Psychometric assessment of the German version of the Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery

Abstract

Personal recovery is important for mental health services and service users; moreover, valid and reliable assessment instruments are necessary for measuring personal recovery. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the unidimensional factor structure of the German version of the Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery. The study was conducted using a cross-sectional design with a convenience sample. The questionnaire was completed by 200 patients of outpatient services of two psychiatric hospitals in Switzerland. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to validate the unidimensional factor structure of the German version of the Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery. Cronbach's alpha was calculated to assess the internal consistency. The results showed an overall acceptable model fit (v 2 = 134.188, df = 90, P = 0.002; RMSEA = 0.050, 90% CI: 0.031-0.067; CFI = 0.937; TLI = 0.927) and excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's a = 0.91). These results are consistent with those of studies that have examined the Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery in other languages. This study provides preliminary evidence that the German version of the Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery is a reliable assessment instrument for measuring personal recovery among people with mental illness experiences. However, it is necessary to conduct further psychometric tests to verify the validity and reliability of the instrument. The German version of the Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery can be applied to both research and clinical practice, especially as a means of facilitating communication during the planning and evaluation of treatment goals.

Characterizing personal recovery in severe mental illness: French psychometric validation of the Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery (QPR-Fr).

“…The QPR is currently widely used in the world, both the original English 15-item and 22item versions have been validated in several countries. Overall, the factorial structure was inconsistent across studies: while the dominant structure is unidimensional (Elhilali et al, 2023;Kraiss et al, 2019;Law et al, 2014;Lim et al, 2019;Williams et al, 2015), the original bidimensional structure is supported (Argentzell et al, 2017;Kanehara et al, 2017), and other authors reported a threedimensional structure (Chien & Chan, 2013). Independent of the QPR item version, internal consistency of the global scale was excellent (α = .89-.93), but the Interpersonal subscale showed lower consistency (α = .49-.77), and 2-week test-retest reliability of the QPR total score was good (r = .70-.71; intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = .74-.89).…”