The goal inside the desire is actually the need for a years-suitable dimensions out-of resilience suitable for kids and you may young adults

The goal inside the desire is actually the need for a years-suitable dimensions out-of resilience suitable for kids and you may young adults

Brief Adaptation RS-fourteen

While looking for a good and you will good software, not just you’ll need for some other communities and in addition in which the proposed basis structure would be verified, a couple of big wants had been from inside the appeal. “The fresh RS-14 reveals the fresh new brevity, readability, and you can simple rating that have been identified as very important functions whenever choosing products for use with adolescents” (Pritzker and you can Minter, 2014, p. 332). Brand new RS-14 “also bring information on the newest development and you may reputation out of resilience making use of a widely available way of measuring resilience which often will permit comparisons having previous and you can upcoming browse,” and that “gives support proof that it is a good psychometrically sound size to assess personal resilience for the age range regarding adolescents and young people” (Wagnild, 2009a; Pritzker and you may Minter, 2014).

Moreover, Yang mais aussi al

Looking way more financial version of your Resilience Level, decreasing achievement time, and making more particularly for explore which have young people, Wagnild (2009a) changed the fresh new RS-twenty five to14 points. New brief “RS-fourteen size consists of fourteen mind-declaration items mentioned with each other a good 7-part rating scale ranging from ‘1-firmly disagree’ so you can ‘7-strongly concur.’ High score is an indication away from resilience height. With respect to the article writers, ratings is actually computed because of the a summary off response philosophy for every product, ergo permitting score so you’re able to include fourteen to help you 98.” Scores lower than 65 suggest low strength; between 65 and you can 81 inform you reasonable strength; above 81 would be interpreted just like the high levels of resilience (Wagnild and you can Younger, 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), flirt 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 Reply

Your email address will not be published.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