ArticleSubstance abuse and rehabilitation2017
Does the Assessment of Recovery Capital scale reflect a single or multiple domains?
Article in Substance abuse and rehabilitation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preliminary Estimates of Recovery Capital Growth in Early and Middle Stages: Social Work Practice Implications.Journal of social work practice in the addictions · 2025Article
- Measuring recovery capital for people recovering from alcohol and drug addiction: A systematic review.Addiction research & theory · 2024Article
- Changes in Work Status, Couple Adjustment, and Recovery Capital: Secondary Analysis of Data From a Congruence Couple Therapy Randomized Controlled Trial.Substance abuse : research and treatment · 2022Article
- The crucial role of recovery capital in individuals with a gambling disorder.Journal of behavioral addictions · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe goal of this study was to determine whether the 50-item Assessment of Recovery Capital scale represents a single general measure or whether multiple domains might be psychometrically useful for research or clinical applications.
methodsData are from a cross-sectional de-identified existing program evaluation information data set with 1,138 clients entering substance use disorder treatment. Principal components and iterated factor analysis were used on the domain scores. Multiple group factor analysis provided a quasi-confirmatory factor analysis.
resultsThe solution accounted for 75.24% of the total variance, suggesting that 10 factors provide a reasonably good fit. However, Tucker's congruence coefficients between the factor structure and defining weights (0.41-0.52) suggested a poor fit to the hypothesized 10-domain structure. Principal components of the 10-domain scores yielded one factor whose eigenvalue was greater than one (5.93), accounting for 75.8% of the common variance. A few domains had perceptible but small unique variance components suggesting that a few of the domains may warrant enrichment.
conclusionOur findings suggest that there is one general factor, with a caveat. Using the 10 measures inflates the chance for Type I errors. Using one general measure avoids this issue, is simple to interpret, and could reduce the number of items. However, those seeking to maximally predict later recovery success may need to use the full instrument and all 10 domains.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.