IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/socpsy/v57y2011i5p446-454.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A UK validation of the Stages of Recovery Instrument

Author

Listed:
  • Gavin Weeks

    (University of Surrey, Guildford, UK)

  • Mike Slade

    (Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, UK)

  • Mark Hayward

    (University of Surrey & Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, UK, m.hayward@surrey.ac.uk)

Abstract

Objective: There is considerable interest in the concept of recovery from psychosis. Consumers describe recovery as a process as opposed to a clinical outcome. However, measures of recovery have an important role in the development of recovery-based mental health services. This study sought to investigate the validity and reliability of the Stages of Recovery Instrument (STORI) (Andresen et al ., 2006). This is an Australian instrument chosen as a promising measure of recovery developed from the perspectives of consumer accounts. Method: A questionnaire design was used to investigate the following aspects of validity: face validity and feasibility; concurrent validity; construct validity; and test-retest reliability. Fifty (50) people from the caseloads of three specialist mental health teams in a London borough completed the STORI, the Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS) (Corrigan et al ., 1999) and a feedback questionnaire. Twenty two (22) people completed the STORI a second time for the purposes of test-retest reliability exploration. Results: Participants’ responses to the feedback questionnaire were mainly positive. This was seen as evidence of face validity and feasibility. Correlations between the STORI and the RAS provided evidence of concurrent validity. Cluster analysis revealed that the STORI items formed three clusters rather than five. Strong correlations between the first and second STORI administrations provided initial evidence for the test-retest reliability. Conclusions: The STORI can be used to measure recovery concepts in the UK. However, it does not measure the five-stage model on which it was based. A three-stage model of recovery might best form the basis of future recovery research.

Suggested Citation

  • Gavin Weeks & Mike Slade & Mark Hayward, 2011. "A UK validation of the Stages of Recovery Instrument," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 57(5), pages 446-454, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:socpsy:v:57:y:2011:i:5:p:446-454
    DOI: 10.1177/0020764010365414
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0020764010365414
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0020764010365414?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Samson Tse & Larry Davidson & Ka-fai Chung & Chong Ho Yu & King Lam Ng & Emily Tsoi, 2015. "Logistic regression analysis of psychosocial correlates associated with recovery from schizophrenia in a Chinese community," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 61(1), pages 50-57, February.
    2. Chijs van Nieuwenhuizen & Greet Wilrycx & Mozhgan Moradi & Evelien Brouwers, 2014. "Psychometric evaluation of the Dutch version of the Mental Health Recovery Measure (MHRM)," International Journal of Social Psychiatry, , vol. 60(2), pages 162-168, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:socpsy:v:57:y:2011:i:5:p:446-454. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.