Psychometric Properties of the Assessment of Recovery Capital (ARC) Instrument in a Diverse Low-Income Sample

Leveraging Parents and Peer Recovery Supports to Increase Recovery Capital in Emerging Adults With Polysubstance Use: Protocol for a Feasibility, Acceptability, and Appropriateness Study of Launch

BACKGROUND

Emerging adults (aged 18-26 years) are the most at-risk yet underserved age group among people with substance use disorder, especially rural emerging adults, and polysubstance use is common. Recovery capital is lower among emerging adults than older adults, and evidence-based treatments are typically unavailable or not developmentally tailored, especially in rural areas. Both supportive parents (or parental figures) and peer recovery support services (PRSS) can be leveraged to better support these emerging adults. Previous research indicates parents can be engaged to deliver contingency management (CM), an extensively researched evidence-based intervention for substance use.

OBJECTIVE

This protocol describes a funded pilot of Launch, a novel, scalable service package that pairs web-based coaching for parents to deliver CM for emerging adults (CM-EA) at home and in-person PRSS with educational and vocational goal setting. Specifically, this protocol describes feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness testing (implementation-related outcomes) and steps taken to prepare for a future large-scale trial of Launch.

METHODS

Upon the recruitment of 48 emerging adult and parent pairs from sites serving primarily rural clients, participants will be randomized into 1 of 3 conditions for this randomized controlled trial: virtual parent coaching to deliver CM-EA, in-person PRSS for emerging adults, or both sets of services. Emerging adult eligibility includes polysubstance use, a substance use disorder, and availability of a consenting parent. Emerging adults will be interviewed at baseline and 6 months about substance use, quality of life, recovery capital, parental relationship, and Launch implementation-related outcomes (6-month follow-up only). Parents, peer workers delivering PRSS, and parent CM-EA coaches will be interviewed about implementation-related outcomes at the end of the study period. Peer workers and CM-EA coaches will be asked to complete checklists of services delivered after each session. Finally, payers and providers will be interviewed for additional insights into Launch implementation and to identify key outcomes of Launch. Data analysis for emerging adult outcomes will be primarily descriptive, but parent CM-EA training adherence will be assessed using nested mixed-effects regression models of repeated measures.

RESULTS

Launch is currently ongoing, with funding received in August 2023, and is expected to end in September 2025, with data analysis and results in December 2026. Participants are expected to begin enrolling in June 2024.

CONCLUSIONS

While this pilot is limited by the small sample size and restriction to emerging adults with an involved parent, this is mitigated by the study's strengths and is appropriate for the pilot stage. Launch uses an innovative combination of existing strategies to generate better outcomes for emerging adults while remaining scalable. This pilot will provide insights into the feasibility and acceptability of Launch from the perspectives of service recipients, providers, and payers to inform a larger-scale effectiveness trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06414993; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06414993.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/60671.

Measuring recovery capital for people recovering from alcohol and drug addiction: A systematic review

Background

Recovery capital theory provides a biopsychosocial framework for identifying and measuring strengths and barriers that can be targeted to support recovery from alcohol and drug addiction. This systematic review analyzed and synthesized all quantitative approaches that have measured recovery capital since 2016.

Method

Three databases were searched to identify studies published from 2016 to 2023. Eligible studies explicitly stated they measured recovery capital in participants recovering from alcohol and/or drug addiction. Studies focusing on other forms of addiction were excluded.

Results

Sixty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Forty-six studies used one of the ten identified recovery capital questionnaires, and twenty-five studies used a measurement approach other than one of the ten recovery capital questionnaires. The ten recovery capital questionnaires are primarily developed for adult populations across clinical and community recovery settings, and between them measure 41 separate recovery capital constructs. They are generally considered valid and reliable measures of recovery capital. Nevertheless, a strong evidence base on the psychometric properties across diverse populations and settings still needs to be established for these questionnaires.

Conclusion

The development of recovery capital questionnaires has been a significant advance in the field of addiction recovery, in alignment with the emerging recovery-oriented approach to addiction recovery care. Additionally, the non-recovery capital questionnaire-based approaches to recovery capital measurement have an important place in the field. They could be used alongside recovery capital questionnaires to test theory, and in contexts where the application of the questionnaires is not feasible, such as analyses of data from online recovery forums.

Improving Social Recovery Capital Research To Enhance Clinical Utility: A Proposed Agenda

Social recovery capital (SRC) is the combination of social resources that can be used to initiate and sustain addiction recovery through friends, family, and peers. Broadly, understanding one's SRC allows us to get a sense of where one has social support for recovery and where there may be social barriers to their recovery process. SRC is often a vital component of many people's recovery journey, yet our understanding of how best to use this concept in research and practice remains underdeveloped. To improve understanding of the role of social recovery capital and strategies to measure and increase it, we present a roadmap involving a five-pronged research agenda to: (1) Refine the measurement of social recovery capital; (2) Model the complexity of social recovery capital empirically; (3) Integrate personality science with social recovery capital research; (4) Optimize evidence-based behavior change techniques of social recovery capital; and (5) Incorporate an intersectional framework when examining or applying social recovery capital. Overall, this five-pronged research agenda seeks to enhance the clinical utility of SRC research to maximize the impact of SRC on one's recovery.

