The mark in the interest are the necessity for a get older-appropriate aspect out-of resilience right for adolescents and you will young adults

The mark in the interest are the necessity for a get older-appropriate aspect out-of resilience right for adolescents and you will young adults

Brief Version RS-fourteen

While looking for a helpful and appropriate device, just needed for additional communities but also where in actuality the suggested factor structure might be verified, one or two big requirements had been into the focus. “The fresh new RS-fourteen demonstrates brand new brevity, readability, and easy scoring that have been identified as essential features when selecting tool to be used with adolescents” (Pritzker and you can Minter, 2014, p. 332). The newest RS-14 “will render information on the brand new trend and you can reputation regarding resilience making use of an available everywhere measure of resilience which often tend to allow evaluations that have past and you can future lookup,” and this “will give help research it is an effective psychometrically sound level to evaluate personal resilience when you look at the age range from kids and you will young adults” (Wagnild, 2009a; Pritzker and Minter, 2014).

Additionally, Yang ainsi que al

Looking for a great deal more financial type of your Resilience Scale, coming down conclusion time, and you may design a great deal more especially for use which have young people, Wagnild (2009a) altered the fresh RS-25 to14 issues. The brand new short term “RS-fourteen scale includes 14 worry about-declaration activities measured with each other an excellent eight-section get level ranging from ‘1-highly disagree’ to ‘7-firmly consent.’ Large score are indicative of resilience peak. According to the writers, scores try calculated from the a summation regarding effect opinions each items, therefore helping score so you can start around fourteen in order to 98.” Scores below 65 imply lower resilience; anywhere between 65 and 81 reveal reasonable resilience; significantly more than 81 might possibly be translated because large quantities of strength (Wagnild and you will Younger, 1993; Wagnild, 2009b, 2014).

Using principal components analyses supported a single-factor solution; remaining in the RS-14 scale were those items with all item factor loadings >0.40. Reported psychometric properties of the RS-14 have demonstrated sound psychometric properties comparable to those of the RS-25: evidence of a one-factor structure was found and high reliability (coefficient Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90 and greater 0.96) and a strong correlation with the full version (r = 0.97, p = 0.001) were obtained (Wagnild, 2014). The overall factorability of the RS-14 demonstrated a robust one-factor measure of resilience, which has been replicated and has been confirmed in different studies and in the adaptations of this version for different countries (Wagnild, 2014). For instance: German ? = 0.91 (Schumacher et al., 2005); Portugal ? = 0.82 (Oliveira et al., 2015); Finland ? = 0.87 (Losoi et al., 2013); Japan ? = 0.88 (Nishi et al., 2010); China ? = 0.92 (Tian and Hong, 2013); Korean ? = 0.90 (Kwon and Kwon, 2014); Spain ? = 0.79 (Heilemann et al., 2003); Italian ? = 0.88 (Callegari et al., 2016); and Greek ? = 0.89 (Ntountoulaki et al., 2017). (2012) “examined the measurement invariance of the RS?14 in samples of U.S., Chinese, and Taiwanese college students and supported a one-factor model that demonstrated scalar invariance across cultures” (Yang et al., 2012). The short version RS-14 has been tested regarding its structure and it was found that results are not always totally consistent. Some discrepancies exist between findings of different studies; for instance the Brazilian version with 13 items (Damasio et al., 2011) or 12 items in the Portuguese adaptation for adolescents (Oliveira et al., 2015), and in the German Version 11 items (Schumacher et al., 2005). These discrepancies can eventually result from sampling issues: some studies used participants from very different developmental phases (Damasio et al., 2011), and others used participants <13 years old, an option that is not appropriate given that the authors of the RS advise against the use of the scale with participants from earlier ages (Wagnild, 2009b; Pritzker and Minter, 2014).

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top

book a free consultation

Fill out the form below, and we will be in touch shortly.
Enter your official email address
Enter your phone number