Method: The brief resilience scale BRS was created to assess the ability to bounce back or recover from stress. Its psychometric characteristics were examined in four samples, including two student samples and samples with cardiac and chronic pain patients. Results: The BRS was reliable and measured as a unitary construct. It was predictably related to personal characteristics, social relations, coping, and health in all samples. It was negatively related to anxiety, depression, negative affect, and physical symptoms when other resilience measures and optimism, social support, and Type D personality high negative affect and high social inhibition were controlled.
There were large differences in BRS scores between cardiac patients with and without Type D and women with and without fibromyalgia.
Conclusion: The BRS is a reliable means of assessing resilience as the ability to bounce back or recover from stress and may provide unique and important information about people coping with health-related stressors. While recognizing that words evolve in meaning over time, the ability to bounce back or recover from stress may be important to assess and study in its own right.
In All of the authors Bruce W. The authors gratefully acknowledge Dr. Richard D. Lueker and In distinguishing between the other meanings as- the staff of New Heart, Inc. We also gratefully acknowledge Dr. Paul Mullins, Dr. Wilmer Sibbitt, and Erica Montague for their help and support in stress, and functioning above the norm in spite of stress.
Smith, Ph. Our hypotheses were that the Even though several meanings have been associated BRS would represent one factor, would be related to with resilience, it is striking that measures of resilience resilience resources and health-related outcomes, and have not directly targeted them. Ahern et al. Sample 2 Rather than specifically assessing resilience as the consisted of 64 undergraduate students. Sample 3 ability to bounce back, resist illness, adapt to stress, consisted of cardiac rehabilitation patients.
All four samples were recruited from a medium- ing styles. For example, the Resilience Scale Wagnild sized metropolitan area in the southwestern U. The questionnaires for each In understanding people faced with health prob- sample were not identical but measured many of the lems, it is undoubtedly important to identify the char- same constructs. These questionnaires assessed a range acteristics or factors that may promote resilience, such of resilience-related constructs, other personal charac- as optimism, active coping, and social support.
While teristics, coping styles, social relationships, and health- measures have been developed to assess these char- related outcomes. Items 1, 3, and 5 are pos- itively worded, and items 2, 4, and 6 are negatively The Current Studies worded. The BRS is scored by reverse coding items The authors developed a brief resilience scale to 2, 4, and 6 and finding the mean of the six items. We selected the final items from a list of potential items based on the feedback of re- Other Measures search team members and piloting with undergraduate students.
We included an equal number of positive and 1. Resilience-Related Constructs negatively worded items to reduce the effects of social desirability and positive response bias. The CD-RISC was de- termine whether it is reliable and demonstrates conver- signed to assess the personal characteristics that em- gent and predictive discriminate validity. We expected body resilience.
Table 1. I tend to bounce back quickly after hard times. I have a hard time making it through stressful events R. It does not take me long to recover from a stressful event.
It is hard for me to snap back when something bad happens R. I usually come through difficult times with little trouble. I tend to take a long time to get over set-backs in my life R. Social Relationships Sample 1.
It was included in Samples 1 and of ego-control after the temporary, accommodation- 2. This consists of 20 items assessing 14 items responded to on a 4-point scale and was in- social support using a 5-point scale. An 8-item short cluded in Sample 1. The LOT-R included three items to assess negative social interactions. These items items assessing optimism and three items assessing were included in Samples 1, 2, and 4.
The items are responded to on a 5-point scale. The optimism items were in all samples and the pessimism items were in Samples, 1, 2, and 4. This assesses Brief Health-Related Measures. The cluded one 7-point item assessing the number of ex- items are scored on a 6-point scale. The 9-item version ercise days per week. Samples 3 and 4 included a was in Samples 1 and 4 and the 3-item version was in point item measuring fatigue. Sample 4 included three Sample 3. The TAS was designed to assess dex of pain.
There are 7 items each to 1 and 4. The a 4-point scale. Type D is a and 4. This inhibition and has been related to poor cardiac prog- consists of 9 items to assess anxiety and 9 items to nosis Denollet, Fourteen items are scored on a assess depression.
The items are scored on 5- or 6-point 5-point scale. Seven items assess negative affectivity scales. These items were included in Samples 1 and 2. Six items were included to assess negative affect and six items were included to assess positive affect. They 3. All of the items Finney, This measure includes 12 items to as- were included in Samples 1 and 4, and items for se- sess physical symptoms such as headaches and consti- lected strategies were included in Samples 2 and 3. It was included in Samples 1, 3, and 4.
The BRS was given twice in Mermelstein, The items are scored on a 4- for one month in 48 participants from Sample 2 and point scale. The PSS was included in all four samples. It was Table 3 shows the zero-order correlations between scored on a 5-point scale and included in Samples 1, the BRS and personal characteristics, social relations, 2, and 4.
The BRS was positively correlated with the resilience measures, Statistical Analyses optimism, and purpose in life, and negatively correlated The primary analyses assessed the factor structure, with pessimism and alexithymia. In addition, it was reliability, and validity of the BRS.
The factor struc- positively correlated with social support and negatively ture was examined by principal components analyses correlated with negative interactions.
With regard to health-related outcomes, the BRS Convergent validity was assessed by zero-order corre- was consistently negatively correlated with perceived lations between the BRS and the other measures. Dis- stress, anxiety, depression, negative affect, and physi- criminant predictive validity was assessed by partial cal symptoms. In addition, it was positively correlated correlations, with health-related outcomes controlling with positive affect in three of the four samples and for other predictors.
In addition, we compared mean with exercise days per week in the cardiac rehabilita- BRS scores across samples and subgroups using inde- tion sample.
It was negatively correlated with fatigue pendent samples t-tests. Results Discriminant Predictive Validity Table 2 displays the descriptive statistics for age, We examined discriminant predictive validity in the gender, and the BRS for each sample. Samples 1 and two larger samples. Table 4 shows the zero-order and 2 were young and primarily female. Sample 4 was middle- RISC, ego resiliency, and the health outcomes in the aged and all female. The mean BRS scores ranged from first undergraduate sample.
The zero-order correlations 3. The results for each sam- sures. The loadings ranged from. The ego resiliency scale was still posi- alpha ranging from. Table 5 shows the zero-order and partial correlations between the BRS, optimism, social support, and Type Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for the Four Samples D and the health outcomes in the cardiac sample.
The Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 zero-order correlations revealed that the BRS was cor- related with all seven outcomes and that optimism, so- Sample size 64 50 cial support, and Type D were correlated with five out- Age years Standard deviations are listed in parentheses. Ad- Luthar et al. On the other hand, some theoretically founded and rely on empirical findings studies report that resilience is a learnable personality Nancy et al.
Some definitions of resilience are trait Beardslee and Podorefsky In this regard, based on personal Rutter or family characteristics resilience becomes a feature consisting of a learned and Hawley and DeHaan , whereas others are based perceived developmental process with coming up against on the processes and mechanisms involved in resilience the facts Masten et al.
Wolin and Wolin, , In general, resilience refers to specific situations associated with significant risk of psy- Although many studies have examined the concept chological distress. Nevertheless, it also describes a posi- of resilience from different points of view, most are not TABLE 1. Resilience scale studies in the literature. Test-retest corre- 0.
Validity Content validity and Convergent Construct validity Construct validity Content validity Content validity construct validity validity was was established. Instrument The scale can be use- Tested in the Good construct Results support Easy to use and Tested in different advantages ful for educators and general popula- and the construct has sufficient in- sample groups, counselors.
Presence tion and in clinical discriminant of adolescent ternal consistency and obtained of reverse scored samples. Good validity. Instrument Other factors that Assesses char- Findings need to Findings need to Low reliability Further piloting disadvantages can affect resilience acteristics of be confirmed in be confirmed in values. Lack of de- of item wording is are not measured.
Lack validity need further process. Lack of descrip- and detailed the administra- tions of the scoring tion procedure administration procedure. In this respect, resil- It can be seen that resilience, regarding one of the ience can be considered the protective factors, processes, miracles as creativity or belief instinct of human nature, and mechanisms that contribute to positive outcomes has a multi-dimensional and dynamic nature, which Masten and Reed The models proposed for ex- associated with resilience Haase These factors plaining the construct of resilience are also environmen- constitute 3 higher order categories: a individual dis- tally oriented.
It is necessary to consider environmental positional attributes, b family support and cohesion, factors to understand personal experience and develop- and c external support systems. Individual characteris- ment, because development occurs within an environ- tics include psychic robustness, sociability, intelligence, ment. Research on Measuring all aspects of resilience in consideration family characteristics shows that at least one parent or of environmental factors is important for two reasons.
First, it may show which factors are most critical for re- ; Hawley and DeHaan In addi- take difficult jobs, by identifying those with the ability tion, it is critical to have someone outside the family that to tolerate stress and negative emotions in an organiza- is available during times of trouble, and to have hobbies tional context.
In addition, there are an insufficient oped frameworks for measuring the complex structure of number of studies, and adaptation and scale development resilience. The aim of the present study was portive environments, fewer stressors, and compensating to rename the resilience term with a common percep- experiences Baruth and Carroll The Connor- tion, and to determine the reliability and validity of the Davidson Resilience Scale assesses successful stress cop- Resilience Scale for Adults-Turkish Version.
The Resilience Scale for Adults measures the pro- a. Translation study tective resources that promote resilience, and identifies the main protective factors involved in regaining and The term resilience is translated in the Turkish litera- maintaining mental health Friborg et al. A pre- tive future orientation Oshio et al. The Brief- study was conducted that aimed to reduce the variety Resilient Coping Scale measures the tendency to success- of these terms and arrive at a more accurate translation fully adapt to and cope with stress.
The purpose of this by consulting university psychiatry and psychology fac- scale is identifying strong coping behaviors Sinclair and ulty members. A survey was prepared and sent to faculty Wallston Table 1 summarizes literature. The survey contained the following Turkish the psychometric properties of the scales, such as scaling, translations of the term based on the results of transla- validity, and reliability, and other data.
The personal strength dimension was split translations on a 7-point Likert-type scale. The par- into to perception of self and perception of future sub- ticipants included 23 faculty professors and associate dimensions, resulting in a 6 sub-dimensions structure.
This by 7 items. The scale uses a 5-point semantic differen- translation method includes 5 steps: a first translation, tial scale format, in which each item has 2 opposite at- assessment of the first translation, back translation, as- tributes at each end of the scale continuum. The positive sessment of the back translation, and expert view. Firstly, and negative attributes were distributed to both sides, so 2 English Language and Literature faculty members, as to reduce acquiescence bias.
Then, 6 experts examined the Turkish Confirmative factor analysis was conducted to deter- scale, in terms of understandability, word structure, mine the validity of the scale, which showed that the and cultural appropriateness.
The Intelligence Scale Silvera et al. The internal consistency of the structural equation were made. Main study for the family cohesion, and 0. It was used to test study for the purpose of confirming the findings of one the criterion-dependent validity of the Resilience Scale another, and enhancing the generalizability of the find- for Adults-Turkish Version.
It measures the state of the ings. The student sample included university stu- internality or externality of generalized control expecta- dents female, male studying at 3 different uni- tions.
Higher scores indicate stronger belief in an exter- versities in Ankara. The employee sample included nal locus of control. It Resilience Scale for Adults measures the perceptions of self when comparing him or Friborg et al. It was also used to test the criterion- cludes 5 sub-dimensions personal strength, structural dependent validity of the Resilience Scale for Adults- style, social competence, family cohesion, and so- Turkish Version.
Higher scores indicate more positive cial resources. Their subsequent study Friborg et al. Internal consistency the scale was reported as 0. The item-total coefficients ranged from 0. Confirmative factor analysis was conducted for the Validity Findings structure validity of the scale.
The Social Comparison a. Factor analysis Scale and the Locus of Control Scale were used to deter- mine the criterion validity of the scale. The factor structure of the Resilience Scale for Adults varied between 5 Fribog et al. Confirmative factor analysis was conducted to The mean Resilience Scale for Adults-Turkish Ver- determine the validity of both structures of the scale us- sion sub-dimension scores in the employee sample was ing Amos v. Figure 1 shows the results of the factor higher than those in the student sample Table 2.
Our analysis of the scale with 5 dimensions, after the percep- analysis shows that the employees were more resilient tion of self and perception of future dimensions were than the students and the difference between 5 of the combined to form the personal strength dimension.
Test-retest reliability the comparative fit index CFI was 0. On the other hand, the results of factor analysis of the scale with 6 The students were used to determine the test- dimensions Figure 2 show that the ratio of chi-square retest reliability of the scale. A model is considered to perception of future, 0. Explanatory statistics for the samples. Item-total correlations. Criterion validity R4.
These R9. The results of our correlation analysis show R Moreover, there was a negative correlation R TABLE 4. Correlations between the scales. Both the psychometric properties of the Resilience Scale for the student and employee samples demonstrated the Adults-Turkish Version. The results of our liability is similar to that which was previously reported explanatory analysis show that mean resilience in the Friborg et al.
In this regard, a positive self implies an in both samples. The internal consistency of the entire increase in the resilience. The results show that Locus of Control Scale 0. Ultimately, together with the reliability results of of self, perception of future, and structural style dimen- the previous studies, the internal consistency of the scale sions of the Resilience Scale for Adults-Turkish Version was established for the selected samples Friborg et al.
Moreover, there were significant nega- , Con- the Resilience Scale for Adults-Turkish Version only in firmative factor analysis was performed for the 5- and the employee sample. The results of the analysis show that the fit in- Version family cohesion dimension and the Locus of dices of the 5-dimensions version of the scale were lower Control Scale.
0コメント