Assessing the strengths of mental health consumers: A systematic review.

Abstract

Strengths assessments focus on the individual's talents, abilities, resources, and strengths. No systematic review of strengths assessments for use within mental health populations has been published. The aims of this study were to describe and evaluate strengths assessments for use within mental health services. A systematic review identified 12 strengths assessments (5 quantitative, 7 qualitative). The Strengths Assessment Worksheet (SAW) was the most widely utilized and evaluated qualitative assessment. Psychometric properties of the assessments were assessed against set quality criteria. Data on psychometric properties were available for 4 measures. The Client Assessment of Strengths, Interests and Goals (CASIG) had the strongest psychometric evidence. The SAW and CASIG assessments can be tentatively recommended within clinical practice, although the evidence for all strengths assessments is currently limited. To describe the content of the strengths assessment, the items used to operationalize the concept of strengths in each assessment were extracted and themed. Twenty-four themes were identified and organized into 3 overarching categories: individual factors, environmental factors, and interpersonal factors. These categories form the basis of an empirically based definition of strengths that could be used as a conceptual foundation for new clinical assessments. Strengths assessments focus on the individual's talents, abilities, resources and strengths.No systematic review of strengths assessments for use within mental health populations has been published. The aims of this study were to describe and evaluate strengths assessments for use within mental health services. A systematic review identified 12 strengths assessments (five quantitative, seven qualitative). The Strengths Assessment Worksheet (SAW) was the most widely utilized and evaluated qualitative assessment.Psychometric properties of the assessments were assessed against set quality criteria. Data on psychometric properties were available for four measures. The Client Assessment of Strengths, Interests and Goals (CASIG) had the strongest psychometric evidence. The SAW and CASIG assessments can be tentatively recommended within clinical practice, although the evidence for all strengths assessments is currently limited. To describe the content of the strengths assessment, the items used to operationalize the concept of

Psychometric evaluation of self‐report measures of binge‐eating symptoms and related psychopathology: A systematic review of the literature

“…The Terwee et al tool has been criticized in the past for having overly strict criteria, and while the limitations of the use of this strict quality assessment tool mean that our findings should be interpreted with some caution. Terwee et al's quality criteria remains the most widely used in reviews considering psychometric properties of questionnaires and has been effectively applied to assess quality in measures of psychopathology . The research group responsible for this tool are currently developing an alternative quality appraisal tool, but are yet to provide criteria for adequate measurement properties and so it was not appropriate to use in this review.…”

Uses and abuses of recovery: implementing recovery-oriented practices in mental health systems

“…First, to maximize person‐centred care planning, staff discuss the values and treatment preferences of the service user, using conversational, narrative and visual approaches. Second, staff use a standardized assessment to identify the service user's strengths, so that care planning will be focused on amplifying strengths and ability to access community supports, as well as on deficit amelioration. Third, staff support active goal‐striving by the service user towards his/her personally valued goals.…”

WELLFOCUS PPT – modified positive psychotherapy to improve well-being in psychosis: study protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial

“…Recovery is an individual process of gradual restoration from the illness, focusing on the resources and abilities of the individual instead of exclusively treating symptoms. Hence, supporting recovery from severe mental illness involves, in addition to treating symptoms, an increased emphasis on personal strengths [2], positive identity development [3], and the promotion of well-being [4]. …”