Choosing a Measure that works for “Me”
What am I trying to measure?____________________________________________________________________________________________
What is my context of use? (setting, population, age, culture,
etc…)_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Why am I measuring this
outcome?_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Examples of Recovery Measures Available
Name
Consumer Recovery
Outcomes System
Illness Management
Recovery Scale
Maryland Assessment
of Recovery
Short
CROS
Metrics
-
Ease
-
IMR
+
++
MARS
+
+
4
Mental Health
Recovery Measure
MHRM
+
+
5
Mental Health
Recovery Star
MHRM
-
-
6
Milestones to Recovery
Scale
MHRS
-
++
7
Ohio Outcomes System
OOS
-
-
1
2
3
Details
Available in three versions for service users, staff, and “very important persons” (family, caregiver, friends).
All versions consist of 4 domains: Hope, Quality of Life, Daily Functioning, and symptoms (Miller, 2005).
15 item measure developed to assess the intended outcomes of the IMR program. Available as a clinician
and client reported measure. (Muser et al., 2005)
25 item measure developed to asses recovery of service users with serious mental illness using the
Substance Abuse definition of mental health recovery and recovery-orientated systems: self-direction
,empowerment, holism, non-linear, strengths based, peer support, respect, responsibility, and hope
(Drapalski et al, 2012).
30 item measure to assess the recovery process of people with mental illness (Young and Bullock, 2003).
Covers 8 domains: Overcoming Stuckness, Self-empowerment, Learning and Self-redefinition, Basic
Functioning, Overall well-being, New Potentials, Advocacy/Enrichment, and Spirituality.
Assesses 10 recovery domains in a 10 arm star: Managing mental health, physical health and self-care,
living skills, social networks, work, relationships, addictive behavior, responsibilities, identity, self-esteem,
trust and hope. Each domain is scored on a 10 point ladder. (MacKeith and Burns, 2008).
12 items developed to guide UK mental health services for medium security inpatient service users to
discharge (Doyle, 2012). The MTR framework identifies four key targets for intervention: symptoms,
behavior and functioning, interpersonal engagement, therapeutic engagement.
Was developed with the intention of measuring treatment outcomes for all adults receiving services in the
Ohio mental health system. The OOS consists of a collective of several instruments to measure quality of
Adapted from https://hoap.ucsd.edu/outcomes/outcome_measures_guide081309.pdf; Sklar et al 2012; Shanks et al., 2012;
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/mh/measuring-recovery-toolkit.pdf
8
Peer Outcomes
Protocol
POP
9
Personal Recovery
Outcome Measure
PROM
10
Psychosis Recovery
Inventory
Questionnaire Process
of Recovery (QPR)
Recovery Assessment
Scale
PRI
Recovery Markers
Questionnaire
Recovery Process
Inventory
Self-identified Stage of
Recovery
11
12
13
14
15
-
-
++*
++
QPR
++
++
RAS
++
++
RMQ
?
+
RPI
?
?
SISR
-
++
life, symptom distress, decision making, empowerment, self-esteem, power, activism, optimism, righteous
anger, functional status.
Developed to measure outcomes of interest to measure outcomes of interest in peer-support and consumer
operated programs and groups. It is comprised of seven modules: demographics, service use, employment,
community life, quality of life, well-being, and program satisfaction (Campbell et al., 2004)
30 item measure developed to be administered and scored as a ruler. Items become progressively harder
and reflect higher levels of recovery. Where the person falls on the PROM ruler is intended to guide care
and further assessment. The tool was developed with Rasch measurement theory, a scoping review,
qualitative interviews with 19 service users; cognitive debriefing with 8 service users, 7 clinicians, and 5 nonclinicians; 40 items were pilot-tested on 225 community dwelling adults with MI & 52 youth & evaluated once
again with Rasch analysis and classical test theory methods, and assessed with 300 community dwelling
adults living in Western Canada. The scale is unidimensional, measuring recovery as a single latent
construct from low to high (Barbic, under review).
25 items covering attitude to illness, attitude to treatment, and perception of recovery and relapse (Chen et
al, 2005).
22 item measure with two subscales: intrapersonal and interpersonal.
Was developed with stories of recovery from 4 service users. 12 service users review the items. Based on
their feedback, the 41 item assessment scale was developed. The scale has 5 domains: Personal
Confidence and Hope, Willingness to ask for help, goal and success orientation, reliance on others, no
domination by symptoms (Giffort et al, 1995; Corrigan, 1999)
28 items covering process factors, goal-orientated thinking, self-agency, symptoms, social support, and
basic resources (Starnino, 2010).
Developed to assess system progress towards-recovery orientated care. Summarized into 10 dimensions.
See Sklar 2012 summary.
Short measure, consisting of two parts. First, a single item forced choice measure is asked that consists of
five statements, each representing a stage of recovery. Part B consists of 4 items representing four recovery
processes: Hope, responsibility, identity, and meaning. (Andresen, 2007).
16
Short interview to
SIST-R
++
Assess Stages of
Recovery
17 Stages of recovery
STORI
++
Was developed to reflect the processes and five stage model of psychological recovery as proposed by
Instrument
Andresen and colleagues (2006).
18 Stages of Recovery
SRA
+
51-item scale that is self-administered to assess both the component processes and outcomes of recovery
Scale
(Song and Hsu, 2011). 31 items assess component processes, 20 item assess recovery outcomes.
19 Recovery QOL Scale
ReQOL
++*
+
New utility measure of recovery/QOL (Brazier and colleagues, to be published soon)
- = does not meet evaluation criteria, += meets some evaluation criteria, ++=meets all evaluation criteria, *in peer review
Adapted from https://hoap.ucsd.edu/outcomes/outcome_measures_guide081309.pdf; Sklar et al 2012; Shanks et al., 2012;
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/mh/measuring-recovery-toolkit.pdf