{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.036279683377308705, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0158311345646438, 'mean_word_length': 4.996047430830039, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Investigating the reliability and validity of the Dutch versions of the illness management and recovery scales among clients with mental disorders

Abstract Background: The Illness Management and Recovery scales (IMRS) can measure the progress of clients’ illness self-management and recovery. Previous studies have examined the psychometric properties of the IMRS. Aims: This study examined the reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the IMRS. Method: Clients (n = 111) and clinicians (n = 40) completed the client and clinician versions of the IMRS, respectively. The scales were administered again 2 weeks later to assess stability over time. Validity was assessed with the Utrecht Coping List (UCL), Dutch Empowerment Scale (DES), and Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI). Results: The client and clinician versions of the IMRS had moderate internal reliability, with α = 0.69 and 0.71, respectively. The scales showed strong test–retest reliability, r = 0.79, for the client version and r = 0.86 for the clinician version. Correlations between client and clinician versions ranged from r = 0.37 to 0.69 for the total and subscales. We also found relationships in expected directions between the client IMRS and UCL, DES and BSI, which supports validity of the Dutch version of the IMRS. Conclusions: The Dutch version of the IMRS demonstrated good reliability and validity. The IMRS could be useful for Dutch-speaking programs interested in evaluating client progress on illness self-management and recovery.