Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 649

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Review of Instruments Measuring Resilience

Open access
Ahern, Nancy R., Kiehl, Ermalynn M., Lou Sole, Mary, Byers, Jacqueline·2006·Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing

Abstract

The objectives of the study were to evaluate the psychometric properties and appropriateness of instruments for the study of resilience in adolescents. A search was completed using the terms resilience and instruments or scales using the EBSCO database (CINAHL, PreCINAHL, and Academic Search Premier), MEDLINE, PsychINFO and PsychARTICLES, and the Internet. After instruments were identified, a second search was performed for studies reporting the psychometric development of these instruments. Using inclusion and exclusion criteria, six psychometric development of instrument studies were selected for a full review. A data extraction table was used to compare the six instruments. Two of the six instruments (Baruth Protective Factors Inventory [BPFI] and Brief-Resilient Coping Scale) lacked evidence that they were appropriate for administration with the adolescent population due to lack of research applications. Three instruments (Adolescent Resilience Scale [ARS], Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, and Resilience Scale for Adults) had acceptable credibility but needed further study in adolescents. One instrument (Resilience Scale [RS]) was determined to be the best instrument to study resilience in the adolescent population due to psychometric properties of the instrument and applications in a variety of age groups, including adolescence. Findings of this review indicate that the RS is the most appropriate instrument to study resilience in the adolescent population. While other instruments have potential (e.g., ARS, BPFI) as they were tested in the adolescent and young adult populations, they lack evidence for their use at this time. An evaluation of the review and recommendations are discussed.

Overview

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 · 10.1080/01460860600677643

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 43 references

Cited by

See all 649

Metadata

Authors
Ahern, N. R., Kiehl, E. M., Lou Sole, M., & Byers, J.
Venue
Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing
Published
2006-01
Volume
29
Issue
2
Pages
103-125
ISSN
  • 0146-0862 (ISSN-L)
  • 1521-043X
OpenAlex
W2169067471
Cited by
649
References
43
FWCI
7.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Review of Instruments Measuring Resilience. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/01460860600677643
The paper
Ahern, N. R., Kiehl, E. M., Lou Sole, M., & Byers, J. (2006). A Review of Instruments Measuring Resilience. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1080/01460860600677643

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.