Cross Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Validation of the Assessment of Recovery Capital for Indonesian Rehabilitation

  • Fitri Isnaini Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia
  • Mondastri Korib Sudaryo Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia
  • Bagus Takwin Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia
  • Besral Besral Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia
DOI: https://doi.org/10.56338/mppki.v9i7.10888
Keywords: Recovery Capital, Instrument Validation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, Addiction Rehabilitation, Indonesia

Abstract

ntroduction: A comprehensive understanding of recovery capital, the personal and social resources supporting sustained recovery, is essential in addiction rehabilitation.  Indonesia lacks a culturally appropriate, psychometrically validated instrument to assess this construct. This study aimed to cross culturally adapt and validate the Assessment of Recovery Capital (ARC) for the Indonesian rehabilitation context.

Methods: A sequential exploratory mixed-method design was employed across an 11- adaptation stage The qualitative phase (steps 1–5)  included forward translation, synthesis, expert review, back translation, and harmonization.  The quantitative phase (steps 6–10) encompasses content validity (CVI), face validity (FVI) construct validity using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), internal consistency, and test retest reliability, followed by final instrument drafting.

Results: The ARC instrument was successfully adapted into Bahasa Indonesia. Content validity was excellent (S-CVI/Ave = 0.98 for relevance; 0.95 for clarity), Face validity demonstrated high comprehensibility (S-FVI/Ave = 0.94 for comprehension;0.96 for clarity). Construct validity among 250 rehabilitation clients supported a 10-factor structure explaining 70.64% of total variance. EFA identified 31 items meeting the dominant factor loading criterion (?0.40), presented in the factor table for reporting clarity, all 50 items were retained in the final instrument based on content validity and conceptual equivalence.  internal consistency was acceptable to strong (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.655–0.860) and test–retest stability was good (ICC = 0.719–0.803). The final instrument comprises demographic data, 50 ARC items across 10 domains, and one open-ended question on recovery support needs. Confirmatory factor Analysis (CFA) is recommended inFuther  studies.

Conclusion: The Indonesian ARC demonstrates preliminary validity, reliability, and cultural relevance for assessing recovery capital among individuals in rehabilitation. It has potential utility for monitoring recovery outcomes and informing evidence based addiction recovery practices in Indonesia, although further validation in border setting is warranted.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research-Based Guide (Third Edition). Advancing Addiction Science [Internet]. 2018;3(January):1–75. Available from: https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/principles-drug-addiction-treatment-research-based-guide-third-edition/frequently-asked-questions/what-are-unique-needs-pregnant-women-substance-use
  2. Dewabhrata W, Ahsan A, Bella A, Amalia N, Kusuma D, Pertiwi YBA. Mental Health, Environmental, and Socioeconomic Geographic Factors of Severe Drug Addiction: Analysis of Rehabilitation Center Data in Indonesia. Subst Abuse. 2023 Jan 1;17. https://doi.org/10.1177/11782218231203687
  3. Vilsaint CL, Kelly JF, Bergman BG, Groshkova T, Best D, White W. Development and validation of a Brief Assessment of Recovery Capital (BARC-10) for alcohol and drug use disorder. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2017; 177:71–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.03.022s
  4. Cloud W, Granfield R. Conceptualizing recovery capital: Expansion of a theoretical construct. Substance Use and Misuse. Taylor and Francis Inc.; 2008. p. 1971–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826080802289762
  5. Best D, Laudet AB. The Potential of Recovery Capital [Internet]. 2010. Available from: https://www.nbhnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/The-Potential-of-Recovery-Capital.pdf
  6. Best D, Hennessy EA. The science of recovery capital: where do we go from here? Addiction. 2022;117(4):1139–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.15732
  7. Cano I, Best D, Edwards M, Lehman J. Recovery capital pathways: Modelling the components of recovery wellbeing. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2017;181(September):11–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.09.002
  8. Room R. Stigma, social inequality and alcohol and drug use. Drug and Alcohol Review. 2005. p. 143–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/09595230500102434
  9. Cruchinho P, López-Franco MD, Capelas ML, Almeida S, Bennett PM, da Silva MM, et al. Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Validation of Measurement Instruments: A Practical Guideline for Novice Researchers. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2024;17(May 2024):2701–28. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S419714
  10. Groshkova T, Best D, White W. The Assessment of Recovery Capital: Properties and psychometrics of a measure of addiction recovery strengths. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2013;32(2):187–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3362.2012.00489.x
  11. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the Process of Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Self-Report Measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
  12. Sousa VD, Rojjanasrirat W. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: A clear and user-friendly guideline. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17(2):268–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x
  13. Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, et al. Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: Report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value health.2005;8(2):94-104. 2 https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1524-4733.2005.04054.X
  14. De Vellis R, Thorpe C. Scale Development: Theory and Applications. [Internet]. [cited 2026 Mar 10]. Available from: https://us.sagepub.com
  15. Hair JR JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Andreson RE. Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th ed. Harlow: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2010.
  16. Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Quiñonez HR, Young SL. Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral Research: A Primer. Front Public Health. 2018 Jun 11;6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
  17. Mat Said NA, Bujang SM, Buang NA, Siraj Ramli HH, Awang Besar MN. Critical Thinking Transfer Practice Instrument: A Content Validity Calculation Steps Based on Expert Panel Evaluation. Education in Medicine Journal. 2022;14(3):61–74. https://doi.org/10.21315/eimj2022.14.3.5
  18. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006 Oct;29(5):489–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147
  19. Yusoff MSB. ABC of Content Validation and Content Validity Index Calculation. Education in Medicine Journal. 2019 Jun 1;11(2):49–54. https://doi.org/10.21315/eimj2019.11.2.6
  20. Buck S, Sandqvist J, Nilsing Strid E, Knibbe HJJ, Enthoven P, Wåhlin C. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the risk assessment instrument TilThermometer for a Swedish version – patient handling in the healthcare sector. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022;23(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05474-8
  21. Vanbuel M, Deygers B. Assessing Receptive Skills in an Adult L2 Learner Population with Diverse Educational Backgrounds. Lang Assess Q. 2024;21(4–5):379–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2024.243815
  22. Kaiser HF. An Index Of Factorial Simpllicity Psychometrika.1974;39(1):31-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
  23. Soewin E, Chinda T. Factors affecting construction performance: Exploratory factor analysis. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. Institute of Physics Publishing; 2018. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/140/1/012102
  24. Watkins MW. Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Guide to Best Practice. Journal of Black Psychology. 2018 Apr 1;44(3):219–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798418771807
  25. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences Second Edition. 2 nd. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
  26. Zijlmans EAO, Tijmstra J, van der Ark LA, Sijtsma K. Item-score reliability as a selection tool in test construction. Front Psychol. 2019 Jan 11;9(JAN). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02298
Published
2026-07-16
How to Cite
Isnaini, F., Sudaryo, M. K., Bagus Takwin, & Besral Besral. (2026). Cross Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Validation of the Assessment of Recovery Capital for Indonesian Rehabilitation. Media Publikasi Promosi Kesehatan Indonesia (MPPKI), 9(7), 1470-1482. https://doi.org/10.56338/mppki.v9i7.10888
Issue
Vol. 9 No. 7 (2026)
Section
Article

Copyright (c) 2026 Media Publikasi Promosi Kesehatan Indonesia (MPPKI)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.