Recovery Promotion Fidelity Scale (RPFS)

Share this page

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
0
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.

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