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.

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.