Factor Structure and Sensitivity to Change of the Recovery Assessment Scale
The focus on recovery, not just symptom reduction, in mental health care brings a need for psychometrically sound measures of recovery. This study examined the factor structure and sensitivity to change of a common measure of mental health recovery, the Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS). We conducted a secondary data analysis from a randomized clinical trial of self-management for depression (n = 302). We tested both bifactor and the previously found five-factor model. Sensitivity to change was examined three ways: (1) between the intervention and control group; (2) across time in the intervention group; and (3) in those whose depression remitted. The previous five-factor model was supported. One subscale, no domination by symptoms, was particularly sensitive to change and showed sensitivity to change whereas the subscale reliance on others did not show change in any of the comparisons. Results suggest that the subscales of the RAS should be examined separately in future studies of recovery.
This study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (grant number MH065530). Registration number at clinicaltrials.gov is NCT01139060.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
All participants provided informed consent, and the institutional review boards of the study centers approved the procedures before the study was conducted.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- 1.President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in America. In: Services HaH, ed2003.Google Scholar
- 3.Giffort D, Schmook A, Woody C, et al. Construction of a scale to measure consumer recovery. 1995, Springfield, IL.Google Scholar
- 8.Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales: A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press; 2008.Google Scholar
- 9.Ludman EJ, Simon GE, Grothaus LC, et al. Organized Self-Management Support Services for Chronic Depressive Symptoms: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Psychiatric Services. 2015:appips201400295.Google Scholar
- 10.First MB, Spitzer RL, Gibbon M, et al. Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV Axis I disorders, research version, non-patient edition (SCID-I/NP). New York: Biometrics Research, New York State Psychiatric Institute; 2002.Google Scholar
- 11.American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR. 4th ed., text revision ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2000.Google Scholar
- 12.Browne M, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. London, England: Sage; 1993.Google Scholar
- 14.Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2 ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates; 1988.Google Scholar