Cited by 112Resilience and Mental HealthPsychometric Methodologies and TestingPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research

Examining the Factor Structure of the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) in a Post-9/11 U.S. Military Veteran Sample

Open access
Green, Kimberly T., Hayward, Laura C., Williams, Ann M., Dennis, Paul A., Bryan, Brandon C., Taber, Katherine H., Mid-Atlantic Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center Workgroup, Davidson, Jonathan R. T. +12 more·2014·Assessment

Abstract

The present study examined the structural validity of the 25-item Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) in a large sample of U.S. veterans with military service since September 11, 2001. Participants ( N = 1,981) completed the 25-item CD-RISC, a structured clinical interview and a self-report questionnaire assessing psychiatric symptoms. The study sample was randomly divided into two subsamples: an initial sample (Sample 1: n = 990) and a replication sample (Sample 2: n = 991). Findings derived from exploratory factor analysis (EFA) did not support the five-factor analytic structure as initially suggested in Connor and Davidson’s instrument validation study. Although parallel analyses indicated a two-factor structural model, we tested one to six factor solutions for best model fit using confirmatory factor analysis. Results supported a two-factor model of resilience, composed of adaptability- (8 items) and self-efficacy-themed (6 items) items; however, only the adaptability-themed factor was found to be consistent with our view of resilience—a factor of protection against the development of psychopathology following trauma exposure. The adaptability-themed factor may be a useful measure of resilience for post-9/11 U.S. military veterans.

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 · 10.1177/1073191114524014

Cites

58 of 58 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?

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: 5

  1. Bitsika V Sharpley C Peters K How is resilience associated with anxiety and depression? Analysis of factor score interactions within a homogeneous sample German Journal of Psychiatry 2010 13 9 16
  2. Gucciardi D Jackson B Coulter T Mallett C Dimensionality and age-related measurement invariance with Australian cricketers Journal of Sport and Exercise 2011 12 423 433
  3. Kabacoff R Coders ‘ Corner Determining the Dimensionality of Data: A SAS ® Macro for Parallel Analysis Coders ’ Corner Journal of Business 1995 4 1 3
  4. Nunnally J Bernstein I Psychometric theory 1994 McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages New York 3rd ed.
  5. Shipley W A self-administering scale for measuring intellectual impairment and deterioration Journal of Psychology 1940 9 371 377

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Green, K. T., Hayward, L. C., Williams, A. M., Dennis, P. A., Bryan, B. C., Taber, K. H., Mid-Atlantic Mental Illness Research, E. A. C. C. W., Davidson, J. R. T., Beckham, J. C., Calhoun, P. S., Ingle, S. J., Miller-Mumford, M., McDonald, S. D., Pickett, T. C., Yoash-Gantz, R. E., Brancu, M., Morey, R. A., Strauss, J. J., Tupler, L. A., & Dennis, M. F.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • Syracuse VA Medical Center (US)
  • Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist (US)
  • United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
  • Veterans Health Administration (US)
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
  • Durham VA Medical Center (US)
Venue
Assessment
Published
2014-02-27
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
443-451
ISSN
  • 1073-1911 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3489
OpenAlex
W1990014824
Cited by
111
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 3
FWCI
10.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • DukeSpace (Duke University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH062482)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Keywords
Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, resilience, factor structure, military veterans, post-9/11 veterans, adaptability, self-efficacy, psychopathology, trauma exposure, psychiatric symptoms, structural validity
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Male, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, United States, Veterans, Reproducibility of Results, Terrorism, Resilience, Psychological

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