Vogel Jelle Sjoerd, Bruins Jojanneke, Halbersma Levi, Lieben Rianne Janine, de Jong Steven, van der Gaag Mark, Castelein Stynke
Lentis Psychiatric Institute, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2020 Oct;29(5):808-819. doi: 10.1111/inm.12711. Epub 2020 Mar 9.
Living well in spite of residual symptoms of mental illness is measured with the construct of personal recovery. The CHIME framework might be suitable to evaluate personal recovery measures and guide instrument choice. Three validated measures were evaluated in Dutch patients with a psychotic disorder (N = 52). We compared the Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS), the Mental Health Recovery Measure (MHRM), and the Netherlands Empowerment List (NEL). The measures were assessed on six criteria: content validity (based on CHIME), convergent validity with a social support measure, internal consistency, floor and ceiling effects, item interpretability, and ease of administration. The MHRM scored high on content validity with a balanced distribution of items covering the CHIME framework. The MHRM and the NEL showed moderate convergent validity with social support. In all three measures, internal consistency was moderate and floor and ceiling effects were absent. The NEL scores demonstrated a high degree of item interpretability. Ease of administration was moderate for all three measures. Finally, the CHIME framework demonstrated good utility as a framework in guiding instrument choice and evaluation of personal recovery measures. The MHRM showed the best overall result. However, differences between measures were minimal. Generalization of the results is limited by cultural and linguistic factors in the assessment for the subjective measures (i.e. content validity and item interpretability). The broad and multidimensional construct of personal recovery might lead to ambiguous interpretations. Scientific consensus on a well-defined personal recovery construct is needed.
尽管存在精神疾病残留症状，但仍能过上良好生活，这是通过个人康复的概念来衡量的。CHIME框架可能适用于评估个人康复措施并指导工具选择。我们对52名荷兰精神病患者使用了三种经过验证的测量方法进行评估。我们比较了康复评估量表（RAS）、心理健康康复测量量表（MHRM）和荷兰赋权清单（NEL）。这些测量方法从六个标准进行评估：内容效度（基于CHIME）、与社会支持测量方法的收敛效度、内部一致性、地板效应和天花板效应、项目可解释性以及管理的难易程度。MHRM在内容效度方面得分很高，涵盖CHIME框架的项目分布均衡。MHRM和NEL在与社会支持的收敛效度方面表现适中。在所有三种测量方法中，内部一致性适中，不存在地板效应和天花板效应。NEL得分显示出高度的项目可解释性。所有三种测量方法的管理难易程度适中。最后，CHIME框架在指导工具选择和评估个人康复措施方面显示出良好的效用。MHRM总体结果最佳。然而，各测量方法之间的差异很小。由于主观测量方法（即内容效度和项目可解释性）评估中的文化和语言因素，结果的推广受到限制。个人康复这一广泛且多维的概念可能会导致模糊的解释。需要就明确界定的个人康复概念达成科学共识。
