CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 149Resilience and Mental HealthPsychometric Methodologies and TestingAging and Gerontology Research

Resilience measurement in later life: A systematic review and psychometric analysis

Open access
Cosco, T. D., Kaushal, A., Richards, M., Kuh, D., Stafford, M.·2016·Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
DOI 10.1186/s12955-016-0418-6PMC PMC4730639
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review and examine the psychometric properties of established resilience scales in older adults, i.e. ≥60 years. METHODS: A systematic review of Scopus and Web of Science databases was undertaken using the search strategy "resilience" AND (ageing OR aging)". Independent title/abstract and fulltext screening were undertaken, identifying original peer-reviewed English articles that conducted psychometric validation studies of resilience metrics in samples aged ≥60 years. Data on the reliability/validity of the included metrics were extracted from primary studies. RESULTS: Five thousand five hundred nine studies were identified by the database search, 426 used resilience psychometrics, and six psychometric analysis studies were included in the final analysis. These studies conducted analyses of the Connor Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) and its shortened 10-item version (CD-RISC10), the Resilience Scale (RS) and its shortened 5- (RS-5) and 11- (RS-11) item versions, and the Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS). All scales demonstrated acceptable levels of internal consistency, convergent/discriminant validity and theoretical construct validity. Factor structures for the RS, RS-11 and CD-RISC diverged from the structures in the original studies. CONCLUSION: The RS, RS-5, RS-11, CD-RISC, CD-RISC10 and BRCS demonstrate psychometric robustness adequate for continued use in older populations. However, results from the current study and pre-existing theoretical construct validity studies most strongly support the use of the RS, with modest and preliminary support for the CD-RISC and BRCS, respectively. Future studies assessing the validity of these metrics in older populations, particularly with respect to factor structure, would further strengthen the case for the use of these scales.

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 · 10.1186/s12955-016-0418-6

Cites

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?

  • Childhood cancer patients and their families frequently experience decreases in psychological well-being.

    “decreases in psychological well-being [15,16]”

    From Psychosocial Factors Predicting Resilience in Family Caregivers of Children with Cancer: A Cross-Sectional Study (2021) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Background discusses children adapting to adversity, while the Results examine resilience scales, chiefly in older adults; neither section addresses childhood cancer patients or their families. Searches for childhood cancer, families, and decreases in psychological well-being found no passage supporting the claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 49 · Cited by 149

