A methodological review of resilience measurement scales

By G. Windle, Kate Bennett, J. Noyes. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2011

2,081 citations recorded by the source corpus.

BackgroundThe evaluation of interventions and policies designed to promote resilience, and research to understand the determinants and associations, require reliable and valid measures to ensure data quality. This paper systematically reviews the psychometric rigour of resilience measurement scales developed for use in general and clinical populations.MethodsEight electronic abstract databases and the internet were searched and reference lists of all identified papers were hand searched. The focus was to identify peer reviewed journal articles where resilience was a key focus and/or is assessed. Two authors independently extracted data and performed a quality assessment of the scale psychometric properties.ResultsNineteen resilience measures were reviewed; four of these were refinements of the original measure. All the measures had some missing information regarding the psychometric properties. Overall, the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, the Resilience Scale for Adults and the Brief Resilience Scale received the best psychometric ratings. The conceptual and theoretical adequacy of a number of the scales was questionable.ConclusionWe found no current 'gold standard' amongst 15 measures of resilience. A number of the scales are in the early stages of development, and all require further validation work. Given increasing interest in resilience from major international funders, key policy makers and practice, researchers are urged to report relevant validation statistics when using the measures.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0d058fdc5f3acd2f1e5a98cbd5d98a20bdeb6880

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

1. D. Fletcher
2. Mustafa Sarkar
3. Stephen P. Gonzalez
4. N. Galli
5. L. Liebenberg
6. F. Vijver
7. M. Ungar
8. E. Moore

Citations in the corpus

• The resilience framework as a strategy to combat stress-related disorders (2017, neutral): “Indeed, none of the current resilience questionnaires has been empirically validated as a good predictor of positive mental health outcomes following adversity in prospective studies 30 .”
• Validity and Reliability of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) in Competitive Sport (2016, methodology): “Regarding limitations of the CD-RISC as a measure, the CD-RISC solely focuses on resilient qualities at the individual level, has limited evidence for the selection and inclusion of some of the items, was developed and utilized in clinical settings, and has considerable conceptual overlap with copin”
• Psychometric Evidence of the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) and Modeling Distinctiveness of Resilience from Depression and Stress (2018, methodology): “Windle et al. (2011) reported over 19 scales in their comparative review and Salisu & Hashim (2017) as many as 25.”
• A scoping review of the development resilience literature: Theory, methods and evidence (2021, background): “Several exist in the psychology literature that address questions specifically related to the psychological resilience of children (e.g., Luthar et al. 2000; Windle et al. 2011) or reviewing the literature related to different types of shocks or stressors and/or in specific contexts (Tol et al.”
• Validation of the Child and Youth Resilience Measure-28 (CYRM-28) Among Canadian Youth (2012, background): “Despite theoretical advances to our understanding the construct of resilience, validated assessments that will allow for rigorous review of resilience processes are still not well developed (Masten, 2007; Windle et al., 2011).”