Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS)

Share this page

Overview

Purpose
To assess the recovery processfor people with mental health challenges.
Respondent
Person with a Disability
Administration Methods
  • Survey
  • Interview
Administration Mode
In-person
Developer
Illinois Office of Mental Health
Item Count
20
Population
Mental Health Challenges

Instrument Citation(s)

Giffort, D., Schmook, A., Woody, C., Vollendorf, C., & Gervain, M. Construction of a scale to measure
consumer recovery. Springfield, IL: Illinois Office of Mental Health, 1995.
Ralph, R.O., Kidder, K., & Phillips, D. (2000). Can we measure recovery? A compendium of recovery and
recovery-related instruments, Volume II. Cambridge, MA: The Evaluation Center @ Human
Services Research Institute.

Campbell-Orde, T., Chamberlin, J., Carpenter, J., & Leff, H.S. (2005). Measuring the promise: A compendium of recovery
measures, volume II. Cambridge, MA: The Evaluation Center @ Human Services Research
Institute.

Missouri Institute of Mental Health. Program in Consumer Studies and Training Multi-site Protocol 1.2. https://pocc.org/assets/Uploads/COSP-FUPQ-by-Q-1.2-May-23-2001.pdf PDF

Instrument Domains

DomainNumber of Items
Community Inclusion4
Social connectedness and relationships4
Employment0
Meaningful activity0
Resources and settings to facilitate inclusion0
Transportation0
Holistic Health and Functioning5
Individual health and functioning5
Health promotion and prevention0
Caregiver Support0
Access to resources0
Family caregiver/natural support involvement0
Family caregiver/natural support wellbeing0
Training and skill-building0
Choice and Control0
Choice of services and supports0
Personal choices and goals0
Personal freedoms and dignity of risk0
Self-direction0
Consumer Leadership in System Development0
Evidence of meaningful caregiver involvement0
Evidence of meaningful consumer involvement0
System supports meaningful consumer involvement0
Equity0
Availability0
Equitable access and resource allocation0
Transparency and consistency0
Fluctuation of Need0
Human and Legal Rights0
Freedom from abuse and neglect0
Informed decision-making0
Optimizing the preservation of legal and human rights0
Privacy0
Supporting individuals in exercising their human and legal rights0
Level of Caregiver Well-Being0
Person-Centered Planning and Coordination0
Assessment0
Coordination0
Person-centered planning0
Service Delivery and Effectiveness0
Delivery0
Person's needs met and goals realized0
System Performance and Accountability0
Data management and use0
Evidence-based practice0
Financing and service delivery structures0
Workforce0
Adequately compensated with benefits0
Culturally competent0
Demonstrated competencies when appropriate0
Person-centered approach to services0
Safety of and respect for the worker0
Staff Turnover0
Sufficient workforce numbers dispersion and availability0
Workforce engagement and participation0

Psychometric Citations

  • Corrigan, P.W., Giffort, D., Fashid, F., Leary, M., & Okeke, I. (1999). Recovery as a psychological
    construct. Community Mental Health Journal, 35(3), 231-239.

    Type of Publication
    Peer review
    Instrument Language
    English
    Sample: Age (Mean and Range)

    Mean=33.1 years

    Sample: Age Group

    18-64 Years

    Sample: Countries/State

    United State, Illinois

    Sample: Disability Type

    Mental Health Challenges

    Sample: Gender (%male)

    65%

    Sample: Race/Ethnicity (%)

    57% African American; 37% European American; 6% others

    Sample: Size

    35

    Reliability: Internal Consistency

    Cronbach's Alpha (α=.93)

    Reliability: Test-retest

    r = .88

    Validity: Criterion Validity (Concurrent and Predictive)

    Correlations with five psychosocial variables ranged from -.44 to -.71

    Study design
    Cross sectional

  • Corrigan, P.W., Salzer, R., Ralph, R.O., Sangster, Y., & Keck, L. (2004.) Examining the factor structure of
    the Recovery Assessment Scale. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 30(4), 1035-1041.

    Type of Publication
    Peer review
    Instrument Language
    English
    Sample: Age (Mean and Range)

    Mean=41.8 years

    Sample: Age Group

    18-64 Years

    Sample: Countries/State

    United States

    Sample: Disability Type

    Mental Health Challenges

    Sample: Gender (%male)

    40%

    Sample: Race/Ethnicity (%)

    24% African American; 75% European American; 3% Latino or Hispanic; 18% Native American; 1% Asian or Pacific

    Sample: Size

    1824

    Validity: Construct (Convergent and Discriminant)

    EFA resulted in 8 factors that accounted for 60% of variance; CFA with five factors showed good model fit: CFI = .93, NNI = .92, NFI = .91;

    Study design
    Cross sectional

  • McNaught, M., Caputi, P., Oades, L.G., & Deane, F.P. (2007). Testing the validity of the Recovery
    Assessment using an Australian sample. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 41,
    450-457.

    Type of Publication
    Peer review
    Instrument Language
    English
    Sample: Age (Mean and Range)

    Mean=39 years

    Sample: Age Group

    18-64 Years

    Sample: Countries/State

    Australia

    Sample: Disability Type

    Mental Health Challenges

    Sample: Gender (%male)

    58%

    Sample: Race/Ethnicity (%)

    Not Reported

    Sample: Size

    168

    Reliability: Internal Consistency

    All Cronbach's Alpha (α>.70)

    Validity: Construct (Convergent and Discriminant)

    EFA resulted in five factors that accounted for 52% of variance;

    CFA with the five factors indicated an acceptable fit: TLI = .90, CFI = .87, RMSEA = .06

    Validity: Criterion Validity (Concurrent and Predictive)

    Correlation with other measures ranged from .20 to .68

    Study design
    Cross sectional

  • Chiba, R., Miyamoto, Y., & Kawakami, N. (2010). Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the
    Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS) for people with chronic mental illness: Scale development.
    International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47, 314-322.

    Type of Publication
    Peer review
    Instrument Language
    Japanese
    Sample: Age (Mean and Range)

    Mean=48.3 years

    Sample: Age Group

    18-64 Years

    Sample: Countries/State

    Japan

    Sample: Disability Type

    Mental Health Challenges

    Sample: Gender (%male)

    59%

    Sample: Race/Ethnicity (%)

    Not Reported

    Sample: Size

    237

    Reliability: Internal Consistency

    Cronbach's Alpha (α= .89)

    Reliability: Test-retest

    ICC = .81

    Validity: Construct (Convergent and Discriminant)

    EFA resulted in five factors;
    CFA indicated fits well to the data: GFI = .87; CFI = .90; RMSEA = .06

    Validity: Criterion Validity (Concurrent and Predictive)

    correlations with other measures ranged from .18 to .89

    Study design
    Cross sectional