Measuring personal recovery in people with a psychotic disorder based on CHIME: A comparison of three validated measures

Abstract

Living well in spite of residual symptoms of mental illness is measured with the construct of personal recovery. The CHIME framework might be suitable to evaluate personal recovery measures and guide instrument choice. Three validated measures were evaluated in Dutch patients with a psychotic disorder (N = 52). We compared the Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS), the Mental Health Recovery Measure (MHRM), and the Netherlands Empowerment List (NEL). The measures were assessed on six criteria: content validity (based on CHIME), convergent validity with a social support measure, internal consistency, floor and ceiling effects, item interpretability, and ease of administration. The MHRM scored high on content validity with a balanced distribution of items covering the CHIME framework. The MHRM and the NEL showed moderate convergent validity with social support. In all three measures, internal consistency was moderate and floor and ceiling effects were absent. The NEL scores demonstrated a high degree of item interpretability. Ease of administration was moderate for all three measures. Finally, the CHIME framework demonstrated good utility as a framework in guiding instrument choice and evaluation of personal recovery measures. The MHRM showed the best overall result. However, differences between measures were minimal. Generalization of the results is limited by cultural and linguistic factors in the assessment for the subjective measures (i.e. content validity and item interpretability). The broad and multidimensional construct of personal recovery might lead to ambiguous interpretations. Scientific consensus on a well-defined personal recovery construct is needed.

Personal Recovery in People With a Psychotic Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Associated Factors

“…Nevertheless, more research is needed into the interaction between elements of PR and clinical and social factors over time. In line with previous research ( 12 – 14 ), we also suggest that future research would benefit from consensus on a PR measure.…”

“…Previous research suggested that this was due to the fact that GAF comprises both functioning and symptoms ( 14 ). Cultural values are also likely to play a role in a subjective construct such as PR ( 12 , 67 ). Between different countries, for example, large differences have been found in the associations between PR-scale total scores and meaning in life ( 21 , 31 , 39 , 47 ).…”

“…When PR is considered an outcome, several validated questionnaires—such as such as the Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS) ( 8 ), the Questionnaire about the Processes of Recovery (QPR) ( 9 ), and the Mental Health Recovery Measure (MHRM)—can be used to measure PR ( 10 ). However, there is no gold standard ( 11 ), and a broad and multidimensional construct of PR can sometimes lead to ambiguous interpretations ( 12 ).…”

Exploring recovery‐focused educational programmes for advancing mental health nursing: An integrative systematic literature review

“…In Contrast, Vogel et al . (2020) doubted the effectiveness of this model in measuring consumers’ personal recovery, due to its weak correlation with the Recovery Assessment Scale, the Mental Health Recovery Measure, and the Netherlands Empowerment List. Van Weeghel et al .…”

Management of a High-Performing Mental Health Recovery Research Group

“…This led us to conduct an un-planned systematic review to conceptualise recovery, which developed the Connectedness, Hope, Identity, Meaning and Empowerment (CHIME) Framework. The resulting systematic review paper [ 22 ] is my most cited paper (1715 citations, Google Scholar, 20.3.21) and the CHIME Framework has become internationally influential as a theoretical foundation for understanding personal recovery [ 23 ]. The job of the leader is to be alive to and create these un-anticipated opportunities for original knowledge contributions.…”