Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Mental Health Recovery Knowledge Inventory

Abstract

The Recovery Knowledge Inventory is a self-report measure intended to identify the knowledge of and attitudes toward recovery-oriented care among mental health providers and staff. The developers of the Recovery Knowledge Inventory found good-to-poor reliability statistics on the original four-factor model. This study reassessed the psychometric properties of the Recovery Knowledge Inventory using exploratory factor analysis to find a factor structure that was a good fit for the model. Thus, a confirmatory factor analysis was used to verify the exact structure of the relationship among the factor structures in the model. Results indicated identified a single factor structure consisting of ten items, which reflected the process of recovery. The factor loadings, however, did not support more than one factor. The original developers of the Recovery Knowledge Inventory recognized the limitations of the instrument, which was originally comprised of four-factor structure, and asked for further development of the measure. Therefore, this study endeavored to address the psychometric properties of the Recovery Knowledge Inventory and identifies a factor structure that better defines the recovery orientation of mental health staff and practitioners. As a result, it adds to the limited literature of measures that evaluate staff recovery orientation.

Validation of the Malay-Version of Recovery Knowledge Inventory among mental health providers in Malaysia

“…In our study, five out of seven items were loaded on Factor 1 (roles and responsibility) and all six items were loaded on Factor 2 (non-linearity of the recovery process), based on the original factor structure ( 4 ). These findings are consistent with several other studies that reported similar item loading on Factor 1 ( 21 , 24 , 26 ). Carvalho and Chima ( 24 ) found that taking a single factor structure and renaming Factor 1 as a ‘recovery process’ rather than ‘roles and responsibility’ was more inclusive of Recovery.…”

“…These findings are consistent with several other studies that reported similar item loading on Factor 1 ( 21 , 24 , 26 ). Carvalho and Chima ( 24 ) found that taking a single factor structure and renaming Factor 1 as a ‘recovery process’ rather than ‘roles and responsibility’ was more inclusive of Recovery. These two studies that used the method of exploring the factors and confirming it with CFA came out with a similar construct.…”

“…Earlier studies in the United States and Norway showed improved construct validity when items with low Cronbach’s alpha values of <0.3 were removed. Subsequently, the best fit was found to be 1 factor loading of 10 items ( 24 , 25 ). A study based on an Asian sample indicated acceptable reliability with 3 factors comprising 16 items ( 21 ).…”

Effect of role overload on missed nursing care in China: The role of work addiction and leader‐member exchange

“…The maximum likelihood method was used to fit the structural equation model. This study refers to De Carvalho and Chima ( 2014 ) for the fitting indicators and the criteria for the goodness of fitting indicators, as detailed in Table 2 . All fitting indicators of the mediation model are within the acceptable range, indicating that the model fits well.…”

“…Second, we used Amos 24.0 to test the mediation model of work addiction in the relationship between role overload and missed nursing care by constructing a structural equation model (SEM). This study refers to De Carvalho and Chima ( 2014 ) for the fitting indicators and the criteria for the goodness of fitting indicators, as detailed in Table 2 . And we also used Amos 24.0 to test the moderating mediation model through path analysis.…”