Skip to content

The target in the notice are the need for a get older-compatible dimensions out of resilience suitable for teens and young adults

The target in the notice are the need for a get older-compatible dimensions out of resilience suitable for teens and young adults

Quick Variation RS-fourteen

When shopping for a useful and you can appropriate software, just you’ll need for other populations plus where in fact the proposed factor framework is confirmed, a couple biggest desires was basically from inside the focus. “New RS-fourteen shows the brevity, readability, and you can ease of scoring which have been identified as essential qualities when choosing tools for use which have kids” (Pritzker and you will Minter, 2014, p. 332). The brand new RS-fourteen “also promote information on the newest development and you will profile regarding resilience using a widely accessible measure of strength which often often allow evaluations which have early in the day and you may coming research,” which “can give support evidence that it’s an effective psychometrically sound level to assess individual resilience into the age range off teenagers and you may young adults” (Wagnild, 2009a; Pritzker and you may Minter, 2014).

Furthermore, Yang et al

In search of a great deal more economic variation of Strength Size, decreasing end go out, and you may design much more especially for explore that have young people, Wagnild (2009a) changed brand new RS-twenty five to14 issues. The brand new temporary “RS-14 level includes fourteen self-report circumstances mentioned together a 7-section get level between ‘1-strongly disagree’ in order to ‘7-strongly concur.’ Highest ratings was indicative regarding resilience level. With respect to the experts, results are calculated by the a summary out of response opinions for every single items, ergo helping scores in order to include fourteen to help you 98.” Results lower than 65 suggest lowest resilience; anywhere between 65 and you interracial cupid apk hile can 81 tell you average strength; over 81 would-be interpreted as highest degrees of resilience (Wagnild and you can Young, 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 Reply

Your email address will not be published.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