Citation

Weeks G, Slade M, Hayward M. Int. J. Soc. Psychiatry 2011; 57(5): 446-454.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2011, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/0020764010365414

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Objective: There is considerable interest in the concept of recovery from psychosis. Consumers describe recovery as a process as opposed to a clinical outcome. However, measures of recovery have an important role in the development of recovery-based mental health services. This study sought to investigate the validity and reliability of the Stages of Recovery Instrument (STORI) (Andresen et al., 2006). This is an Australian instrument chosen as a promising measure of recovery developed from the perspectives of consumer accounts. Method: A questionnaire design was used to investigate the following aspects of validity: face validity and feasibility; concurrent validity; construct validity; and test-retest reliability. Fifty (50) people from the caseloads of three specialist mental health teams in a London borough completed the STORI, the Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS) (Corrigan et al., 1999) and a feedback questionnaire. Twenty two (22) people completed the STORI a second time for the purposes of test-retest reliability exploration. Results: Participants' responses to the feedback questionnaire were mainly positive. This was seen as evidence of face validity and feasibility. Correlations between the STORI and the RAS provided evidence of concurrent validity. Cluster analysis revealed that the STORI items formed three clusters rather than five. Strong correlations between the first and second STORI administrations provided initial evidence for the test-retest reliability. Conclusions: The STORI can be used to measure recovery concepts in the UK. However, it does not measure the five-stage model on which it was based. A three-stage model of recovery might best form the basis of future recovery research.