ArticlePDF Available

The Brief Resilience Scale: Assessing the Ability to Bounce Back

  • SouthwestCares, LLC

Abstract and Figures

While resilience has been defined as resistance to illness, adaptation, and thriving, the ability to bounce back or recover from stress is closest to its original meaning. Previous resilience measures assess resources that may promote resilience rather than recovery, resistance, adaptation, or thriving. To test a new brief resilience scale. The brief resilience scale (BRS) was created to assess the ability to bounce back or recover from stress. Its psychometric characteristics were examined in four samples, including two student samples and samples with cardiac and chronic pain patients. The BRS was reliable and measured as a unitary construct. It was predictably related to personal characteristics, social relations, coping, and health in all samples. It was negatively related to anxiety, depression, negative affect, and physical symptoms when other resilience measures and optimism, social support, and Type D personality (high negative affect and high social inhibition) were controlled. There were large differences in BRS scores between cardiac patients with and without Type D and women with and without fibromyalgia. The BRS is a reliable means of assessing resilience as the ability to bounce back or recover from stress and may provide unique and important information about people coping with health-related stressors.
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15: 194–200, 2008
Copyright C
Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1070-5503 print / 1532-7558 online
DOI: 10.1080/10705500802222972
The Brief Resilience Scale: Assessing the Ability to Bounce Back
Bruce W. Smith, Jeanne Dalen, Kathryn Wiggins, Erin Tooley, Paulette Christopher,
and Jennifer Bernard
Background: While resilience has been defined as resistance to illness, adaptation,
and thriving, the ability to bounce back or recover from stress is closest to its original
meaning. Previous resilience measures assess resources that may promote resilience
rather than recovery, resistance, adaptation, or thriving. Purpose: To te st a ne w
brief resilience scale. Method: The brief resilience scale (BRS) was created to assess
the ability to bounce back or recover from stress. Its psychometric characteristics
were examined in four samples, including two student samples and samples with
cardiac and chronic pain patients. Results: The BRS was reliable and measured as
a unitary construct. It was predictably related to personal characteristics, social
relations, coping, and health in all samples. It was negatively related to anxiety,
depression, negative affect, and physical symptoms when other resilience measures
and optimism, social support, and Type D personality (high negative affect and
high social inhibition) were controlled. There were large differences in BRS scores
between cardiac patients with and without Type D and women with and without
fibromyalgia. Conclusion: The BRS is a reliable means of assessing resilience as the
ability to bounce back or recover from stress and may provide unique and important
information about people coping with health-related stressors.
Key words: brief resilience scale, stress, recovery, pain, cardiac
During the past decade, resilience has increasingly
become a focus of research in the behavioral and medi-
cal sciences (Charney, 2004; Masten, 2001). However,
“resilience” has been defined in a variety of ways, in-
cluding the ability to bounce back or recover from
stress, to adapt to stressful circumstances, to not be-
come ill despite significant adversity, and to function
above the norm in spite of stress or adversity (Carver,
1998; Tusaie & Dyer, 2004). In addition, the measures
that have been developed to assess “resilience” have
not focused on these qualities but on the factors and
All of the authors (Bruce W. Smith, Jeanne Dalen, Kathy
Wiggins, Erin Tooley, Paulette Christopher, and Jennifer Bernard)
are affiliated with the Department of Psychology, University of New
Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
The authors gratefully acknowledge Dr. Richard D. Lueker and
the staff of New Heart, Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico, for pro-
viding the opportunity to study patients in their cardiac rehabilita-
tion program. We also gratefully acknowledge Dr. Paul Mullins, Dr.
Wilmer Sibbitt, and Erica Montague for their help and support in
the study of women with fibromyalgia and healthy controls. Finally,
we are grateful to the University of New Mexico for providing a
Research Allocation Committee Grant (#06-17) to support the study
with women with fibromyalgia and healthy controls.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed
to Bruce W. Smith, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Univer-
sity of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-1161. E-mail: bw-
resources that make them possible (Ahern, Kiehl, Sole,
& Byers, 2006).
Resilience as Bouncing Back
The purpose of this article is to clarify the study
of resilience by presenting a scale for assessing the
original and most basic meaning of the word resilience.
The root for the English word “resilience” is the word
“resile,” which means “to bounce or spring back” (from
re- “back” +salire- “to jump, leap”; Agnes, 2005).
While recognizing that words evolve in meaning over
time, the ability to bounce back or recover from stress
may be important to assess and study in its own right. In
addition, this ability may be particularly important for
people who are already ill or are dealing with ongoing
health-related stresses.
In distinguishing between the other meanings as-
