CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 443Resilience and Mental HealthWorkplace Health and Well-beingStress and Burnout Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 124 of the 126 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Can resilience be developed at work? A meta‐analytic review of resilience‐building programme effectiveness

Vanhove, Adam J., Herian, Mitchel N., Perez, Alycia L. U., Harms, Peter D., Lester, Paul B.·2016·Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology
DOI 10.1111/joop.12123
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Organizations have increasingly sought to adopt resilience‐building programmes to prevent absenteeism, counterproductive work behaviour, and other stress‐related issues. However, the effectiveness of these programmes remains unclear as a comprehensive review of existing primary evidence has not been undertaken. Using 42 independent samples across 37 studies, the present meta‐analysis sought to address this limitation in the literature by summarizing the effectiveness of resilience‐building programmes implemented in organizational contexts. Results demonstrated that the overall effect of such programmes was small ( d = 0.21) and that programme effects diminish over time ( d proximal = 0.26 vs. d distal = 0.07). Alternatively, moderator analyses revealed that programmes targeting individuals thought to be at greater risk of experiencing stress and lacking core protective factors showed the opposite effect over time. Programmes employing a one‐on‐one delivery format (e.g., coaching) were most effective, followed by the classroom‐based group delivery format. Programmes using train‐the‐trainer and computer‐based delivery formats were least effective. Finally, substantially stronger effects were observed among studies employing single‐group within‐participant designs, in comparison with studies utilizing between‐participant designs. Taken together, these findings provide important theoretical and practical implications for advancing the study and use of resilience‐building in the workplace. Practitioner points: Resilience‐building programmes have had a modest effect in the workplace. The effect is weaker than that associated with secondary prevention techniques, but similar to those shown for other primary prevention techniques. Across primary studies, programme effects diminished substantially from proximal (≤1 month post‐intervention) to distal time points (>1 month). However, among those at greater risk of experiencing stress or who lack protective resources, weak proximal effects became stronger when measured distally. To optimize the effectiveness of resilience‐building programmes, developers should carefully conduct needs assessments, identifying individuals at elevated risk. Methodological decisions (i.e., the use of within‐ vs. between‐participant designs) may have a substantial impact on the conclusions researchers draw regarding the effectiveness of resilience‐building programmes. When evaluating the effectiveness of resilience‐building programmes, researchers and practitioners should compare observed effects to estimates of mean effects across studies using similar evaluative designs.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/joop.12123

Cites

124 of 124 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 126 references

2 of the 126 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Anthony E. J., 1974, The child in his family: Children at psychiatric risk, 3
  2. 10.3102/10769986006002107 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Hunter J. E., 1982, Meta‐analysis: Cumulating findings across research
  4. Mancini A. D., 2010, Handbook of adult resilience, 258
  5. Werner E. E., 1982, Vulnerable but invincible: A study of resilient children

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–440 of 440

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Vanhove, A. J., Herian, M. N., Perez, A. L. U., Harms, P. D., & Lester, P. B.
Affiliations
  • University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US)
  • United States Army (US)
Corresponding author
Vanhove, Adam J.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-04-25
Volume
89
Issue
2
Pages
278-307
ISSN
  • 0963-1798 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8325
DOI
10.1111/joop.12123
OpenAlex
W2005393701
Cited by
443
References
126
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 1
FWCI
25.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Lincoln (University of Nebraska) (submittedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Army (D10PC20006)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Workplace Health and Well-being
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
Keywords
workplace resilience, occupational stress, absenteeism, counterproductive work behavior, primary prevention, secondary prevention, protective factors, coaching, trainer training, computer-based intervention, within-participant design, program effectiveness, needs assessment

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