Development and psychometric properties of the Multidimensional Inventory of Recovery Capital (MIRC)

BACKGROUND

Researchers have developed several instruments to measure recovery capital-the social, physical, human, and cultural resources that help people resolve alcohol and other drug problems. However, existing measures are hampered by theoretical and psychometric weaknesses. The current study reports on process and psychometric outcomes for the Multidimensional Inventory of Recovery Capital (MIRC), a novel measure of recovery capital.

METHODS

We used a three-phase, mixed methods approach to develop the MIRC. Individuals who identified as having resolved alcohol problems were recruited in each phase. Phase one focused on item development, with participants providing qualitative feedback on potential items. In phase two (pilot testing) and phase three (final psychometric evaluation), participants completed revised versions of the MIRC to assess its psychometric strength and item performance.

RESULTS

Phase one (n=44) resulted in significant item alteration, culminating in a 48-item pilot measure. Pilot testing analyses (n=497) resulted in the deletion or replacement of 17 items. In the final psychometric evaluation (n=482), four additional items were deleted, resulting in a 28-item MIRC comprising four subscales measuring social, physical, human, and cultural capital. The psychometric properties of the final MIRC and its subscales ranged from sound to strong, with high response variability suggesting appropriate item discrimination.

CONCLUSION

Results confirm the psychometric strength of the MIRC and underscore the importance of incorporating the insights of diverse samples of people in recovery. The MIRC holds promise as an assessment tool in future research and is available for use at no cost in treatment and community-based settings.

The Associations between Remission Status, Discounting Rates, and Recovery from Substance Use Disorders

Background: Recovery from substance use disorders (SUDs) requires sustained and purposeful support to maintain long-term remission. Methods: This study investigated the association between assessment of recovery capital, household chaos, delay discounting (DD) and probability discounting (PD), and remission status among individuals in recovery from SUD. Data from 281 participants from the International Quit & Recovery Registry (IQRR), an ongoing online registry that aims to study the recovery process, were included in the analysis. Results: Lower DD rates and higher recovery capital were found among those in remission compared to those not in remission after controlling for demographics. In contrast, the association of household chaos and PD with remission status were insignificant. Overall, DD accounted for 20% of the total effect between the recovery capital and the remission status. Conclusion: This study contributes to the understanding of recovery as a multidimensional process, supports DD as a behavioral marker of addiction, and suggests areas for future research.

Understanding recovery Capital in relation to categorical 12-Step involvement and abstinence social support

Background

Although recovery capital represents various resources for persons recovering from substance use disorders, measures of this construct examine components that might not necessarily reflect the recovery goals of individuals who base their recovery through involvement in 12-step groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA). It is not clear whether 12-step involvement is related to recovery capital, particularly among individuals living in recovery homes who utilize social networks of recovering peers for their recovery. Thus, categorical involvement in a set of 12-step activities was examined in relation to recovery capital and abstinence social support.

Methods

Differences in terms of general (recovery capital scores, retention rates) and abstinence-specific (abstinence social support) resources were examined in relation to recovery home residents who were (n = 395) and were not (n = 232) categorically involved in their 12-step recovery.

Results

Residents with categorical 12-step involvement reported significantly higher levels of recovery capital and abstinence social support, and there was no significant difference observed in retention rates between residents who were/were not categorically involved in 12-step groups.

Conclusions

Findings suggest community resources such as recovery homes and categorical involvement in 12-step groups are important recovery capital components that help individuals who use a 12-step approach to their recovery. Recovery capital among those involved with 12-step fellowships such as AA and NA should be assessed by examining abstinence-specific components such as representative involvement in 12-step groups and social support that is abstinence-specific.

Changes in Work Status, Couple Adjustment, and Recovery Capital: Secondary Analysis of Data From a Congruence Couple Therapy Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose

Employment and family/social relationships are 2 of the highest priorities among those in substance use recovery. This study examined the relationship of work status with couple adjustment and other recovery capital treatment outcomes among symptomatic alcohol, substance use, and gambling participants (N = 38) using data collected in a randomized trial comparing a systemic Congruence Couple Therapy (CCT) and individual-based Treatment-as-Usual (TAU).

Method

Change scores and associations between work status and couple adjustment together with 8 other recovery outcome variables at post-treatment (5 months from baseline) and follow-up (8 months from baseline) in TAU (n = 17) and CCT (n = 21) were analyzed.

