Community Mental Health Journal

, Volume 52, Issue 8, pp 1098–1105 | Cite as

Psychometric Properties of the Milestones of Recovery Scale-Older Adult Version

  • Kristen L. Hess
  • Dennis G. Fisher
  • David Pilon
  • Grace L. Reynolds
  • Joe Ruiz
Original Paper


The Milestones of Recovery Scale (MORS) is a tool that mental health professionals can use to track clients’ recovery. It has been shown to have good reliability and validity in an adult population. It is important to demonstrate its psychometric properties among the elderly. This study assessed the reliability and validity of the MORS among a multi-ethnic (52 % White) sample of adults 54 and older (M = 67) at several mental health agencies in California. The clients, N = 432, were assessed by two raters each at two time points 2 weeks apart. Ratings were obtained on the MORS, the modified Global Assessment of Functioning scale (mGAF), and the Multnomah Community Ability Scale (MCAS). The MORS demonstrated acceptable reliability: inter-rater r = .65 and test–retest r = .71; the mGAF was .56 and .79; the MCAS was .66 and .85. The validity of the MORS was also supported: mGAF–MORS r = .68 and MCAS–MORS r = .74. This study lends support for the use of the MORS in older adult populations. In addition, this is the first report of the psychometric properties of the MCAS with an entirely older adult sample.


Reliability Validity MCAS GAF Older adults Mental illness 



This work was supported in part by Contract Number 07-38911 from Mental Health America of Los Angeles.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights

The Institutional Review Board of the California State University, Long Beach approved the protocol and the informed consent form for this study.


  1. Barker, S., Barron, N., McFarland, B. H., & Bigelow, D. A. (1994a). A community ability scale for chronically mentally ill consumers: Part I. Reliability and validity. Community Mental Health Journal, 30(4), 363–383.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barker, S., Barron, N., McFarland, B. H., Bigelow, D. A., & Carnahan, T. (1994b). A community ability scale for chronically mentally ill consumers: Part II. Applications. Community Mental Health Journal, 30(5), 459–472.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Dickerson, F. B., Origoni, A. E., Pater, A., Friedman, B. K., & Kordonski, W. M. (2003). An expanded version of the Multnomah Community Ability Scale: Anchors and interview probes for the assessment of adults with serious mental illness. Community Mental Health Journal, 39(2), 131–137.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Fisher, D. G., Pilon, D., Hershberger, S. L., Reynolds, G. L., LaMaster, S. C., & Davis, M. (2009). Psychometric properties of an assessment for mental health recovery programs. Community Mental Health Journal, 45(4), 246–250. doi: 10.1007/s10597-009-9213-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Grootenboer, E. M., Giltay, E. J., van der Lem, R., van Veen, T., van der Wee, N. J., & Zitman, F. G. (2012). Reliability and validity of the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale in clinical outpatients with depressive disorders. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 18(2), 502–507. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01614.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Hall, R. C. (1995). Global assessment of functioning. A modified scale. Psychosomatics, 36(3), 267–275. doi: 10.1016/S0033-3182(95)71666-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Hendryx, M., Dyck, D. G., McBride, D., & Whitbeck, J. (2001). A test of the reliability and validity of the Multnomah Community Ability Scale. Community Mental Health Journal, 37(2), 157–168.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Hildebrand, R., McCann, E., Nelson, M., & Wass, P. (2003). Inter-rater reliability of the Global Assessment of Functioning scale in a psychogeriatric population. Canadian Journal on Aging, 22(2), 229–233. doi: 10.1017/S0714980800004542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jeste, D. V., Alexopoulos, G. S., Bartels, S. J., Cummings, J. L., Gallo, J. J., Gottlieb, G. L., et al. (1995). Consensus statement on the upcoming crisis in geriatric mental health. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 848–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jones, S. H., Thornicroft, G., Coffey, M., & Dunn, G. (1995). A brief mental health outcome scale-reliability and validity of the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF). The British Journal of Psychiatry, 166(5), 654–659.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Lichtenberg, P. A., & MacNeill, S. E. (2003). Streamlining assessments and treatments for geriatric mental health in medical rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Psychology, 48(1), 56–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McKibbin, C., Patterson, T. L., & Jeste, D. V. (2004). Assessing disability in older patients with schizophrenia: Results from the WHODAS-II. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 192(6), 405–413.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Miller, L., Brown, T. T., Pilon, D., Scheffler, R. M., & Davis, M. (2010). Patterns of recovery from severe mental illness: A pilot study of outcomes. Community Mental Health Journal, 46(2), 177–187. doi: 10.1007/s10597-009-9211-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Miller, M. W., Greif, J. L., & Smith, A. A. (2003). Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire profiles of veterans with traumatic combat exposure: Externalizing and internalizing subtypes. Psychological Assessment, 15(2), 205–215.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Miller, M. W., Kaloupek, D. G., Dillon, A. L., & Keane, T. M. (2004). Externalizing and internalizing subtypes of combat-related PTSD: A replication and extension using the PSY-5 scales. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(4), 636–645. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.113.4.636.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.Google Scholar
  17. Rogers, A., & Delewski, C. (2004). Elders with serious and persistent mental illness (SPMI). Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 43(1), 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Snow, A. L., Cook, K. F., Lin, P.-S., Morgan, R. O., & Magaziner, J. (2005). Proxies and other external raters: Methodological considerations. Health Services Research, 40(5), 1676–1693.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Soderberg, P., Tungstrom, S., & Armelius, B. A. (2005). Reliability of global assessment of functioning ratings made by clinical psychiatric staff. Psychiatric Services, 56(4), 434–438. doi: 10.1176/ Scholar
  20. Sonesson, O., Tjus, T., & Arvidsson, H. (2010). Reliability of a functioning scale (GAF) among psychiatric ward staff. Nordic Psychology, 62(1), 53–64. doi: 10.1027/1901-2276/A000005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Startup, M., Jackson, M. C., & Bendix, S. (2002). The concurrent validity of the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF). The British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41(Pt 4), 417–422.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Trauer, T. (2001). Symptom severity and personal functioning among patients with schizophrenia discharged from long-term hospital care into the community. Community Mental Health Journal, 37(2), 145–155.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Van Brakel, W. H., & Officer, A. (2008). Approaches and tools for measuring disailbity in low and middle-income countries. Leprosy Review, 79, 50–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Vatnaland, T., Vatnaland, J., Friis, S., & Opjordsmoen, S. (2007). Are GAF scores reliable in routine clinical use? Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 115(4), 326–330. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2006.00925.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Von Korff, M., Andrews, G., & Delves, M. (2011). Assessing activity limitations and disability among adults. In D. A. Regier, W. E. Narrow, E. A. Kuhl, & D. J. Kupfer (Eds.), The conceptual evolution of DSM-5 (Vol. xxix, pp. 163–188). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
  26. Waltz, C. F., Strickland, O. L., & Lenz, E. R. (1991). Measurement in nursing research (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: F. A. Davis Company.Google Scholar
  27. Zani, B., McFarland, B., Wachal, M., Barker, S., & Barron, N. (1999). Statewide replication of predictive validation for the Multnomah Community Ability Scale. Community Mental Health Journal, 35(3), 223–229.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristen L. Hess
    • 1
  • Dennis G. Fisher
    • 1
  • David Pilon
    • 2
  • Grace L. Reynolds
    • 1
  • Joe Ruiz
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Behavioral Research and ServicesCalifornia State University Long BeachLong BeachUSA
  2. 2.Mental Health America of Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations