The mark for the attention are the necessity for an era-suitable measurement out of resilience suitable for teenagers and you may young adults

Short Type RS-fourteen

While looking for a imeetzu üyelik iptali helpful and you will valid means, not simply necessary for different populations and the spot where the proposed basis design are confirmed, a few big requires have been when you look at the interest. “The brand new RS-fourteen reveals the brand new brevity, readability, and you can easier rating that happen to be identified as extremely important attributes when selecting tools for usage which have kids” (Pritzker and Minter, 2014, p. 332). The new RS-fourteen “will additionally offer information on new trend and you can profile out of resilience utilizing an accessible measure of resilience which usually allow contrasting that have early in the day and you will future research,” which “can give support evidence it is a good psychometrically sound size to evaluate individual strength when you look at the a long time off kids and teenagers” (Wagnild, 2009a; Pritzker and you can Minter, 2014).

Also, Yang ainsi que al

Selecting alot more financial version of one’s Strength Scale, coming down achievement time, and you can creating so much more especially for use that have teenagers, Wagnild (2009a) modified the newest RS-25 to14 points. This new temporary “RS-fourteen level contains fourteen care about-report things counted with each other a good 7-section rating scale ranging from ‘1-highly disagree’ so you can ‘7-highly consent.’ High scores is actually indicative out of strength top. According to the writers, results was computed by a conclusion of response beliefs each product, therefore providing score to help you start from fourteen to 98.” Scores less than 65 indicate reduced resilience; anywhere between 65 and you may 81 show average resilience; a lot more than 81 would-be interpreted just like the high levels of resilience (Wagnild and you will 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).