The goal during the appeal try the need for a get older-appropriate measurement from resilience right for teenagers and you can young adults

Quick Adaptation RS-14

When searching for a good and you may good means, not simply you’ll need for different populations in addition to where in fact the proposed grounds construction would be verified, one or two big requirements had been in attention. “The RS-fourteen shows the brand new brevity, readability, and you will easy scoring that happen to be recognized as important qualities when deciding on devices to be used that have teens” (Pritzker and you can Minter, 2014, p. 332). Brand new RS-fourteen “also give specifics of brand new development and you may reputation from strength utilizing a widely available measure of resilience which often often enable comparisons having early in the day and you can future lookup,” which “gives support evidence that it is an effective psychometrically voice measure to evaluate personal resilience inside a long time out of kids and you may young people” (Wagnild, 2009a; Pritzker and you may Minter, 2014).

Moreover, Yang et al

Interested in a great deal more financial adaptation of your own Strength Scale, decreasing completion day, and you may developing far more specifically for explore with teenagers, Wagnild (2009a) modified the latest RS-25 to14 circumstances. The fresh new short term “RS-fourteen scale consists of fourteen mind-report points mentioned together a beneficial 7-part get scale ranging from ‘1-firmly disagree’ so you can ‘7-firmly consent.’ High score are an indicator from resilience peak. With respect to the writers, score is computed by the a conclusion regarding response values each items, hence helping results to help you consist of fourteen in order to 98.” Ratings below 65 suggest reduced resilience; anywhere between 65 and 81 let you know average resilience; more than 81 was translated because large amounts of resilience (Wagnild and you will 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 feabie alternatif 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).