Citizenship and recovery: two intertwined concepts for civic-recovery

Jean-François Pelletier, Marc Corbière, Tania Lecomte, Catherine Briand, Patrick Corrigan, Larry Davidson, Michael Rowe, Jean-François Pelletier, Marc Corbière, Tania Lecomte, Catherine Briand, Patrick Corrigan, Larry Davidson, Michael Rowe

Abstract

Background: Validation of the psychometric properties of a new measure of citizenship was required for a research project in the province of Quebec, Canada. This study was meant to study the interplay between recovery- and citizenship-oriented supportive employment. As recovery and citizenship were expected to be two related concepts, convergent validity between the Citizenship Measure (CM) and the Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS) was tested.

Methods: Study objectives were to: 1) conduct exploratory factor analyses on the CM and confirmatory factor analysis on the RAS tools (construct validity), 2) calculate Cronbach's alphas for each dimension emerging from objective 1 (reliability), and 3) calculate correlations between all dimensions from both tools (convergent validity). Data were collected from 174 individuals with serious mental illness, working in social firms. Serious mental illnesses include major depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, panic disorder, post traumatic stress disorder and borderline personality disorder.

Results: Five factors emerged from the exploratory factor analysis of the CM, with good reliability. Confirmatory factor analyses showed that the short and the long versions of the RAS present satisfactory results. Finally, the correlation matrix indicated that all dimensions from both tools are significantly correlated, thus confirming their convergent validity.

Conclusions: This study confirms the validity and reliability of two tools, CM and RAS. These tools can be used in combination to assess citizenship and recovery, both of which may be combined in the new concept of civic-recovery.

References

    1. Slade M, Amering M, Oades L. Recovery: an international perspective. Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc. 2008;17:128–37. doi: 10.1017/S1121189X00002827.
    1. Slade M, Williams J, Bird V, Leamy M, Boutillier C. Recovery grows up. J Mental Health. 2012;21(2):99–104. doi: 10.3109/09638237.2012.670888.
    1. Ware NC, Hopper K, Tugenberg T, Dickey B, Fisher D. Connectedness and citizenship: redefining social integration. Psychiatr Serv. 2007;58(4):469–74. doi: 10.1176/ps.2007.58.4.469.
    1. Rowe M. Crossing the Border: Encounters Between Homeless People and Outreach Workers. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1999.
    1. Rowe M, Pelletier JF. Mental Illness, Criminality, and Citizenship Revisited. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2012;40(1):8–11.
    1. Anthony WA. Recovery from mental illness: The guiding vision of the mental health service system in the 1990s. Psychiatr Rehabil J. 1993;16(4):11–23.
    1. Fisher D. Health care reform based on an empowerment model of recovery by people with psychiatric disabilities. Hosp Community Psychiatry. 1994;45(9):913–5.
    1. Davidson L, O’Connell M, Tondora J, Lawless M, Evans A. Recovery in serious mental illness: a new wine or just a new bottle? Prof Psychol Res Pr. 2005;36(5):480–7. doi: 10.1037/0735-7028.36.5.480.
    1. Davidson L, Roe D. Recovery from versus recovery in serious mental illness. J Mental Health. 2007;16(4):459–70. doi: 10.1080/09638230701482394.
    1. Hess J, Lacasse J, Harmon J, Williams D, Vierling-Glaassen N. “Is there a getting better from this, or not?” Examining the meaning and possibility of recovery from mental health disorder. Child Youth Serv. 2014;35(2):116–36. doi: 10.1080/0145935X.2014.924344.
    1. U.S. Surgeon General. Mental Health: A report of the Surgeon General. Section 10: Overview of recovery. 1999. .
    1. Ralph RO, Kidder K, Phillips D. Can We Measure Recovery? A Compendium of Recovery and Recovery-related Instruments. Cambridge, MA: Human Services Research Institute; 2000.
    1. Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci. 2010;19(5):56. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-56.
    1. Rowe M, Clayton A, Benedict P, Bellamy C, Antunes K, Miller R, et al. Going to the source: creating a citizenship outcome measure by community-based participatory research methods. Psychiatr Serv. 2012;63(5):445–50. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201100272.
    1. Corrigan PW, Salzer M, Ralph RO, Sangster Y, Keck L. Examining the factor structure of the Recovery Assessment Scale. Schizophr Bull. 2004;30(4):1035–41. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a007118.
    1. Salzer M, Brusilovskiy E. Advancing recovery science: reliability and validity properties of the Recovery Assessment Scale. Psychiatr Serv. 2014;65(4):442–53. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201300089.
    1. Shanks V, Williams J, Leamy M, Bird VJ, Le Boutillier C, Slade M. Measures of personal recovery: a systematic review. Psychiatr Serv. 2013;64(10):974–80. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.005012012.
    1. Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull. 1959;56(2):81–105. doi: 10.1037/h0046016.
    1. Vallerand RJ. Toward a methodology for the transcultural validation of psychological questionnaires: Implications for research in the French language. Can Psychol. 1989;30(4):662–80. doi: 10.1037/h0079856.
    1. Corrigan PW, Giffort D, Rashid F, Leary M, Okeke I. Recovery as a psychological construct. Community Ment Health J. 1999;35(3):231–9. doi: 10.1023/A:1018741302682.
    1. Costello A, Osborne J. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2005;10(7):173–8.
    1. Bentler P. EQS, Structural Equations Program Manual. 1995.
    1. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297–334. doi: 10.1007/BF02310555.
    1. Beavers A, Lounsbury J, Richards J, Huck S, Skolits G, Esquivel S. Practical considerations for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2013;18(6):1–13.
    1. Byrne B. A primer of LISREL: Basic applications and programming for confirmatory factor analytic models. New York/Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1989.
    1. Hofmann R. Establishing factor validity using variable reduction in confirmatory factor analysis. Educ Psychol Meas. 1995;55:572–82. doi: 10.1177/0013164495055004005.
    1. Hox JJ. Amos, EQS, and LISREL for Windows: A comparative review. Struct Equation Model. 1995;2(1):79–91. doi: 10.1080/10705519509539996.
    1. Akaike H. Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrica. 1987;52(3):317–32. doi: 10.1007/BF02294359.
    1. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.
    1. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.
    1. DeVellis RF. Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications; 2011.
    1. Farkas M. The vision of recovery today: what it is and what it means for services. World Psychiatry. 2007;6(2):68–74.
    1. Windell D, Norman R, Malla A. The personal meaning of recovery among individuals treated for a first episode of psychosis. Psychiatr Services. 2012;63(6):548–53. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201100424.
    1. Slade M, Amering M, Farkas M, Hamilton B, O’Hagan M, Panther G, et al. Uses and abuses of recovery: implementing recovery-oriented practices in mental health systems. World Psychiatry. 2014;13(1):12–20. doi: 10.1002/wps.20084.
    1. Davidson L, Lawless MS, Leary F. Concepts of recovery: competing or complementary? Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2005;18(6):664–7. doi: 10.1097/01.yco.0000184418.29082.0e.
    1. Mukolo A, Heflinger C, Baxter J. Recovery and self-esteem: concurrent validity of the Recovery Assessment Scale. Int J Psychosoc Rehabil. 2011;15(2):41–68.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera