TY - JOUR
T1 - Strengths Assessment in Mental Health Services
T2 - A Systematic Review
AU - Chen, Qi Rong
AU - Young, Daniel Kim Wan
AU - Ng, Yat-Nam Petrus
AU - Cheng, Daphne Yi Ting
AU - Zhang, Wen Feng
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Taylor & Francis.
PY - 2022/11/2
Y1 - 2022/11/2
N2 - Purpose: This study aims to review the development of strengths assessment in mental health services and evaluate the features of those newly developed strengths assessments. Method: A systematic literature review approach was adopted to identify relevant articles from September 2010 to August 2021. Results: The results reveals that 1) the Value in Action Inventory of Strengths is the most widely studied strengths assessment but contains shortcomings in the application of mental health services; 2) 12 strengths assessments have been newly developed, which demonstrated quantitative measure, brief questionnaire, and contextual consideration are the tendency of measure development; 3) domains of strengths assessments were categorized into individual strengths, environmental strengths, and interpersonal strengths, in which individual strengths was the most commonly focus; 4) strengths conceptualization and psychometric properties are two remained limitations of existing strengths assessments. Discussion: Developing a brief, quantitative, holistic, contextualized, recovery-oriented, psychometrically sound, and strengths-based assessment for people with mental illnesses is promising.
AB - Purpose: This study aims to review the development of strengths assessment in mental health services and evaluate the features of those newly developed strengths assessments. Method: A systematic literature review approach was adopted to identify relevant articles from September 2010 to August 2021. Results: The results reveals that 1) the Value in Action Inventory of Strengths is the most widely studied strengths assessment but contains shortcomings in the application of mental health services; 2) 12 strengths assessments have been newly developed, which demonstrated quantitative measure, brief questionnaire, and contextual consideration are the tendency of measure development; 3) domains of strengths assessments were categorized into individual strengths, environmental strengths, and interpersonal strengths, in which individual strengths was the most commonly focus; 4) strengths conceptualization and psychometric properties are two remained limitations of existing strengths assessments. Discussion: Developing a brief, quantitative, holistic, contextualized, recovery-oriented, psychometrically sound, and strengths-based assessment for people with mental illnesses is promising.
KW - clinical assessment
KW - mental health recovery
KW - psychometric testing
KW - strengths-based practice
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85137080814&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/26408066.2022.2113579
DO - 10.1080/26408066.2022.2113579
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:85137080814
SN - 2640-8066
VL - 19
SP - 746
EP - 775
JO - Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work
JF - Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work
IS - 6
ER -