Cited by 43Resilience and Mental HealthOptimism, Hope, and Well-beingChild Abuse and Trauma

A systematic review of conceptualizations and statistical methods in longitudinal studies of resilience.

Open access
Wolke, Dieter, Zhou, Yanlin, Liu, Yiwen, Eves, Robert, Mendonça, Marina, Twilhaar, E. Sabrina·2025·Nature Mental Health

Abstract

Resilience research seeks to understand how protective factors interact with adversity to yield positive outcomes over time. However, inconsistent conceptualizations and diverse methodologies limit comparability across studies. In this systematic review (preregistered on PROSPERO CRD42019138732 ), we examined 193 longitudinal psychosocial resilience studies published over the past 30 years, including 805,660 participants across all age groups. We analyzed (1) conceptualizations of resilience as a trait, outcome or process; (2) statistical approaches (variable-centered, person-centered or combined); (3) types of models and their relationship to adversity (for example, protective, promotive, vulnerability, differential susceptibility); and (4) heterogeneity in adversity, outcomes and promotive or protective factors. Most studies lacked an explicit resilience definition, and only 32% explicitly defined it as a trait (6%), an outcome (19%) or a process (8%). Variable-centered approaches predominated (85%), with most studies testing moderation and identifying protective/promotive effects, while few supported differential susceptibilities. Adversities were primarily childhood- or family-based, with mental health outcomes most common. Protective factors spanned individual, family and community levels, while neurobiological factors were rarely considered. We offer recommendations from our review to improve clarity and consistency in conceptualizing, operationalizing and interpreting resilience in longitudinal research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s44220-025-00479-3

Cites

87 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is considerable heterogeneity in operationalization and measurement of emotional abuse, with studies employing differing definitions, scales, and thresholds, complicating direct comparison and synthesis.

    “Furthermore, there is considerable heterogeneity in the operationalization and measurement of emotional abuse, with studies employing differing definitions, scales, and thresholds, thereby complicating direct comparison and synthesis of findings across research (Wolke et al., 2025).”

    From From use to abuse: psychological, neurobiological, and spiritual pathways in relational harm and recovery (2026) · cites this paper as Wolke et al., 2025

    The Limitations section reports substantial heterogeneity in adversity types and methods that prevented meta-analysis and comparison of effect sizes across the reviewed resilience studies. It does not establish that studies of emotional abuse specifically use differing definitions, scales, or thresholds; searches for emotional abuse and those measurement terms found no such discussion. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Karatoreos, I. N. & McEwen, B. S. Annual research review: the neurobiology and physiology of resilience and adaptation across the life course. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry Allied Discip. 54, 337-347 (2013).
  2. Arnold, M., Schilbach, M. & Rigotti, T. Paradigms of resilience research: a brief review and an outlook. Psychol. Rundschau 74, 154-165 (2023).
  3. Luthar, S. S. Resilience in development: A synthesis of research across five decades. In Developmental Psychopathology: Risk, Disorder, and Adaptation (eds Cicchetti, D. & Cohen, D. J.) 739-795 (Wiley, 2006).
  4. Tai, A. P. L., Leung, M. K., Geng, X. & Lau, W. K. W. Conceptualizing psychological resilience through resting-state functional MRI in a mentally healthy population: a systematic review. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 17, 1175064 (2023). Analysis https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-025-00479-3

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wolke, D., Zhou, Y., Liu, Y., Eves, R., Mendonça, M., & Twilhaar, E. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • Bielefeld University (DE)
Venue
Nature Mental Health
Published
2025-08-18
Volume
3
Issue
9
Pages
1088-1099
ISSN
2731-6076 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4413290860
Cited by
43
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 4
FWCI
9.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Mental Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
  • Publikationen an der Universität Bielefeld (Universität Bielefeld) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Government of the United Kingdom
  • UK Research and Innovation (10039383)
  • European Commission (101057385)
  • HORIZON EUROPE Framework Programme (101057385)
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/X02105X/1)
  • Staatssekretariat für Bildung, Forschung und Innovation (22.00277)
  • HORIZON EUROPE Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Optimism, Hope, and Well-being
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
Keywords
resilience, conceptualization of resilience, protective factors, adversity, differential susceptibility, variable-centered approach, person-centered approach, longitudinal study, mental health outcomes, childhood adversity, family adversity, neurobiological factors, operationalization of resilience

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review