Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Community Mental Health Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R. C. (1995). Global assessment of functioning. A modified scale. Psychosomatics, 36(3), 267–275. doi:10.1016/S0033-3182(95)71666-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenberg, P. A., & MacNeill, S. E. (2003). Streamlining assessments and treatments for geriatric mental health in medical rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Psychology, 48(1), 56–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, A., & Delewski, C. (2004). Elders with serious and persistent mental illness (SPMI). Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 43(1), 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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/appi.ps.56.4.434.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Brakel, W. H., & Officer, A. (2008). Approaches and tools for measuring disailbity in low and middle-income countries. Leprosy Review, 79, 50–64.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Waltz, C. F., Strickland, O. L., & Lenz, E. R. (1991). Measurement in nursing research (2nd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: F. A. Davis Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Behavioral Research and Services, California State University Long Beach, 1090 Atlantic Avenue, Long Beach, CA, 90813, USA

    Kristen L. Hess, Dennis G. Fisher & Grace L. Reynolds

  2. Mental Health America of Los Angeles, 100 W. Broadway #5010, Los Angeles, CA, 90813, USA

    David Pilon & Joe Ruiz

Authors
  1. Kristen L. Hess
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dennis G. Fisher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Pilon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Grace L. Reynolds
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Joe Ruiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dennis G. Fisher.

Ethics declarations

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hess, K.L., Fisher, D.G., Pilon, D. et al. Psychometric Properties of the Milestones of Recovery Scale-Older Adult Version. Community Ment Health J 52, 1098–1105 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-016-9992-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-016-9992-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation