Community Mental Health Journal

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 163–170 | Cite as

The Recovery Promotion Fidelity Scale: Assessing The Organizational Promotion of Recovery



The Recovery Promotion Fidelity Scale (RPFS) was developed to evaluate the extent to which public mental health agencies in Hawai’i incorporate recovery principles into their services and operations. The project progressed through two phases using concept mapping and expert review methods to generate scale items and identify dimensions of recovery that were used as scale domains. The resultant measure consists of 12 items organized around five recovery domains. This paper describes the development of the RPFS, illustrating how public mental health stakeholders, particularly persons in recovery, can be involved in efforts toward making a system of care more recovery oriented.


Recovery Fidelity scale Concept mapping Public mental health services 


  1. Anthony, W. A. (1993). Recovery from mental illness: The guiding vision of the mental health service system in the 1990s. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, 16, 11–23.Google Scholar
  2. Anthony, W. A. (2000). A recovery-oriented service system: Setting some system level standards. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 24, 159–168.Google Scholar
  3. Bond, G. R., Evans, L., Salyers, M. P., Williams, J., & Kim, H. W. (2000a). Measurement of fidelity in psychiatric rehabilitation. Mental Health Services Research, 2(2), 75–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bond, G. R., Williams, J., Evans, L., Salyers, M. P., Kim, H. W., Sharpe, H., et al. (2000b). Psychiatric rehabilitation fidelity toolkit. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Indiana University-Purdue University/Evaluation Center @ HSRI.Google Scholar
  5. Chamberlin, J. (1984). Speaking for ourselves: An overview of the ex-psychiatric inmates movement. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, 3, 56–64.Google Scholar
  6. Concept Systems Inc. (2000). Concept System [Computer software]. New York: Ithaca.Google Scholar
  7. Deegan, P. E. (1988). Recovery: The lived experience of rehabilitation. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, 11, 11–19.Google Scholar
  8. DeMasi, M. E., Markowitz, F. E., Videka-Sherman, L., Sofka, C., Knight, E. L., Carpinello, S. E. (1996). Specifying dimensions of recovery. In: Proceedings: 6th annual national conference on state mental health agency services research and program evaluation. Alexandria: National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors (NASMHPD) Research Institute.Google Scholar
  9. Harding, C. M., Brooks, G. W., Ashikaga, T., Strauss, J. S., & Breier, A. (1987). The Vermont longitudinal study of persons with severe mental illness, II: Long- term outcome of subjects who retrospectively met DSM-III criteria for schizophrenia. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 727–735.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C. S., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7, 238–247. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Leete, E. (1989). How I perceive and manage my illness. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 8, 605–609.Google Scholar
  12. Onken, S. J., Dumont, J. M., Ridgway, P., Dornan, D. H., & Ralph, R. O. (2002). Mental health recovery: What helps and what hinders? A national research project for the development of recovery facilitating system performance indicators. Alexandria: National Technical Assistance Center for State Mental Health Planning.Google Scholar
  13. President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. (2003). Achieving the promise: Transforming mental health care in America. Final report. DHHS Pub. No. SMA-03–3832. Rockville: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  14. Ridgway, P., Press, A., Ratzlaff, S., Davidson, L., & Rapp, C. A. (2003). Report on field testing the recovery enhancing environment measure. Lawrence: School of Social Welfare, Office of Mental Health Research and Training.Google Scholar
  15. Townsend, W., Boyd, S., Griffin, G., & Hicks, P. L. (1999). Emerging best practices in mental health recovery. Columbus: The Ohio Department of Mental Health.Google Scholar
  16. Trochim, W. M. (1989). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 1–16. doi: 10.1016/0149-7189(89)90016-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Trochim, W. M. (1993). The reliability of concept mapping. Paper presented at the annual conference of the american evaluation association, Dallas, November 1993.Google Scholar
  18. Trochim, W. M., Cook, J., & Setze, R. (1994). Using concept mapping to develop a conceptual framework of staff’s views of a supported employment program for persons with severe mental illness. Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 766–775. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.62.4.766.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. U.S. Department of Health, Human Services (US DHHS). (1999). Mental health: A report of the Surgeon General. Rockville: Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Hawai’i at MānoaHonoluluUSA
  2. 2.State of Hawai’i Department of Health, Adult Mental Health DivisionMental Health Services Research, Evaluation, and Training ProgramHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations