Implications of item wording for hardiness structure, relation with neuroticism, and stress buffering.

By Rob Sinclair, Lois E. Tetrick. 2000

120 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry and Mental health

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/725c7b4a5d0609e64b1ef8f222b2e3c45aa0911b

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. Dennis R. Kelly
2. M. Matthews
3. Brandilynn J. Villarreal
4. Marina L. White
5. Paul T. Bartone
6. S. Maddi
7. L. Veselka
8. J. Schermer

In Psychiatry and Mental health

1. Richard Harvey
2. Paul T. Bartone
3. Deborah M. Khoshaba
4. S. Maddi

Citations in the corpus

• A behavioural genetic study of mental toughness and personality (2009, background): “Although reduced models (for example, AE, CE, and E only) can also be fit, Sullivan and Eaves (2002) strongly argue that in analyses based on discrete traits, estimates from the full ACEmodel will be more accurate, and that attempts at reporting reduced models result in oversimplification of the mod”
• Hardiness: An Operationalization of Existential Courage (2004, background): “Also, in a study emphasizing item wording, Sinclair and Tetrick (2000) found evidence in a current hardiness measure for the theorizing mentioned earlier that hardiness is hierarchically structured with three attitudinal subdimensions nested under a second-order factor.”
• The Role of Hardiness and Grit in Predicting Performance and Retention of USMA Cadets (2012, background): “It has also been found (e.g., Sinclair & Tetrick, 2000) that factor analysis of the hardiness test items yields the three empirically related first-order factors of commitment, control, and challenge, and that these factors are positively related to the second-order factor of hardiness.”
• Psychological Hardiness Predicts Success in US Army Special Forces Candidates (2008, unknown): “Support for the theoretical structure of hardiness was found by Sinclair & Tetrick (2000) who, using the DRS to hardiness, confirmed a three-factor structure of commitment, control and challenge, nested under a more general hardiness construct.”
• Relevance of Hardiness Assessment and Training to the Military Context (2007, background): “Further, the 3Cs seem best understood as nested under a higher order hardiness factor (Maddi, Harvey, Khoshaba, et al., 2006; Sinclair & Tetrick, 2000 ), as has been hypothesized.”
• Resilience Under Military Operational Stress: Can Leaders Influence Hardiness? (2006, methodology): “Also using the DRS hardiness measure, Sinclair and Tetrick (2000) found that hardiness operates independently of neuroticism (Funk & Houston, 1987), and that the theoretical structure of three facets (commitment, control, and challenge) nested beneath a superordinate hardiness construct is support”
• Hardiness: The courage to grow from stresses (2006, background): “Further, the 3Cs seem best understood as nested under a higher order factor (Maddi, Harvey, Khoshaba, Lu, Persico, & Brow, 2005 ; Sinclair & Tetrick, 2000 ), as is expected in the conceptualization of hardiness as existential courage.”
• Hardiness training facilitates performance in college (2009, methodology): “Later hardiness attitudes measures, including the one used in the present study, seem to have corrected this measurement problem (e.g., Maddi, 1997; Sinclair & Tetrick, 2000).”
• A meta-analytic examination of hardiness. (2010, background): “In addition, despite the similarity between hardiness and neuroticism measures, hardiness explains unique variance in health outcomes after controlling for neuroticism (Sinclair & Tetrick, 2000).”