Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Apr 13;19(1):119.
doi: 10.1186/s12955-021-01763-3.

Validation of an 8-item Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS-8) for people with schizophrenia in China

Si-Jia He  1 , Yan-Wen Fang  2 , Zi-Xin Huang  2 , Yu Yu  3   4
Affiliations

Validation of an 8-item Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS-8) for people with schizophrenia in China

Si-Jia He et al. Health Qual Life Outcomes. .

Abstract

Background: The 24-item Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS) is the most widely-used and well-validated tool for measuring recovery for people with mental illness. The current study aims to assess the reliability and validity of an 8-item short form of RAS (RAS-8) among a Chinese sample of people living with schizophrenia.

Methods: A sample of 400 people living with schizophrenia were recruited for scale validation. Internal consistency was tested by calculating Cronbach's α. Test-retest reliability was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the total score and weighted kappa for each item. Factor structure was tested with confirmatory factor analysis, and concurrent validity was examined by investigating the correlation of the RAS-8 with patient symptoms, disability, depression, anxiety, patient functioning, quality of life and general health.

Results: The RAS-8 full scale and subscales showed good internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.87 to 0.92. ICC of 0.99 and weighted kappa ranged from 0.62 to 0.88, which generally indicates good test-retest reliability. The findings supported an a priori two-factor structure, χ2/df = 2.93, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.035. Concurrent validity of the RAS-8 was further supported by its significant negative correlations with patient symptoms (r = -0.24, p < 0.01), disability (r = -0.30, p < 0.01), depression (r = -0.16, p < 0.05), and anxiety (r = -0.14, p < 0.05), and its significant positive relationships with patient functioning (r = 0.26, p < 0.01), quality of life (r = 0.39, p < 0.01) and general health (r = 0.34, p < 0.01).

Conclusions: This study confirmed the reliability and validity of an 8-item short-form RAS for people living with schizophrenia in Chinese communities. The validation of the RAS-8 allows for its use as an alternative for the full RAS as a rapid assessment tool in clinical and research settings. The findings are discussed for their implications for application and validation with other populations and in other countries.

Keywords: Chinese; Confirmatory factor analysis; Psychometric testing; Recovery Assessment Scale (RAS); Reliability; Schizophrenia; Short form; Validity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

    1. Anthony WA. Recovery from mental illness: the guiding vision of the mental health service system in the 1990s. Psychosoc Rehab J. 1993;16:11–23.
    1. Davidson L, Schmutte T, Dinzeo T, Andres-Hyman R. Remission and recovery in schizophrenia: practitioner and patient perspectives. Schizophr Bull. 2008;34(1):5–8. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbm122. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Silverstein SM, Bellack AS. A scientific agenda for the concept of recovery as it applies to schizophrenia. Clin Psychol Rev. 2008;28(7):1108–1124. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2008.03.004. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Corrigan PW, Qin S, Davidson L, Schomerus G, Shuman V, Smelson D. Public perceptions of recovery prospects and peer style (support and confrontation) in services for serious mental illness versus substance use disorder. J Dual Diagn. 2019;66:1–7. - PubMed
    1. Slade M, Leamy M, Bacon F, Janosik M, Le Boutillier C, Williams J, Bird V. International differences in understanding recovery: systematic review. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2012;21(4):353–364. doi: 10.1017/S2045796012000133. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms