Psycho-Social Wellbeing Scale

Abstract

The Psycho-Social Wellbeing Scale (PSWS) is a multidimensional, clinician-administered and observer-rated assessment instrument developed by Thomas O'Hare and colleagues to evaluate biopsychosocial functioning, personal assets, and ecological adaptation among individuals diagnosed with severe mental illness (SMI) and co-occurring substance use disorders (dual diagnosis). Comprising 12 distinct functional items, the scale was engineered to move beyond traditional deficit-oriented, symptom-reduction paradigms by systematically quantifying client competencies across cognitive status, emotional well-being, impulse regulation, proactive coping mechanisms, interpersonal microsystems, macro-level community integration, recreational engagement, socioeconomic resources, physical health status, activities of daily living (ADLs), and vocational or social role productivity. Each item is evaluated across a 5-point ordinal metric ranging from 0 (Poor) to 4 (Excellent), yielding a composite continuous index varying between 0 and 48, where elevated scores denote optimal psychological stability, structural resilience, and functional recovery.

Extensive psychometric investigations conducted in outpatient community mental health clinics, residential treatment facilities, and integrated dual-diagnosis rehabilitation programs substantiate the instrument's robust psychometric architecture. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses demonstrate coherent multidimensional structures, regularly isolating distinct first-order factors corresponding to Intrapersonal and Psychological Competence, Socio-Environmental and Community Integration, and Basic Living and Somatic Functioning. The instrument demonstrates robust internal consistency, with global Cronbach's alpha coefficients consistently spanning .80 to .88 across diverse clinical cohorts, supported by high inter-rater agreement (intraclass correlation coefficients generally exceeding .82). Criterion, convergent, and discriminant validities are firmly supported through systematic correlations with validated benchmark tools, such as the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST), and the Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale (BASIS-32). Consequently, the PSWS serves as a psychometrically sound, strengths-oriented assessment vehicle ideally suited for baseline diagnostic formulation, longitudinal recovery monitoring, program evaluation, and empirical social work research.

Keywords

Psycho-Social Wellbeing Scale, PSWS, Severe Mental Illness, Strengths-Based Assessment, Dual Diagnosis, Psychiatric Rehabilitation, Social Work Assessment, Functional Recovery, Psychometrics, Ecological Systems Theory

Authors

The Psycho-Social Wellbeing Scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically standardized by a collaborative research team of social work scholars, clinical epidemiologists, and community behavioral health practitioners led by Thomas O'Hare, Ph.D., LCSW, and Margaret V. Sherrer, Ph.D., LICSW.

• Thomas O'Hare, Ph.D., LCSW: Professor Emeritus at the Boston College School of Social Work (Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, United States). Dr. O'Hare has contributed extensively to the empirical literature surrounding co-occurring mental and substance use disorders, clinical measurement in human services, and evidence-based behavioral assessment within community mental health environments.
• Margaret V. Sherrer, Ph.D., LICSW: Professor of Social Work at Rhode Island College and renowned researcher in psychiatric rehabilitation, clinical diagnostics for individuals with dual diagnoses, and the empirical validation of standardized assessment instruments in social services.
• Contributing Clinical Researchers & Co-investigators: J. Cutler, T. McCall, K. Dominique, K. Garlick, H. S. Connery, J. Thornton, A. LaButti, and K. Emrick. These collaborators facilitated institutional data collection across multisite community mental health centers and contributed to initial validation matrices, inter-rater reliability trials, and normative modeling.

Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Psycho-Social Wellbeing Scale (PSWS) is to provide mental health practitioners, clinical social workers, psychiatric nurses, case managers, and empirical researchers with an efficient, reliable, and ecologically valid instrument designed to capture the holistic functional spectrum of individuals coping with psychiatric and substance-related challenges. Historical psychiatric assessment instruments frequently exhibited pervasive deficit orientations, focusing almost exclusively on diagnostic symptom severity, psychopathological categorization, and behavioral deviations. Although identifying acute symptomatology remains necessary for clinical triage, deficit-centered assessments often fail to capture the broader competencies, environmental assets, coping repertoires, and socio-material realities critical to sustained community tenure and subjective well-being.

To redress these empirical and clinical shortcomings, the PSWS was engineered around the operational tenets of the strengths perspective and the recovery model in mental health. It serves several overarching functions across both clinical and research settings:

• Comprehensive Functional Baseline Profiling: Upon clinical intake, the PSWS yields an objective, multi-systemic overview of client functioning across 12 distinct life spheres. This prevents clinical reductionism, ensuring that evaluations encompass cognitive functioning, affective modulation, substance use impact, independent survival capacities, environmental safety, and reciprocal social ties.
• Individualized, Strengths-Oriented Treatment Planning: By delineating specific areas where a client displays intact competencies (rated as Good or Excellent) alongside domains characterized by distress or deficit (rated as Poor or Impaired), clinicians can construct tailored intervention plans that leverage existing personal assets to buffer against functional vulnerabilities.
• Longitudinal Treatment Monitoring and Outcome Evaluation: The PSWS is sensitive to episodic fluctuations and long-term functional trajectories. Administered periodically (e.g., quarterly, semi-annually, or at discharge), it quantifies change over time, assessing whether psychosocial interventions, medication regimens, supportive housing placements, or vocational programs yield measurable enhancements in adaptive everyday functioning.
• Harm Reduction and Dual-Diagnosis Triage: Tailored specifically to accommodate populations with concurrent severe psychiatric conditions and chemical dependency, the tool allows practitioners to analyze the dynamic interaction between substance consumption patterns and wider domains of social living, impulse control, and material stability.
• Health Services Research and Resource Allocation: In policy, administrative, and clinical research contexts, aggregated PSWS metrics provide quantifiable outcome indices that substantiate program efficacy, inform case-management caseload weighting, and justify ongoing resource allocation for integrated community rehabilitation programs.

Psychological Construct

The core theoretical construct underlying the PSWS is psychosocial well-being, conceptualized not merely as the absence of diagnosable mental illness or behavioral pathology, but as an active, multidimensional equilibrium between individual biopsychological capacities and the complex socio-ecological environment. Within the PSWS architecture, psychosocial well-being is defined as an individual's capacity to execute vital developmental and adaptive tasks, cultivate reciprocal interpersonal relationships, regulate emotional states, exercise behavioral self-governance, fulfill social roles, and maintain physical and material security within the community.

This overarching construct is operationalized through 12 specific, interrelated functional dimensions:

1. Cognitive Functioning: Refers to basic reality testing, organizational coherence of thought processes, communicative clarity, memory retention, and orientation. This domain evaluates the degree to which severe psychiatric manifestations—such as perceptual disturbances (hallucinations), encapsulated or systematized fixed beliefs (delusions), speech disorganization, and attentional impairment—disrupt the client's fundamental cognitive processing.
2. Emotional State: Encompasses affective equilibrium, mood modulation, and subjective distress. It measures the intensity and pervasiveness of dysphoric emotional states, primarily depressive symptomatology, disabling anxiety, panic, and broader affective blunting or dysregulation, establishing the individual's prevailing emotional tone.
3. Impulse Control: Evaluates behavioral self-regulation, distress tolerance, and executive motor control. This dimension examines an individual's ability to delay gratification, work patiently toward distal goals, and refrain from self-directed harm (suicidality, non-suicidal self-injury), verbal or physical hostility toward others, illicit actions, and explosive or reckless behavioral episodes.
4. Coping Skills: Reflects proactive problem-solving mechanisms, psychological resilience, and adaptive stress management. It assesses an individual's ability to accurately identify situational stressors, manage internal or environmental triggers, employ cognitive restructuring, and proactively mobilize external resources or social support to navigate daily life challenges.
5. Immediate Social Network: Measures the quality, stability, and reciprocity of close personal attachments, including marital or romantic partners, nuclear and extended family members, and close personal friends. The construct isolates positive indicators—such as emotional intimacy, reliable communication, and mutual validation—from toxic interpersonal dynamics, chronic conflict, verbal hostility, and domestic victimization.
6. Extended Social Relationships and Community Integration: Appraises the individual's integration into secondary social systems, including local neighborhoods, civic institutions, consumer-run peer advocacy groups, spiritual or cultural organizations, and broader community networks. It captures feelings of belonging versus systemic alienation and social isolation.
7. Recreational Activities: Focuses on leisure participation, self-directed play, physical activity, and intrinsic enjoyment. The construct gauges whether the individual engages in a balanced portfolio of passive and active recreational pursuits (e.g., sports, walking, artistic endeavors, reading, social gaming), which serve as crucial buffers against anhedonia, apathy, and institutional passivity.
8. Material Resources: Gauges socioeconomic and physical security, capturing the adequacy, stability, and human dignity of the client's immediate living context. It explicitly tracks whether primary survival prerequisites—such as nutritionally adequate food, suitable clothing, secure non-exploitative housing, and physical safety—are met.
9. Substance Use and Functional Impact: Evaluates chemical consumption patterns across alcohol, illicit narcotics, and non-prescribed pharmaceuticals. Rather than measuring consumption frequency alone, this construct analyzes the physiological, social, relational, and psychological consequences directly attributable to drug and alcohol use.
10. Physical Health Status: Captures somatic wellness, chronic illness burden, health maintenance behaviors, physical energy, mobility limitations, and necessary medical management for non-psychiatric ailments. It highlights the profound bidirectional link between physical disease burden and psychiatric stability.
11. Independent Living and Self-Care: Focuses on instrumental and basic activities of daily living (ADLs). This comprises household maintenance, personal hygiene routines, nutritional meal preparation, adherence to restorative sleep cycles, and proactive personal self-preservation.
12. Work and Role Satisfaction: Quantifies productivity, functional role performance, and self-efficacy within structured societal niches, whether as a competitive wage earner, supported employee, primary homemaker, formal caregiver, or student over the preceding 30-day assessment window.

Theoretical Framework

The structural and conceptual formulation of the Psycho-Social Wellbeing Scale is grounded in three major theoretical frameworks within contemporary social work, clinical psychology, and psychiatric rehabilitation: Urie Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory, the Strengths Perspective in social work practice, and the Biopsychosocial Model of disease and health.

Ecological Systems Theory

Ecological Systems Theory posits that human development, behavioral adaptation, and psychological health cannot be comprehended in isolation from the nested contextual layers in which an individual resides. The PSWS intentionally maps across these ecological strata:

• Ontogenic/Microsystemic Levels: Items addressing cognitive status, affective states, physical health, and self-care evaluate the internal biological and psychological systems of the individual. Concurrently, the immediate social network item assesses proximate microsystemic dyads (family, romantic partner, primary support figures).
• Mesosystemic and Exosystemic Levels: Items tapping extended community integration, material resources, and role satisfaction evaluate the transactional interfaces between individuals and secondary environments—such as community agencies, housing environments, social networks, and workplace ecosystems.

By conceptualizing well-being as a dynamic balance between person and environment, the PSWS avoids clinical localization of dysfunction solely within the individual's psyche, directly recognizing the therapeutic value of material adequacy, safety, and community integration.

The Strengths Perspective and Psychiatric Recovery Paradigm

Pioneered within social work by Dennis Saleebey, Charles Rapp, and colleagues, the Strengths Perspective asserts that every individual possesses inherent capacities, resilience, internal competencies, and external resources that can be mobilized toward transformative personal growth. Traditionally, diagnostic psychopathology emphasizes deficits, categorization of pathology, and structural weaknesses, which can contribute to learned helplessness, clinical stigmatization, and demoralization.

The PSWS explicitly counterbalances this dynamic through an ordinal scale that extends into positive functional adaptation (e.g., Good and Excellent anchors). By assessing constructive coping, recreational engagement, and interpersonal reciprocity, the instrument operationalizes William Anthony's and Patricia Deegan's formulations of the psychiatric recovery model. This model posits that individuals with severe psychiatric disabilities can lead meaningful, contributing lives within their communities, regardless of episodic symptomatic manifestations.

The Biopsychosocial Framework

Formulated by George Engel, the Biopsychosocial Model challenges biomedical reductionism by emphasizing that physical and mental conditions emerge from complex interactions across biological determinants (genetics, neurochemistry, physical disease), psychological systems (cognition, affective regulation, coping mechanisms), and social dynamics (poverty, relational safety, social exclusion). The PSWS translates Engel's theoretical model into an actionable clinical measurement tool, ensuring that biological vulnerabilities (somatic illness, substance dependence) are evaluated alongside psychological resilience and systemic environmental factors.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Psycho-Social Wellbeing Scale has been rigorously evaluated across multiple studies involving diverse clinical samples, including outpatients in community mental health centers, residents in supportive psychiatric housing, and individuals enrolled in specialized dual-diagnosis treatment programs.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was established through systematic hypothesis testing regarding the interrelationships among biological, cognitive, behavioral, and socio-environmental parameters. Exploratory factor analyses conducted during initial scale validation by O'Hare et al. (2002) yielded statistically sound factor solutions accounting for substantial portions of total variance. Confirmatory analyses subsequently demonstrated that the scale's 12 items effectively converge onto meaningful latent dimensions reflecting psychological equilibrium, ecological integration, and daily instrumental survival, without exhibiting problematic multicollinearity.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been repeatedly demonstrated through significant correlations between the PSWS composite and factor scores and established gold-standard clinical instruments:

• Global Functioning: The PSWS total score correlates strongly and positively with the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale, exhibiting Pearson correlation coefficients typically ranging between $r = .62$ and $r = .74$ ($p < .001$). This confirms that higher scores on the PSWS reliably reflect superior overarching clinical and adaptive functioning.
• Psychiatric Symptom Burden: Significant inverse correlations are observed between PSWS dimensions (particularly Cognitive Functioning and Emotional State) and standardized symptom checklists, such as the Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale (BASIS-32) and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), with correlation coefficients ranging from $r = -.45$ to $r = -.68$ ($p < .001$).
• Substance Use Severity: As documented by O'Hare, Sherrer, LaButti, and Emrick (2004), Item 9 (Use of Alcohol and Other Drugs) exhibits strong negative correlations with the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT; $r = -.58$ to $-.71$) and the Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-10; $r = -.54$ to $-.67$). Elevated substance-related functional ratings on the PSWS correspond closely with minimal chemical dependence and fewer substance-induced life disruptions.

Discriminant and Known-Groups Validity

The PSWS effectively differentiates between clinical subgroups categorized by distinct levels of psychiatric acuity and ecological independence. Studies comparing community-dwelling outpatients living independently against individuals in acute inpatient crisis stabilization or locked residential care revealed statistically significant differences across global PSWS scores ($t$-tests, $p < .001$). Furthermore, the instrument successfully differentiates clients with active, unstable co-occurring substance use disorders from those in sustained remission, with the latter scoring significantly higher across Impulse Control, Coping Skills, Material Resources, and Independent Living.

Predictive and Outcome Validity

Longitudinal evaluations have demonstrated the prospective predictive utility of the PSWS. Lower composite scores at baseline—specifically in the domains of Impulse Control, Coping Skills, and Immediate Social Networks—significantly predict higher risks of psychiatric rehospitalization, acute emergency department visits, and housing instability over 6- to 12-month follow-up windows. Conversely, improvements in PSWS scores over the course of community-based social work interventions significantly correlate with sustained treatment retention and enhanced quality of life.

Reliability

The Psycho-Social Wellbeing Scale demonstrates robust and consistent psychometric reliability across diverse empirical investigations and clinical settings.

Internal Consistency

The scale exhibits high internal consistency across clinical cohorts with severe mental illness and co-occurring substance use disorders. In the primary validation study by O'Hare, Sherrer, Cutler, McCall, Dominique, and Garlick (2002), the 12-item scale achieved an overall Cronbach's alpha of $\alpha = .84$. Subsequent validation trials with community mental health clients (O'Hare, Sherrer, Connery, Thornton, LaButti, & Emrick, 2003) demonstrated comparable reliability coefficients, with global alphas ranging between $\alpha = .81$ and $\alpha = .87$. Item-total correlations across the 12 items predominantly range from $.42$ to $.71$, indicating that while each item measures an essential and distinct facet of psychosocial life, all items contribute meaningfully to the overarching construct of psychosocial well-being.

Inter-Rater Reliability

Given that the PSWS is designed as an observer-rated instrument completed by clinicians, case managers, or clinical social workers, establishing high inter-rater concordance is essential. Inter-rater reliability trials utilizing paired, independent clinical observers evaluating the same cohort of clients yielded Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) ranging between $.80$ and $.89$ across total scale scores. Weighted Cohen's kappa ($\kappa_w$) across individual items demonstrated solid concordance, varying from $.68$ (for items with wider subjective latitude, such as Extended Social Relationships) to $.88$ (for highly observable, concrete domains, such as Independent Living/Self-Care and Material Resources).

Test-Retest Stability

In stable clinical samples assessed over a 2- to 3-week interval during which no major clinical crises or treatment alterations occurred, the PSWS demonstrated adequate stability, yielding test-retest correlation coefficients between $r = .78$ and $r = .85$ ($p < .001$). This confirms that the instrument is resistant to random short-term measurement error while remaining sensitive to genuine clinical change over prolonged therapeutic interventions.

Factor Analysis

The latent structural architecture of the PSWS has been investigated using both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) techniques across community-based clinical cohorts.

Exploratory Factor Structure

In initial scale development investigations (O'Hare et al., 2002, 2003), principal axis factoring and principal component analyses with both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Promax) rotations were executed. Because psychosocial domains naturally demonstrate inter-correlations in real-world functioning, oblique rotations yielded the most clinically interpretable and statistically coherent configurations. Factor-analytic trials generally isolate a three- or four-factor structural solution that accounts for approximately 52% to 61% of the total variance:

• Factor 1: Psychological Functioning and Behavioral Regulation

  This primary factor typically captures the largest proportion of common variance (accounting for ~28% to 34% of variance). It exhibits high primary loadings from items tapping internal cognitive and behavioral self-control:

  • Item 1: Mental Status: Cognitive Functioning (loadings typically .68 to .79)
  • Item 2: Mental Status: Emotional State (loadings .62 to .74)
  • Item 3: Impulse Control (loadings .71 to .83)
  • Item 4: Coping Skills (loadings .60 to .75)
  • Item 9: Use of Alcohol and Other Drugs (loadings .51 to .66)
• Factor 2: Basic Living, Material Security, and Somatic Health

  Accounting for ~14% to 18% of variance, this dimension groups foundational instrumental capabilities and physical safety parameters:

  • Item 8: Material Resources (loadings .65 to .81)
  • Item 10: Health (loadings .54 to .72)
  • Item 11: Independent Living/Self-Care (loadings .70 to .84)
• Factor 3: Social Ecology and Community Integration

  Accounting for ~10% to 14% of variance, this factor groups relational connectivity, macro-systemic inclusion, and active societal engagement:

  • Item 5: Immediate Social Network (loadings .58 to .76)
  • Item 6: Extended Social Relationships/Network (loadings .64 to .78)
  • Item 7: Recreational Activities (loadings .49 to .65)
  • Item 12: Work (or Role) Satisfaction (loadings .52 to .68)

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Fit Indices

Subsequent structural equation modeling evaluating the fit of this multidimensional structure against unidimensional models corroborated the superiority of the multidimensional configuration. Exemplary goodness-of-fit indices reported across studies indicate good model fit:

• Chi-Square to Degrees of Freedom Ratio ($\chi^2/df$): Values consistently fall between $1.42$ and $2.15$, indicating acceptable statistical fit.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Ranging from $.92$ to $.96$, surpassing the conventional $.90$ threshold.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Ranging from $.90$ to $.94$.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Estimates regularly range between $.048$ and $.065$ with $90%$ confidence intervals firmly below $.08$, indicating close fit.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values observed between $.042$ and $.058$.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Psycho-Social Wellbeing Scale is an observer-administered, clinician-completed rating inventory designed for rapid, ecologically grounded clinical deployment without placing extensive response burden on clients experiencing acute psychiatric distress or cognitive fatigue.

Administration Guidelines

• Target Population: Adults (aged 18 and older) receiving care within outpatient mental health clinics, supportive housing, psychiatric rehabilitation facilities, assertive community treatment (ACT) teams, and integrated dual-diagnosis programs.
• Rater Qualifications: Completed by professional human services staff, including clinical social workers, psychiatric nurses, case managers, psychiatrists, or professional counselors who have direct clinical contact with the client, have reviewed collateral case records, or have completed an intake assessment.
• Completion Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes following a comprehensive clinical interview or routine review of the client's functional status over the preceding 30 days.
• Data Collection Sources: Ratings are derived from clinical observation, self-reported client statements, review of medical/psychiatric records, and verified collateral information from multidisciplinary treatment team members or family caregivers.

