Dergiler / Düşünen Adam - Psikiyatri ve Nörolojik Bilimler Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 4

Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Recovery Assessment Scale

Sayfa
309–319
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

It may be advisable to test the scale in larger sample groups.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objective: Globally, the field of mental health services has begun to evolve towards an improvement-focused approach.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The survey included 180 individuals with chronic mental illness registered in two Community Mental Health Centers.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:It may be advisable to test the scale in larger sample groups.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

Objective: Globally, the field of mental health services has begun to evolve towards an improvement-focused approach. A valid and reliable measurement tool is needed to evaluate the subjective recovery process and to improve recovery-focused care. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Recovery Assessment Scale. Method: The present work was planned as a methodological study. The survey included 180 individuals with chronic mental illness registered in two Community Mental Health Centers. Content validity, construct validity, and criteria validity were used to assess validity, while internal consistency and stability across time were examined to test reliability. Results: The content validity index value of the scale was found to be over 0.80. Consequently, confirmatory factor analysis established that the Turkish form of the scale included 5 factors and 24 items, similar to the original version. Examination of criterion-related validity found an excellent positive significant correlation between the Recovery Assessment Scale and the Psychological Well-Being Scale (r=0.864, p<0.01). Cronbach’s alpha value of the scale was 0.90 and the test-retest reliability value was 0.96. Conclusion: As a result of the validity and reliability analyses, it was determined that the Turkish version of the Recovery Assessment Scale was a valid and reliable scale for evaluating the recovery of individuals diagnosed with mental illness. It may be advisable to test the scale in larger sample groups.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

GÜLER, C., GÜRKAN, A. (2019). Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Recovery Assessment Scale. Düşünen Adam - Psikiyatri ve Nörolojik Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 4, 309–319. https://ajindex.com/articles/151391

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (14)

  1. Anthony WA. Recovery from mental illness: the guiding vision of the mental health service system in the 1990s. Psychiatr Rehabil J 1993
  2. Jacobson N, Greenley D. What is recovery? A conceptual model and explication. Psychiatr Serv 2001
  3. 482–485. 3. Whitwell D. The myth of recovery from mental illness. Psychiatric Bulletin 1999
  4. 621–622. 4. Harding CM, Zahniser JH. Empirical correction of seven myths about schizophrenia with implications for treatment. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1994
  5. 90 (Suppl.384):140-146. 5. Davidson L, O’Connell MJ, Tondora J, Lawless M, Evans AC. Recovery in serious mental illness: a new wine or just a new bottle? Prof Psychol Res Pr 2005
  6. Soygur H, Yuksel MM, Eraslan P, Attepe Ozden S. Lessons learned from experiencing Mavi At Café (Blue Horse Café) during six years: a qualitative analysis of factors contributing to recovery from the perspective of schizophrenia patients. Turk Psikiyatr Derg 2017
  7. (Turkish) 7. Andresen R, Caputi P, Oades LG. Do clinical outcome measures assess consumer-defined recovery? Psychiatry Res 2010
  8. Davidson L. Recovery, self management and the expert patient: changing the culture of mental health from a UK perspective. J Ment Health 2005
  9. Davidson L, Strauss JS. Sense of self in recovery from severe mental illness. Br J Med Psychol 1992
  10. Watkins PN. Recovery: A Guide for Mental Health Practitioners. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier, 2007, 29-30. 11. Deegan PE. Recovery: The lived experience of rehabilitation. Psychiatr Rehabil J 1988, 11:11-19. 12. Onken SJ, Craig CM, Ridgway P, Ralph RO, Cook JA. An analysis of the definitions and elements of recovery: a review of the literature. Psychiatr Rehabil J 2007
  11. Ralph RO. Recovery. Am J Psychiatr Rehabil 2000
  12. Scheyett A, Deluca J, Morgan C. Recovery in severe mental illnesses: a literature review of recovery measures. Soc Work Res 2013
  13. Liberman RP. Recovery from Disability: Manual of Psychiatric Rehabilitation. Yildiz M (Translation Editor). Turkiye Sosyal Psikiyatri Dernegi, 2011, 16-19. (Turkish) 16. Cohen AN, Hamilton AB, Saks ER, Glover DL, Glynn SM, Brekke JS, Marder SR. How occupationally high-achieving individuals with a diagnosis of schizophrenia manage their symptoms. Psychiatr Serv 2017
  14. 324–329. 17. Shanks V, Williams J, Leamy M, Bird VJ, Le Boutillier C, Slade M. Measures of personal recovery: a systematic review