Recovery Promotion Fidelity Scale (RPFS)
Overview
- Purpose
- To evaluate the extent to which public mental health agencies incorporate recovery principles into their services and operations
- Respondent
- Provider
- Administration Method
- Survey
- Administration Mode
- In-person
- Item Count
- 12
- Population
- Mental Health Challenges
Instrument Citation(s)
Armstrong, N. & Steffen, J.J. (2009). The Recovery Promotion Fidelity Scale: Assessing the
organizational promotion of recovery. Community Mental Health Journal, 45, 163-170.
Instrument Domains
| Domain | Number of Items |
|---|---|
| Consumer Leadership in System Development | 4 |
| Evidence of meaningful consumer involvement | 2 |
| System supports meaningful consumer involvement | 2 |
| Evidence of meaningful caregiver involvement | 0 |
| Person-Centered Planning and Coordination | 1 |
| Person-centered planning | 1 |
| Assessment | 0 |
| Coordination | 0 |
| Service Delivery and Effectiveness | 1 |
| Delivery | 1 |
| Person's needs met and goals realized | 0 |
| System Performance and Accountability | 2 |
| Data management and use | 2 |
| Evidence-based practice | 0 |
| Financing and service delivery structures | 0 |
| Workforce | 2 |
| Demonstrated competencies when appropriate | 2 |
| Adequately compensated with benefits | 0 |
| Culturally competent | 0 |
| Person-centered approach to services | 0 |
| Safety of and respect for the worker | 0 |
| Staff Turnover | 0 |
| Sufficient workforce numbers dispersion and availability | 0 |
| Workforce engagement and participation | 0 |
| Caregiver Support | 0 |
| Access to resources | 0 |
| Family caregiver/natural support involvement | 0 |
| Family caregiver/natural support wellbeing | 0 |
| Training and skill-building | 0 |
| Choice and Control | 0 |
| Choice of services and supports | 0 |
| Personal choices and goals | 0 |
| Personal freedoms and dignity of risk | 0 |
| Self-direction | 0 |
| Community Inclusion | 0 |
| Employment | 0 |
| Meaningful activity | 0 |
| Resources and settings to facilitate inclusion | 0 |
| Social connectedness and relationships | 0 |
| Transportation | 0 |
| Equity | 0 |
| Availability | 0 |
| Equitable access and resource allocation | 0 |
| Transparency and consistency | 0 |
| Fluctuation of Need | 0 |
| Holistic Health and Functioning | 0 |
| Health promotion and prevention | 0 |
| Individual health and functioning | 0 |
| Human and Legal Rights | 0 |
| Freedom from abuse and neglect | 0 |
| Informed decision-making | 0 |
| Optimizing the preservation of legal and human rights | 0 |
| Privacy | 0 |
| Supporting individuals in exercising their human and legal rights | 0 |
| Level of Caregiver Well-Being | 0 |
Psychometric Citation
Armstrong, N., Steffen, J.J. (2009). The recovery promotion fidelity scale: assessing the organizational promotion of recovery. Community Mental Health Journal. 45 (3),163-170. doi: 10.1007/s10597-008-9176-1.
- Type of Publication
- Peer review
- Instrument Language
- english
- Sample: Age (Mean and Range)
NA
- Sample: Age Group
Not Reported
- Sample: Countries/State
United States, Hawaii
- Sample: Disability Type
Mental Health , Mental Health agencies -- Phase 1 (47% Persons in Recovery, 18.5% Significant
Others, 18.5% Administrators, and 16% Service Providers) -- Phase 2 (46% persons in recovery, 39% researchers, 18% service
providers, 14% administrators, and 11% significant others)- Sample: Gender (%male)
Phase 1 (28%)--Phase 2 (39%)
- Sample: Race/Ethnicity (%)
Phase 1- (64% White, 10%
Hawaiian, 10% Japanese, 10% more than One Race, 3%
Korean, 3% Filipino) -- Phase 2 (71% white, 14% more than One race, 7% Japanese, 4% Korean, 4% Chinese)- Sample: Sampling Strategy
Convenience Sample
- Sample: Size
Phase 1 Focus group (39)-- Phase 2 (28)
- Validity: Content Validity (e.g., Expert Judgement)
The sample they considered for phase 2 was only composed of self reported expert--The two items under each of the six domains that received
the highest ratings were retained for inclusion on the
fidelity measure. The two items in the miscellaneous
cluster that received the highest ratings were moved into
one of the other five clusters that best suited their content,
resulting in five final clusters that were used as final scale
domains. Thus, 12 total recovery items within 5 recovery
domains comprised the final fidelity scale- Validity: Other Evidence
Phase 1 focus group to sort out, categorize items using focus group. Phase 2: using survey method, 28 , self reported expert, rated the items by appropriateness and feasibility.
- Study design
- Cross-Sectional