A Comparison of the Performance of Two Measures of Recovery for Collegiate Recovery Program Participants

Background and Purpose: Collegiate recovery programs (CRPs) offer essential support to college students recovering from substance use disorders (SUD), helping them attain academic success. To ensure the effectiveness of the CRPs, it is vital to employ valid and reliable measurement tools that can capture various aspects of recovery. This study aims to investigate which of two widely used measures, the Brief Assessment of Recovery Capital (BARC) and the Substance Use Recovery Evaluator (SURE), better captures the broad range of recovery dimensions among CRP participants.

Methods: We used self-report data from the National Longitudinal Collegiate Recovery Study (N=106) for the 10-item BARC, 21-item SURE, and measures of 5 recovery dimensions: Hours of recovery activity engagement (engagement); the UCLA three-item loneliness scale (loneliness); the National Recovery Study spirituality scale (spirituality); the Substance Abuse Self-Stigma Scale “self-devaluation” section (self-stigma); the Perceived Stigma of Addiction Scale (perceived stigma); and the WHO Quality of Life Brief (QOL-8). We used two multivariate regressions of these recovery dimension measures to predict performance on the BARC and SURE separately, and examined the Pearson correlations between scores on all measures. We compared the two regression models’ AIC criteria using the formula exp((AICmin−AICmax)/2), with lower values indicating higher probability of superior relative model fit.

Results: Both the BARC (AdjR²=.586, F(7,98)=22.231, p<.001) and SURE (AdjR²=.650, F(7,98)=28.867, p<.001) models were significant. In the BARC model, significant predictors included engagement (β=0.552, p<.001, B=.254), self-stigma (β=-.204, p=0.002, B=.025), and QOL-8 (b=.524, p<.001, B=.481). For the SURE model, significant predictors consisted of engagement (β=.237, p=.034, B=.133), self-stigma (β=-.124, p=.013, B=-.171), and QOL-8 (β=-.566, p<.001, B=.632). A comparison of AIC values strongly indicated that the SURE (AIC=4738.81) had a superior model fit to the BARC (AIC=4798.18). The BARC model showed significant positive correlations with engagement (r=.414, p<.001), spirituality (r=.280, p=.002), QOL-8 (r=.685, p<.001), and significant negative correlations with loneliness (r=-.396, p<.001), and self-stigma (r=-.545, p<.001). Similarly, the SURE model showed significant positive correlations with engagement (r=.282, p=.002), spirituality (r=.300, p=.001), and QOL-8 (r=.777, p<.001), and significant negative correlations with loneliness (r=-.435, p<.001), and self-stigma (r=-.514, p<.001).

Conclusions and Implications: Comparison of the overall performance, adjusted R²s, and AIC values indicated that the SURE better captured overall recovery experiences in the CRP population than the BARC. Both scales had equivalent significant individual predictors among the recovery dimensions and correlated highly with each other and with each recovery dimension. Researchers and clinicians can be confident that both the BARC and SURE are valid measures of recovery experiences in the CRP population, and can select the measure that best fits their needs.