The Rapid Recovery Progression Measure: A Brief Assessment of Biopsychosocial Functioning During Substance Use Disorder Recovery

• Published in: Substance use & misuse 2017-07, Vol.52 (9), p.1154-1163
• Main Authors: Elison, Sarah, Dugdale, Stephanie, Ward, Jonathan, Davies, Glyn
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Addictions; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Biopsychosocial aspects; Drug use; Electronic publishing; Evaluation; Female; Humans; Internet; Likert scale; Male; Medical treatment; Mental health; Middle Aged; Predictions; Predictive validity; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Psychometrics; Quality of life; Quantitative psychology; Recovery; Rehabilitation; Reliability; Scores; Sensitivity and Specificity; Severity; Social Adjustment; Specificity; Substance abuse; Substance use disorder; Substance-Related Disorders - psychology; Substance-Related Disorders - therapy; Thresholds; Young Adult
• ISSN: 1082-6084; 1532-2491
• DOI: 10.1080/10826084.2017.1299183

Background: There is debate in the literature around how to measure outcomes in treatment and recovery from substance use disorder (SUD). Various constructs have been suggested as appropriate including "recovery capital" and "treatment progression."  To contribute to this debate, the construct of "recovery progression"  has been suggested by the authors, and a psychometric assessment, the Recovery Progression Measure (RPM). Although published psychometrics data have demonstrated the RPM to be reliable, at 36-item long, it may be too lengthy to complete in clinic environments. Therefore, a shorter version has been developed, the Rapid RPM. Objectives: To examine reliability, validity, sensitivity and specificity of the Rapid RPM via data from 9208 service users. Methods: Data were collected from service users accessing the Breaking Free Online (BFO) treatment and recovery program, which has within its baseline assessment the six-item, 11-point Likert scale Rapid RPM. Psychometric properties were examined. Results: Internal reliability of the Rapid RPM was excellent, α =.92. The Rapid RPM also had good concurrent and predictive validity, with baseline scores, and changes in scores to follow-up, being significantly associated with scores on standardized measures of common mental health sequela, severity of substance dependence and quality of life, and changes in self-reported substance use. The Rapid RPM was also able to differentiate between participants scoring above thresholds on these measures for clinically relevant substance dependence and mental health difficulties. Conclusions: This study provides data to support reliability, validity, sensitivity and specificity of the Rapid RPM, indicating potential as a clinical tool.