 22-item versions of QPR.\ud Method: Two samples were used: Dataset 1 (n=88) involved assessment of QPR at baseline, two weeks and three months. Dataset 2 (n=399; ISRCTN02507940) involved assessment of QPR at baseline and one year.\ud Results: For the 15-item version, internal consistency was 0.89, convergent validity was 0.73, test-retest reliability was 0.74 and sensitivity to change was 0.40. Confirmatory factor analysis showed the 15-item version offered a good fit. For the 22 item version comprising two sub-scales, the Interpersonal sub-scale was found to under-perform and the Intrapersonal sub-scale overlaps substantially with the 15 item version. Conclusions: Both the 15-item and the Intrapersonal sub-scale of the 22-item versions of the QPR demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties. The 15-item version is slightly more robust and also less burdensome, so it can be recommended for use in research and clinical practice.\ud Declaration of interest: None.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Anthony W. Recovery from mental illness: The guiding vision of the mental health service system in the 1990s. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal. 1993;16(4):11-23.
    • 2. Department of Health. No health without mental health: a cross-government mental health outcomes strategy for people of all ages. London: Department of Health, 2011.
    • 3. Leamy M, Slade M, Le Boutillier C, Williams J, Bird V. A conceptual framework for personal recovery in mental health: systematic review and narrative synthesis. British Journal of Psychiatry. 2011;199:8.
    • 4. Le Boutillier C, Leamy M, Bird V, Davidson L, Williams J, Slade M. What does recovery mean in practice? A qualitative analysis of international recovery-oriented practice guidance. Psychiatric Services. 2011;62:7.
    • 5. Shanks V, Williams J, Leamy M, Bird V, Le Boutillier C, Slade M. Measures of Personal Recovery: A Systematic Review. Psychiatric Services. 2013;64(10):7.
    • 6. Sklar M, Groessl E, O'Connell M, L. D, Aarons G. Instruments for measuring mental health recovery: A systematic review. Clinical Psychology Review. 2013;33:12.
    • 7. Neil S, Kilbride M, Pitt L, Nothard S, Welford M, Sellwood W, et al. The questionnaire about the process of recovery (QPR): A measurement tool developed in collaboration with service users. Psychosis. 2009;1:1-11.
    • 8. Law H, Neil S, Dunn G, Morrison A. Psychometric Properties of the Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery (QPR). Schizophrenia Research. 2014.
    • 9. Slade M, Bird V, Le Boutillier C, Williams J, McCrone P, Leamy M. REFOCUS Trial: protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial of a pro-recovery intervention within community based mental health teams. BMC Psychiatry. 2011;11.
    • 10. Corrigan P, Giffort D, Rashid F, Leary M, Okeke I. Recovery as a Psychological Construct. Community Mental Health Journal. 1999;35(3):231-9.
    • 11. Tennant R, Hiller L, Fishwick R, Platt S, Joseph S, Weich S, et al. The WarwickEdinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2007;5(63).
    • 12. Maheswaran H, Weich S, Powell J, Stewart-Brown S. Evaluating the responsiveness of the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS): Group and individual level analysis. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2012;10.
    • 13. Muthén L, Muthén B. Mplus User's Guide. Los Angeles: Muthén and Muthén; 1998-2011.
    • 14. Costello A, Osborne J. Best Practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis: Four Recommendations for Getting the Most From Your Analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation. 2005;10(7):9.
    • 15. Lykken D, Tellegen A. Happiness is a stochastic phenomemon. Psychological Science. 1996;7(3):4.
    • 16. Shepherd G, Boardman J, Rinaldi M, Roberts G. Supporting recovery in mental health services: Quality and Outcomes. London: Centre for Mental Health, NHS Confederation, 2014.
    • 17. Williams J, Leamy M, Bird V, Le Boutiller C, Norton S, Pesola F, et al. Development and evaluation of the INSPIRE measure of staff support for personal recovery. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 2014.
    • 18. McCabe R, Saidi M, Priebe S. Patient-reported outcomes in schizophrenia. British Journal of Psychiatry. 2007;191:8.
    • 19. Andresen R, Caputi P, Oades L. Do clinical outcome measures assess consumer-defined recovery? Psychiatry Research. 2010;177:309-17.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article