An Asian study on clinical and psychological factors associated with personal recovery in people with psychosis
Open accessAbstract
Despite the rising recognition of personal recovery, there is a lack of research on personal recovery in individuals with psychosis in Singapore. This study aims to evaluate the psychometric properties of the QPR-15 using the CHIME personal recovery framework and to examine its associations with clinical recovery factors. Sixty-six stable outpatients were recruited and assessed at two time points approximately 2 weeks apart. Convergent validity was examined through Spearman correlations with scores on CHIME-related psychological factors: connectedness (Ryff subscale- positive relations with others), hope (Herth Hope Index- abbreviated), identity (Ryff subscale- self-acceptance, Internalized Stigma of Mental Illness- Brief), meaning (World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment-Brief Form), empowerment (Empowerment Scale). Pearson’s correlation was used to examine the test-retest reliability, while Cronbach’s alpha was used to examine internal consistency. The initial factor structure was evaluated via principal component analysis, Velicer’s minimum average partial (MAP) criteria, parallel analysis, and a scree plot. Spearman correlations and hierarchical multiple linear regression (controlling for age and gender) were employed to examine the association of clinical (symptoms and functioning) and psychological factors with the QPR-15. The QPR-15 demonstrated convergent validity with all CHIME-related psychological factors (r s ranged from 0.472 to 0.687). Internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.934), and test-retest reliability was adequate (r = 0.708). Initial factor structure evaluations revealed a one-factor model. Correlations of clinical factors with the QPR-15 were mostly low (r s ranged from − 0.105 to − 0.544) but significant, except for depressive symptoms (CDSS: r s = − 0.529 to − 0.544), while correlations were moderate for psychological factors. Clinical factors significantly explained 28.3–31.8% of the variance of the QPR-15. Adding psychological factors significantly increased the model variance at baseline (∆ adjusted R 2 = 0.369, F change < 0.001) and at time point 2 (∆ adjusted R 2 = 0.208, F change < 0.001). Our results provide preliminary evidence that the QPR-15 has adequate psychometric properties in Singapore and encompasses the CHIME personal recovery framework. In addition, our results suggest that clinical recovery and personal recovery are not substitutes for each other but rather are complementary, thereby promoting a more holistic evaluation of recovery in people with psychosis. Implications are discussed.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The QPR incorporates all the concepts in the CHIME framework.
“Research shows that the QPR incorporates all the concepts in the CHIME framework [8, 44].”
Symptom reduction is generally regarded as clinical recovery, but earlier research has highlighted that it can be important for personal recovery, though decreased symptoms are not the primary focus for the overall personal recovery journey.
“Symptom reduction is generally regarded as clinical recovery, but earlier research has also highlighted that it can be important for personal recovery, though decreased symptoms are not the primary focus for the overall personal recovery journey [8].”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 73 · Cited by 28
- Authors
- Lim, M., Li, Z., Xie, H., Tan, B. L., & Lee, J.
- Affiliations
- Institute of Mental Health (SG)
- Singapore Institute of Technology (SG)
- Nanyang Technological University (SG)
- Corresponding author
- Lee, Jimmy
- Venue
- BMC Psychiatry
- Published
- 2019-08-22
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 256-256
- ISSN
- 1471-244X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6704510
- OpenAlex
- W2969309943
- Cited by
- 28
- References
- 73
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 3.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMC Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- DR-NTU (Nanyang Technological University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Medical Research Council (NMRC/CG/004/2013)
- National Healthcare Group (NHG- CSCS/15007)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
- Keywords
- personal recovery, psychosis, CHIME framework, psychometric properties, convergent validity, test-retest reliability, factor structure, connectedness, hope, identity, meaning, empowerment, depressive symptoms, Singapore, outpatients, scale development, internalized stigma of mental illness, self-acceptance, quality of life, meaning-making, social connectedness
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Personal Satisfaction, Psychometrics, Psychotic Disorders, Quality of Life, Singapore, Reproducibility of Results, Recovery of Function, Asian People, Social Stigma, Hope
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