Results

Number of those working increased with both CCT and TAU but without reaching significance in either CCT (Cochran's Q = 5.429, P = .066) or TAU (Cochran's Q = 2.800, P = .247). Relative to those not working in the combined sample, those working showed significantly improved scores in post-treatment and follow-up in addictive symptoms, couple adjustment, psychiatric symptoms, depression, and life stress. Separating the CCT and TAU groups, similar trend was found in the CCT group but was inconsistent in the TAU group.

Conclusion

Significantly greater improvement in addictive symptoms and recovery capital of couple adjustment, mental health, and life stress was found in the working vs not-working group. Compared to individual-based TAU, exploratory findings indicate that the systemic treatment of CCT showed a clearer and more consistent difference in improved working days, addictive symptoms and recovery capital. Replication with larger samples is needed to generalize these results.

Spanish Validation of the Assessment of Recovery Capital Scale in Clinical Population with Alcohol Use Disorder

Recovery from alcohol use disorder involves achieving certain resources for positive lifestyle changes, well-being, and long-term abstinence. The present study aims to translate and validate the Assessment Capital Recovery (ARC) in a Spanish clinical sample of individuals with alcohol use disorder, in abstinence. The participants were 184 patients who attended outpatient treatments. They were evaluated with the adapted version of the ARC (Spanish abbreviation: "Valoración del Capital de Recuperación, VCR") and by WHOQOL-BREF (quality of life scale), in one session. Statistical analysis included the calculation of reliability, convergent validity (relationship with WHOQOL-BREF), specificity and sensitivity, as well as validity based on internal structure (confirmatory factor analysis). VCR scores show appropriate values for reliability (α = .90), and a low convergent validity with WHOQOL-BREF (Rho = .33-.53). The VCR appears to distinguish between patients with early and stable sobriety (χ2 = 20.55, p < .01). The ROC curve indicates significant discrimination values (p < .05) for stable recovery (5 years of abstinence) and sensitivity of 85.2% and specificity of 71.2%. Further, confirmatory factor analysis suggests the presence of a single factor, with relatively acceptable values of goodness of fit and factor loadings. We used ULS parameter estimation to study VCR properties, an appropriate tool for assessing recovery in clinical populations of individuals with alcohol use disorder in abstinence.

The science of recovery capital: where do we go from here?

BACKGROUND

The concept of recovery capital (RC) has emerged in studies and discussions of the addiction recovery process and as a potential metric and marker for recovery gains. Although conceptual and applied development of the concept in the 20 years since the term was coined has increased, there remains insufficient clarity of key domains, factors and best practice research and applications for populations experiencing addiction. We aimed to review progress around the conceptualisation and operationalisation of RC and to consider future directions for a science of recovery capital.

METHOD

We provided a brief overview of theoretical foundations and advances, empirical measurement and application in treatment and continuing care settings. We next introduced four primary areas for addiction science to address, namely: (i) conceptual development (e.g. how RC domains are unique, but interrelated entities, valence of RC), (ii) empirical testing, adequacy of measurement and analysis, (iii) directions for novel application in treatment and recovery settings and (iv) dissemination and communication to policy, practice and lived experience groups. In this review, we also focussed on some of the challenges that must be addressed for a science of RC, which could produce long-term impact in treatment and policy.

RESULTS

Despite burgeoning empirical work on RC, its application and translation has been unsystematic. The field currently relies on self-report questionnaires for the development of the theory and quantification of RC. Therefore, there is an urgent need for rigorous and systematic conceptual and empirical development of RC.

CONCLUSIONS

A formal collaboration between scholars, practitioners and experts by experience worldwide would move recovery capital forward in an empirically driven and culturally appropriate manner, as would testing its applicability at individual, organisational and societal levels.

Qualitative insights in item development for a comprehensive and inclusive measure of recovery capital

BACKGROUND

Item specification is foundational to measurement development but rarely reported in depth. We address this gap by explicating our use of qualitative methods to ground and develop items for a new recovery capital measure, the Multidimensional Inventory of Recovery Capital.

METHOD

We recruited a diverse sample of service providers (n = 9) and people in recovery from alcohol problems (n = 23) to provide feedback on an item pool assessing social, human, physical, community, and cultural capital. Using applied qualitative analysis, we coded findings from interviews and focus groups and made final decisions by consensus regarding item elimination, retention, or revision. This process yielded a 49-item draft measure.

RESULTS

Only nine items from an initial 90-item list were retained in their original form. Participant feedback guided item elimination, addition, and revision for linguistic or conceptual clarity. We detected little systematic variation in feedback based on income or race; however, there were stark divergences on particular items based on recovery pathway (i.e. 12-step versus other approaches).

CONCLUSIONS

The high degree of alteration to the item pool highlights the importance of establishing validity with respondents. Response variation based on recovery pathway suggests the need for broad heterogeneity in respondents. Measures that are sensitive, psychometrically sound, and aligned with theory are critical for advancing research on recovery capital and related disparities for diverse populations.