Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 704

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Resilience: A Historical Review of the Construct

Tusaie, Kathleen, Dyer, Janyce·2004·Holistic Nursing Practice

Abstract

Evolution of the construct of resilience from physiological and psychological research extends from the 1800s to the present. This review supports 3 observations: (1) the importance of a dynamic, interactive perspective for understanding resilience; (2) the complexity of the construct requires a holistic perspective; and (3) the importance of exposure to diverse experiences and educational perspectives for professional health care students.

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 · 10.1097/00004650-200401000-00002

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 704

Metadata

Authors
Tusaie, K., & Dyer, J.
Venue
Holistic Nursing Practice
Published
2004-01
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
3-10
ISSN
0887-9311 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2016746355
Cited by
704
References
2
FWCI
12.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Resilience: A Historical Review of the Construct. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00004650-200401000-00002
The paper
Tusaie, K., & Dyer, J. (2004). Resilience: A Historical Review of the Construct. Holistic Nursing Practice. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004650-200401000-00002

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.