Cited by 252Mental Health and Patient InvolvementPsychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychiatric care and mental health services

Measures of Personal Recovery: A Systematic Review

Open access
Shanks, Vicki, Williams, Julie, Leamy, Mary, Bird, Victoria J., Le Boutillier, Clair, Slade, Mike·2013·Psychiatric Services

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Mental health systems internationally have adopted a goal of supporting recovery. Measurement of the experience of recovery is, therefore, a priority. The aim of this review was to identify and analyze recovery measures in relation to their fit with recovery and their psychometric adequacy. METHODS A systematic search of six data sources for articles, Web-based material, and conference presentations related to measurement of recovery was conducted by using a defined search strategy. Results were filtered by title and by abstract (by two raters in the case of abstracts), and the remaining papers were reviewed to identify any suitable measures of recovery. Measures were then evaluated for their fit with the recovery processes identified in the CHIME framework (connectedness, hope, identity, meaning, and empowerment) and for demonstration of nine predefined psychometric properties. RESULTS Thirteen measures of personal recovery were identified from 336 abstracts and 35 articles. The Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS) was published most, and the Questionnaire About the Process of Recovery (QPR) was the only measure to have all items map to the CHIME framework. No measure demonstrated all nine psychometric properties. The Stages of Recovery Instrument demonstrated the most psychometric properties (N=6), followed by the Maryland Assessment of Recovery (N=5), and the QPR and the RAS (N=4). Criterion validity, responsiveness, and feasibility were particularly underinvestigated properties. CONCLUSIONS No recovery measure can currently be unequivocally recommended, although the QPR most closely maps to the CHIME framework of recovery and the RAS is most widely published.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1176/appi.ps.005012012

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shanks, V., Williams, J., Leamy, M., Bird, V. J., Le Boutillier, C., & Slade, M.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • The authors are affiliated with King's College London, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry. Send correspondence to Prof. Slade at Institute of Psychiatry, Box P029, Denmark Hill, London SE5 8AF, United Kingdom (e-mail: ).
Venue
Psychiatric Services
Published
2013-10
Volume
64
Issue
10
Pages
974-980
ISSN
  • 0022-1597 (ISSN-L)
  • 1075-2730
  • 1557-9700
OpenAlex
W2167760771
Cited by
252
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 9
FWCI
1.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Psychiatric Services (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-PG-0707-10040)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
Keywords
personal recovery, recovery strategies, psychometric properties, CHIME framework, Recovery Assessment Scale, criterion validity, responsiveness, feasibility, mental health recovery
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Humans, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Remission Induction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review