A Factor Analytic Investigation of the Person-in-Recovery and Provider Versions of the Revised Recovery Self-Assessment (RSA-R)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recovery is understood as living a life with hope, purpose, autonomy, productivity, and community engagement despite a mental illness. The aim of this study was to provide further information on the psychometric properties of the Person-in-Recovery and Provider versions of the Revised Recovery Self-Assessment (RSA-R), a widely used measure of recovery orientation. Data from 654 individuals were analyzed, 519 of whom were treatment providers (63.6% female), while 135 were inpatients (10.4% female) of a Canadian tertiary-level psychiatric hospital. Confirmatory and exploratory techniques were used to investigate the factor structure of both versions of the instrument. Results of the confirmatory factor analyses showed that none of the four theoretically plausible models fit the data well. Principal component analyses could not replicate the structure obtained by the scale developers either and instead resulted in a five-component solution for the Provider and a four-component solution for the Person-in-Recovery version. When considering the results of a parallel analysis, the number of components to retain dropped to two for the Provider version and one for the Person-in-Recovery version. We can conclude that the RSA-R requires further revision to become a psychometrically sound instrument for assessing recovery-oriented practices in an inpatient mental health-care setting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it