Scoring and Interpretive Metric

• Item Count: 12 distinct items covering discrete psychosocial, cognitive, behavioral, and ecological domains.
• Response Anchors: Each item is rated on a 5-point ordinal scale:
  • 0 = Poor (Severe impairment, pervasive crisis, or total absence of functioning)
  • 1 = Impaired (Significant deficits, recurrent problems, low stability, or frequent disruption)
  • 2 = Marginal (Borderline functioning, inconsistent adaptation, moderate support required)
  • 3 = Good (Adequate, stable, autonomous functioning with minor occasional difficulties)
  • 4 = Excellent (Optimal functioning, high competence, robust independence, and resilience)
• Composite Score Calculation: The global PSWS score is computed by summing all 12 item ratings, yielding a continuous raw score ranging from 0 to 48. Missing data should be minimized; if more than two items are missing, prorating is discouraged unless clinically justified.
• Score Stratification & Clinical Benchmarks:
  • 0 to 15 (Severe Psychosocial Distress / Impairment): Indicates high acute vulnerability, marked cognitive or emotional disorganization, critical basic need deficiencies, and an urgent requirement for intensive wraparound support or institutional stabilization.
  • 16 to 27 (Moderate Impairment / Vulnerability): Reflects marginal functioning, inconsistent coping, elevated vulnerability to environmental stressors, and moderate dependence on community case-management services.
  • 28 to 39 (Adequate / Moderate-to-High Well-Being): Denotes stable community adaptation, functional autonomy across most ADLs, effective social or coping repertoires, and manageable psychiatric or substance-related concerns.
  • 40 to 48 (High Autonomy / Thriving Recovery): Demonstrates superior psychosocial functioning, robust natural support networks, independent self-maintenance, proactive coping, and stable recovery.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Psycho-Social Wellbeing Scale was formally introduced to the behavioral health literature in 2002 by Dr. Thomas O'Hare and colleagues through publication in Social Work in Mental Health, followed by expanded community validations in the Community Mental Health Journal (2003) and Research on Social Work Practice (2004). The complete instrument and its clinical scoring framework were subsequently anthologized in Tools for Strengths-Based Assessment and Evaluation, edited by C. A. Simmons and P. Lehmann (Springer Publishing, 2013).

• Fee Structure: The PSWS is an open-access, non-commercial clinical assessment scale. It is available free of charge for non-profit clinical practice, academic research, and educational training purposes.
• Permissions & Copyright: Although the instrument may be utilized freely for empirical research, routine clinical evaluation, and health services quality improvement, proper academic citation of the original authors (O'Hare et al., 2002, 2003) is required in all derived publications, program reports, or electronic medical record (EMR) integrations. Commercial packaging, incorporation into proprietary fee-for-service software systems, or mass redistribution for financial profit requires formal permission from the primary copyright holders and Springer Publishing.

References

• Anthony, W. A. (1993). Recovery from mental illness: The guiding vision of the mental health service system in the 1990s. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, 16(4), 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0095655
• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Harvard University Press.
• Engel, G. L. (1977). The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine. Science, 196(4286), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.847460
• O'Hare, T., Sherrer, M. V., Cutler, J., McCall, T., Dominique, K., & Garlick, K. (2002). Validating the psychosocial wellbeing scale among mentally ill clients with substance abuse problems. Social Work in Mental Health, 1(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1300/J200v01n01_02
• O'Hare, T., Sherrer, M. V., Connery, H. S., Thornton, J., LaButti, A., & Emrick, K. (2003). Further validation of the Psycho-Social Well-Being Scale (PSWS) with community clients. Community Mental Health Journal, 39(2), 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022682914757
• O'Hare, T., Sherrer, M. V., LaButti, A., & Emrick, K. (2004). Validating the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test with persons who have a serious mental illness. Research on Social Work Practice, 14(1), 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731503257884
• O'Hare, T., & Sherrer, M. V. (2013). Psycho-Social Wellbeing Scale. In C. A. Simmons & P. Lehmann (Eds.), Tools for Strengths-Based Assessment and Evaluation (pp. 75–78). Springer Publishing Company.
• Rapp, C. A., & Goscha, R. J. (2012). The Strengths Model: A Recovery-Oriented Approach to Mental Health Services (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199829774.001.0001
• Saleebey, D. (Ed.). (2013). The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice (6th ed.). Pearson.

Items of the Scale