Development and evaluation of the INSPIRE measure of staff support for personal recovery
- 937 Downloads
No individualised standardised measure of staff support for mental health recovery exists.
To develop and evaluate a measure of staff support for recovery.
Development: initial draft of measure based on systematic review of recovery processes; consultation (n = 61); and piloting (n = 20). Psychometric evaluation: three rounds of data collection from mental health service users (n = 92).
INSPIRE has two sub-scales. The 20-item Support sub-scale has convergent validity (0.60) and adequate sensitivity to change. Exploratory factor analysis (variance 71.4–85.1 %, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin 0.65–0.78) and internal consistency (range 0.82–0.85) indicate each recovery domain is adequately assessed. The 7-item Relationship sub-scale has convergent validity 0.69, test–retest reliability 0.75, internal consistency 0.89, a one-factor solution (variance 70.5 %, KMO 0.84) and adequate sensitivity to change. A 5-item Brief INSPIRE was also evaluated.
INSPIRE and Brief INSPIRE demonstrate adequate psychometric properties, and can be recommended for research and clinical use.
KeywordsRecovery Support Measurement Psychometrics
We acknowledge the support of the PICuP Clinic at the Maudsley Hospital and the other mental health teams in recruiting participants. This article presents independent research funded by the NIHR under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme (Grant Reference Number RP-PG-0707-10040), and in relation to the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
- 3.Australian Health Ministers (2009) Fourth national mental health plan: an agenda for collaborative government action in mental health 2009–2014. Commonwealth of Australia, CanberraGoogle Scholar
- 4.Department of Health (2011) No health without mental health: a cross-government mental health outcomes strategy for people of all ages. Department of Health, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 5.Higgins A (2008) A recovery approach within the Irish Mental Health Services. A framework for development. Mental Health Commission, DublinGoogle Scholar
- 10.Mancini M, Hardiman E, Lawson HA (2005) Making sense of it all: consumer providers’ theories about factors facilitating and impeding recovery from psychiatric disabilities. Psychiatr Rehabil J 29(1):8Google Scholar
- 12.Bellack A (2006) Scientific and consumer models of recovery in schizophrenia: concordance, contrasts, and implications. Schizophr Bull 32(3):11Google Scholar
- 20.Russinova Z, Rogers E, Langer Ellison M (2006) Recovery-Promoting Relationships Scale: RPRS manual. Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation: Boston University, BostonGoogle Scholar
- 25.Nunnally J (1978) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 26.Turner H III, Bernard R (2006) Calculating and synthesizing effect sizes. Contemp Issues Commun Sci Disord 33:14Google Scholar
- 27.Langan J, Lindow V (2004) Mental health service users and their involvement in risk assessment and management. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, BristolGoogle Scholar
- 30.Denhov A, Topor A (2011) The components of helping relationships with professionals in psychiatry: users’ perspective. Int J Soc Psychiatry 58(4):8Google Scholar
- 32.Happell B (2008) Determining the effectiveness of mental health services from a consumer perspective: part 1: enhancing recovery. Int J Ment Health Nurs 17:7Google Scholar
- 39.NHS Confederation Mental Health Network (2012) Supporting recovery on mental health. NHS Confederation, LondonGoogle Scholar