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. [1]Haskett ME Nears K Ward CS McPherson AV Diversity in adjustment of maltreated children: Factors associated with resilient functioning Clin Psychol Rev 2006 26 796 812 10.1016/j.cpr.2006.03.005 16797807 · DOI
  2. [2]Cosco TD Prina AM Perales J Stephan BCM Brayne C Operational definitions of successful aging: A systematic review Int Psychogeriatr 2014 26 373 381 10.1017/S1041610213002287 24308764 · DOI
  3. [3]Kuh D Karunananthan S Bergman H Cooper R A life-course approach to healthy ageing: maintaining physical capability Proc Nutr Soc 2014 73 237 248 10.1017/S0029665113003923 24456831 PMC3981474 · DOI
  4. [4]Rockwood K Fox RA Stolee P Robertson D Beattie BL Frailty in elderly people: an evolving concept CMAJ 1994 150 489 495 8313261 PMC1486322
  5. [5]Seligman ME Csikszentmihalyi M Positive psychology. An introduction Am Psychol 2000 55 5 14 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5 11392865 · DOI · Paper page
  6. [6]Garmezy N Resilience in children’s adaptation to negative life events and stressed environments Pediatr Ann 1991 20 459 460 10.3928/0090-4481-19910901-05 1945543 · DOI
  7. [7]Rutter M Resilience in the face of adversity. Protective factors and resistance to psychiatric disorder Br J Psychiatry 1985 147 598 611 10.1192/bjp.147.6.598 3830321 · DOI
  8. [8]Dubos R Adapting man adapting: curing, helping, consoling Yale J Biol Med 1979 52 211 218 452630 PMC2595431
  9. [9]Pilowsky DJ Zybert PA Vlahov D Resilient children of injection drug users J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2004 43 1372 1379 10.1097/01.chi.0000138355.29099.2a 15502596 · DOI
  10. [10]Ong AD Bergeman CS Bisconti TL Wallace KA Psychological resilience, positive emotions, and successful adaptation to stress in later life J Pers Soc Psychol 2006 91 730 749 10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.730 17014296 · DOI
  11. [12]Ahern NR Kiehl EM Sole ML Byers J A review of instruments measuring resilience Issues Compr Pediatr Nursi 2006 29 103 125 10.1080/01460860600677643 16772239 · DOI
  12. [14]Cronbach L Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests Psychometrika 1951 16 297 334 10.1007/BF02310555 · DOI · Paper page
  13. [15]Bryman A Social research methods 2008 3 Oxford; New York Oxford University Press
  14. [17]Wagnild GM Young HM Development and psychometric evaluation of the Resilience Scale J Nurs Meas 1993 1 165 178 7850498
  15. [18]Sinclair VG Wallston KA The development and psychometric evaluation of the brief resilient coping scale Assessment 2004 11 94 101 10.1177/1073191103258144 14994958 · DOI · Paper page
  16. [19]Kobasa SC Stressful life events, personality, and health: an inquiry into hardiness J Pers Soc Psychol 1979 37 1 11 10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.1 458548 · DOI
  17. [20]Lyons J Strategies for assessing the potential for positive adjustment following trauma J Trauma Stress 1991 4 93 111 10.1002/jts.2490040108 · DOI
  18. [21]Wagnild G Young HM Resilience among older women Image J Nurs Sch 1990 22 252 255 10.1111/j.1547-5069.1990.tb00224.x 2292448 · DOI
  19. [22]Las Hayas C Calvete E Gomez del Barrio A Beato L Munoz P Angel Padierna J Resilience Scale-25 Spanish version: Validation and assessment in eating disorders Eat Behav 2014 15 460 463 10.1016/j.eatbeh.2014.06.010 25064300 · DOI
  20. [24]Lamond AJ, Depp CA, Allison M, Langer R, Reichstadt J, Moore DJ, et al. Measurement and predictors of resilience among community-dwelling older women. J Psychiatr Res. 2008;43:148–54. PMC2613196 18455190
  21. [25]Goins RT Gregg JJ Fiske A Psychometric properties of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale with older American Indians: the Native Elder Care Study Res Aging 2013 35 123 143 10.1177/0164027511431989 PMC5458526 28592910 · DOI
  22. [26]Girtler N, Casari EF, Brugnolo A, Cutolo M, Dessi B, Guasco S, et al. Italian validation of the Wagnild and Young Resilience Scale: a perspective to rheumatic diseases. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2010;28:669–78. 20822709
  23. [27]von Eisenhart RA, Zenger M, Lacruz ME, Emeny R, Baumert J, Haefner S, et al. Validation and development of a shorter version of the resilience scale RS-11: results from the population-based KORA-age study. BMC Psychol. 2013;1:25. PMC4270035 25566373
  24. [28]Resnick BA Inguito PL The Resilience Scale: Psychometric Properties and Clinical Applicability in Older Adults Arch Psychiatr Nurs 2011 25 11 20 10.1016/j.apnu.2010.05.001 21251597 · DOI
  25. [29]Nunnally JC Bernstein I Psychometric theory 1994 3 New York McGraw-Hill
  26. [30]Tomas JM Melendez JC Sancho P Mayordomo T Adaptation and Initial Validation of the BRCS in an Elderly Spanish Sample Eur J Psychol Assess 2012 28 283 289 10.1027/1015-5759/a000108 · DOI
  27. [31]Liu DWY Fairweather-Schmidt AK Burns RA Roberts RM The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale: Establishing Invariance Between Gender Across the Lifespan in a Large Community Based Study J Psychopathol Behav Assess 2015 37 340 348 10.1007/s10862-014-9452-z · DOI
  28. [32]Lundman B Strandberg G Eisemann M Gustafson Y Brulin C Psychometric properties of the Swedish version of the resilience scale Scand J Caring Sci 2007 21 229 237 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2007.00461.x 17559442 · DOI
  29. [33]Campbell-Sills L Forde DR Stein MB Demographic and childhood environmental predictors of resilience in a community sample J Psychiatr Res 2009 43 1007 1012 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2009.01.013 19264325 · DOI
  30. [34]Karairmak O Establishing the psychometric qualities of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis in a trauma survivor sample Psychiatry Res 2010 179 350 356 10.1016/j.psychres.2009.09.012 20493533 · DOI
  31. [35]Campbell-Sills L Stein MB Psychometric analysis and refinement of the Connor-davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): Validation of a 10-item measure of resilience J Trauma Stress 2007 20 1019 1028 10.1002/jts.20271 18157881 · DOI · Paper page
  32. [37]Yu X-N Lau JTF Mak WWS Zhang J Lui WWS Factor structure and psychometric properties of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale among Chinese adolescents Compr Psychiatry 2011 52 218 224 10.1016/j.comppsych.2010.05.010 21295229 · DOI
  33. [38]Gucciardi DF Jackson B Coulter TJ Mallett CJ The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): Dimensionality and age-related measurement invariance with Australian cricketers Psychol Sport Exerc 2011 12 423 433 10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.02.005 · DOI
  34. [39]Steger MF An illustration of issues in factor extraction and identification of dimensionality in psychological assessment data J Pers Assess 2006 86 263 272 10.1207/s15327752jpa8603_03 16740111 · DOI
  35. [40]Wagnild G A review of the Resilience Scale J Nurs Meas 2009 17 105 113 10.1891/1061-3749.17.2.105 19711709 · DOI
  36. [41]Abiola T, Udofia O. Psychometric assessment of the Wagnild and Young’s resilience scale in Kano, Nigeria. BMC Res Notes. 2011;4:509–9. PMC3261834 22112503
  37. [42]Portzky M Wagnild G De Bacquer D Audenaert K Psychometric evaluation of the Dutch Resilience Scale RS-nl on 3265 healthy participants: a confirmation of the association between age and resilience found with the Swedish version Scand J Caring Sci 2010 24 86 92 10.1111/j.1471-6712.2010.00841.x 21070312 · DOI
  38. [43]Aroian KJ Schappler-Morris N Neary S Spitzer A Tran TV Psychometric evaluation of the Russian Language version of the Resilience Scale J Nurs Meas 1997 5 151 164 9538587
  39. [44]Nishi D Uehara R Kondo M Matsuoka Y Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Resilience Scale and its short version BMC Res Notes 2010 3 310 10.1186/1756-0500-3-310 21083895 PMC2993730 · DOI

Authors
Cosco, T. D., Kaushal, A., Richards, M., Kuh, D., & Stafford, M.
Affiliations
MRC Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing (GB)
Corresponding author
Stafford, M.
ORCID
Venue
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2016-01-28
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
16-16
ISSN
1477-7525 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12955-016-0418-6
PMC
PMC4730639
OpenAlex
W2281161925
Cited by
149
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2
FWCI
0.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Health and Quality of Life Outcomes (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12019/1)
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 › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
Keywords
resilience, older adults, psychometric properties, Resilience Scale, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, Brief Resilient Coping Scale, factor structure, construct validity, reliability statistics, aging
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aging, Attitude to Health, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sex Factors, Reproducibility of Results, 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