The goal in appeal try the necessity for an age-suitable aspect away from resilience suitable for adolescents and you can young adults

The goal in appeal try the necessity for an age-suitable aspect away from resilience suitable for adolescents and you can young adults

Short Variation RS-14

While looking for a good and you will valid tool, besides you’ll need for various other populations as well as where the advised factor build might be verified, a couple significant needs was in fact from inside the notice. “Brand new RS-14 reveals the fresh new brevity, readability, and you may simple rating that happen to be defined as important properties whenever choosing tool to be used that have kids” (Pritzker and https://datingranking.net/tr/ilove-inceleme/ Minter, 2014, p. 332). Brand new RS-fourteen “will additionally give specifics of the latest development and you will character of resilience utilizing an available everywhere measure of strength which commonly allow contrasting that have early in the day and upcoming search,” and this “gives supporting facts it is good psychometrically sound measure to assess private resilience when you look at the a long time regarding teens and young people” (Wagnild, 2009a; Pritzker and Minter, 2014).

Furthermore, Yang et al

Trying to find significantly more monetary adaptation of your Resilience Size, decreasing completion go out, and you can designing way more particularly for fool around with with young people, Wagnild (2009a) altered the latest RS-twenty-five to14 products. The new short term “RS-fourteen scale include fourteen care about-declaration items counted along good seven-part rating measure anywhere between ‘1-firmly disagree’ to help you ‘7-strongly concur.’ High results are a sign away from resilience peak. With regards to the article writers, scores is actually determined from the a summary from reaction values for each and every goods, for this reason providing scores to help you range between 14 to help you 98.” Scores below 65 mean low resilience; ranging from 65 and you may 81 reveal modest strength; over 81 would be interpreted since large quantities of resilience (Wagnild and you can Young, 1993; Wagnild, 2009b, 2014).

Using principal components analyses supported a single-factor solution; remaining in the RS-14 scale were those items with all item factor loadings >0.40. Reported psychometric properties of the RS-14 have demonstrated sound psychometric properties comparable to those of the RS-25: evidence of a one-factor structure was found and high reliability (coefficient Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90 and greater 0.96) and a strong correlation with the full version (r = 0.97, p = 0.001) were obtained (Wagnild, 2014). The overall factorability of the RS-14 demonstrated a robust one-factor measure of resilience, which has been replicated and has been confirmed in different studies and in the adaptations of this version for different countries (Wagnild, 2014). For instance: German ? = 0.91 (Schumacher et al., 2005); Portugal ? = 0.82 (Oliveira et al., 2015); Finland ? = 0.87 (Losoi et al., 2013); Japan ? = 0.88 (Nishi et al., 2010); China ? = 0.92 (Tian and Hong, 2013); Korean ? = 0.90 (Kwon and Kwon, 2014); Spain ? = 0.79 (Heilemann et al., 2003); Italian ? = 0.88 (Callegari et al., 2016); and Greek ? = 0.89 (Ntountoulaki et al., 2017). (2012) “examined the measurement invariance of the RS?14 in samples of U.S., Chinese, and Taiwanese college students and supported a one-factor model that demonstrated scalar invariance across cultures” (Yang et al., 2012). The short version RS-14 has been tested regarding its structure and it was found that results are not always totally consistent. Some discrepancies exist between findings of different studies; for instance the Brazilian version with 13 items (Damasio et al., 2011) or 12 items in the Portuguese adaptation for adolescents (Oliveira et al., 2015), and in the German Version 11 items (Schumacher et al., 2005). These discrepancies can eventually result from sampling issues: some studies used participants from very different developmental phases (Damasio et al., 2011), and others used participants <13 years old, an option that is not appropriate given that the authors of the RS advise against the use of the scale with participants from earlier ages (Wagnild, 2009b; Pritzker and Minter, 2014).

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *