14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Validity of the Brief Resilience Scale and Brief Resilient Coping Scale in a Chinese Sample

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This study presents a cross-cultural examination of the psychometric properties of two commonly used brief self-report resilience scales, the 6-item Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) and the 4-item Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS). Five hundred and eleven Chinese university undergraduate students were recruited for this cross-sectional research. Various psychometric evaluation tools were used to evaluate the internal consistency, criterion validity, factorial validity and construct validity of these resilience scales. The results showed that both scales had good criterion validity, with well-established measures of well-being, optimism, self-esteem, self-efficacy and mental health, as suggested in the resilience literature. The BRS ( a = 0.71) showed better internal consistency than the BRCS ( a = 0.59). The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results also indicated that the BRS, with a two-factor structure, had better construct validity than the BRCS. The CFA results for the BRS met all of the criteria for a good model fit. The BRS was found to have better psychometric properties than the BRCS in the Chinese context. The findings will help researchers to select an appropriate resilience measure when conducting epistemological surveys of Chinese university students or the Chinese diaspora in other contexts.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests

          Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Development of a new resilience scale: the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC).

            Resilience may be viewed as a measure of stress coping ability and, as such, could be an important target of treatment in anxiety, depression, and stress reactions. We describe a new rating scale to assess resilience. The Connor-Davidson Resilience scale (CD-RISC) comprises of 25 items, each rated on a 5-point scale (0-4), with higher scores reflecting greater resilience. The scale was administered to subjects in the following groups: community sample, primary care outpatients, general psychiatric outpatients, clinical trial of generalized anxiety disorder, and two clinical trials of PTSD. The reliability, validity, and factor analytic structure of the scale were evaluated, and reference scores for study samples were calculated. Sensitivity to treatment effects was examined in subjects from the PTSD clinical trials. The scale demonstrated good psychometric properties and factor analysis yielded five factors. A repeated measures ANOVA showed that an increase in CD-RISC score was associated with greater improvement during treatment. Improvement in CD-RISC score was noted in proportion to overall clinical global improvement, with greatest increase noted in subjects with the highest global improvement and deterioration in CD-RISC score in those with minimal or no global improvement. The CD-RISC has sound psychometric properties and distinguishes between those with greater and lesser resilience. The scale demonstrates that resilience is modifiable and can improve with treatment, with greater improvement corresponding to higher levels of global improvement. Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS): construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non-clinical sample.

              To evaluate the reliability and validity of the PANAS (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988b) and provide normative data. Cross-sectional and correlational. The PANAS was administered to a non-clinical sample, broadly representative of the general adult UK population (N = 1,003). Competing models of the latent structure of the PANAS were evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis. Regression and correlational analysis were used to determine the influence of demographic variables on PANAS scores as well as the relationship between the PANAS with measures of depression and anxiety (the HADS and the DASS). The best-fitting model (robust comparative fit index = .94) of the latent structure of the PANAS consisted of two correlated factors corresponding to the PA and NA scales, and permitted correlated error between items drawn from the same mood subcategories (Zevon & Tellegen, 1982). Demographic variables had only very modest influences on PANAS scores and the PANAS exhibited measurement invariance across demographic subgroups. The reliability of the PANAS was high, and the pattern of relationships between the PANAS and the DASS and HADS were consistent with tripartite theory. The PANAS is a reliable and valid measure of the constructs it was intended to assess, although the hypothesis of complete independence between PA and NA must be rejected. The utility of this measure is enhanced by the provision of large-scale normative data. Copyright 2004 The British Psychological Society
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                ijerph
                International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
                MDPI
                1661-7827
                1660-4601
                16 February 2020
                February 2020
                : 17
                : 4
                : 1265
                Affiliations
                Department of Social and Behavioural Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China; sffung@ 123456cityu.edu.hk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3526-6568
                Article
                ijerph-17-01265
                10.3390/ijerph17041265
                7068432
                32079115
                8f2b7570-41d7-4253-808f-de89565c4a7b
                © 2020 by the author.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 26 December 2019
                : 13 February 2020
                Categories
                Article

                Public health
                brs,brcs,chinese,resilience,university student,confirmatory factor analysis
                Public health
                brs, brcs, chinese, resilience, university student, confirmatory factor analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article