Scalability, test–retest reliability and validity of the Brief INSPIRE-O measure of personal recovery in psychiatric services

Introduction: Mental health services have transitioned from treating symptoms to emphasizing personal recovery. Despite its importance, integrating personal recovery into clinical practice remains work in progress. This study evaluates the psychometric qualities of the Brief INSPIRE-O, a five-item patient-reported outcome measure assessing personal recovery.Method: The study collected data from 2018 to 2020 at the Mental Health Services, Capital Region of Denmark, using an internet-based system examining 8,192 non-psychotic patients – receiving outpatient treatment.Materials: This study evaluated the Brief INSPIRE-O and used measures of symptomatology (SCL-10), well-being (WHO-5), and social functioning (modified SDS).Results: The study population comprised 76.8% females with a mean age of 32.9 years, and diagnoses included anxiety (28%), depression (34%), and personality disorder (19%). The mean Brief INSPIRE-O score (39.9) was lower than the general population norm (71.1). The Brief INSPIRE-O showed acceptable test–retest reliability (0.75), scalability (0.39), and internal consistency (0.73). Correlations with other mental health criteria were in the expected direction for symptomatology (−0.46), well-being (0.60), and social functioning (−0.43) and remained consistent across diagnoses.Discussion: The Brief INSPIRE-O demonstrated strong psychometric qualities and could be recommended as a measure of personal recovery for use in both research and clinical practice. Its strong theoretical basis and short completion time make it suitable for use for research. Incorporating Brief INSPIRE-O into clinical assessment will further support the process of mental health systems re-orientating towards personal recovery

Cross-cultural validity of the WHO-5 Well-Being Index and Euthymia Scale:A clinimetric analysis

BACKGROUND: The assessment of psychological well-being and euthymia represents an emerging issue in clinical psychology and psychiatry. Rating scales and indices such as the 5-item version of the World Health Organization Well-Being Index (WHO-5) and the Euthymia Scale (ES) were developed but insufficient attention has been devoted to the evaluation of their cross-cultural validity. This is the first study using Clinimetric Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (CLIPROM) criteria to assess cross-cultural validity and sensitivity of five different versions of the WHO-5 and ES. METHODS: A multicenter cross-sectional study involving a total of 3762 adult participants from different European (i.e., Italy, Poland, Denmark) and non-European (i.e., China, Japan) countries was conducted. Item Response Theory models (Mokken and Rasch analyses) were applied. RESULTS: Mokken coefficients of scalability were found to range from 0.42 to 0.84. The majority of the versions of the WHO-5 fitted the Rasch model expectations. Paired t-tests revealed that the Italian and Danish WHO-5 versions were unidimensional. Person Separation Reliability indices showed that the Polish, Danish, and Japanese ES versions could reliably discriminate between subjects with different levels of euthymia. LIMITATIONS: A convenience sampling was used, thus limiting the generalizability of study findings. In addition, no measures of negative mental health were administered. CONCLUSIONS: WHO-5 can be used in international studies for cross-cultural comparisons since it covers transcultural components of subjective well-being. Findings also suggest that the ES can be used as a cross-cultural screening tool since it entailed the clinimetric property of sensitivity