sociated with resilience, it may be useful to use dif-
ferent words for resistance to illness, adaptation to
stress, and functioning above the norm in spite of stress.
Carver (1998) provided a clear distinction between “re-
silience” as returning to the previous level of function-
ing (e.g., bouncing back or recovery) and “thriving”
as moving to a superior level of functioning following
a stressful event. In addition, “adaptation” (or “stress
adaptation”) could be used for changing to adjust to
a new situation. Finally, it may be preferable to use
a word like “resistance” (as in “stress resistance” or
“resistance to illness”) to refer to not becoming ill or
showing a decrease in functioning during stress.
Previous Measures of Resilience
Even though several meanings have been associated
with resilience, it is striking that measures of resilience
have not directly targeted them. Ahern et al. (2006)
have recently reviewed the instruments that were de-
signed to measure resilience. They focused on six mea-
sures, and the range of constructs measured included
“protective factors that support resiliency,” “success-
ful stress-coping ability,” “central protective resources
of health adjustment,” “resilient coping behavior,” and
“resilience as a positive personality characteristic that
enhances individual adaptation” (p. 110).
Rather than specifically assessing resilience as the
ability to bounce back, resist illness, adapt to stress,
or thrive in the face of adversity, previous mea-
sures have generally assessed protective factors or re-
sources that involve personal characteristics and cop-
ing styles. For example, the Resilience Scale (Wagnild
& Young, 1993) aimed to assess equanimity, perse-
verance, self-reliance, meaningfulness, and existential
aloneness. Similarly, the Connor Davidson Resilience
Scale (Connor & Davidson, 2003) aimed to assess
characteristics such as self-efficacy, sense of humor,
patience, optimism, and faith.
In understanding people faced with health prob-
lems, it is undoubtedly important to identify the char-
acteristics or factors that may promote resilience, such
as optimism, active coping, and social support. While
measures have been developed to assess these char-
acteristics individually, the current “resilience” mea-
sures appear to provide a useful summary score of the
resources that generally support positive adaptation.
However, it may be more semantically accurate and
clear to refer to characteristics that may increase the
likelihood of resilience as “resilience resources.
The Current Studies
The authors developed a brief resilience scale to
determine whether it is possible to reliably assess re-
silience as bouncing back from stress, whether it is
related to resilience resources, and whether it is related
to important health outcomes. Our strategy was to use
as few items as necessary to develop a reliable scale for
a unitary construct. We selected the final items from
a list of potential items based on the feedback of re-
search team members and piloting with undergraduate
students. We included an equal number of positive and
negatively worded items to reduce the effects of social
desirability and positive response bias.
We tested the BRS on four separate samples to de-
termine whether it is reliable and demonstrates conver-
gent and predictive discriminate validity. We expected
that the ability to bounce back or recover from stress
would be valuable in coping with health-related stres-
sors. We included cardiac rehabilitation and chronic
pain patients because resilience may be particularly
important for them (Chan, Lai, & Wong, 2006; Zautra,
Johnson, & Davis, 2005). Our hypotheses were that the
BRS would represent one factor, would be related to
resilience resources and health-related outcomes, and
would predict health outcomes when controlling for
resilience resources.
Participant Samples
The BRS was tested on four samples. Sample 1
consisted of 128 undergraduate students. Sample 2
consisted of 64 undergraduate students. Sample 3
consisted of 112 cardiac rehabilitation patients. Sam-
ple 4 consisted of 50 women who either had fi-
bromyalgia (n=20) or were healthy controls (n=
30). All four samples were recruited from a medium-
sized metropolitan area in the southwestern U.S.
(Albuquerque, New Mexico).
The BRS was administered to each of these four
samples in questionnaires. The questionnaires for each
sample were not identical but measured many of the
same constructs. These questionnaires assessed a range
of resilience-related constructs, other personal charac-
teristics, coping styles, social relationships, and health-
related outcomes. The list of measures below indicates
which measures were included for each sample.
The Brief Resilience Scale
The six items of the brief resilience scale (BRS)
are presented in Table 1. Items 1, 3, and 5 are pos-
itively worded, and items 2, 4, and 6 are negatively
worded. The BRS is scored by reverse coding items
2, 4, and 6 and finding the mean of the six items. The
following instructions are used to administer the scale:
“Please indicate the extent to which you agree with
each of the following statements by using the following
scale: 1 =strongly disagree, 2 =disagree, 3 =neutral,
4=agree, 5 =strongly agree.”
Other Measures
1. Resilience-Related Constructs
Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC;
Connor & Davidson, 2003). The CD-RISC was de-
signed to assess the personal characteristics that em-
body resilience. It contains 25 items responded to
Tabl e 1. The Brief Resilience Scale: Items and Factor Loadings
Items Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4
1. I tend to bounce back quickly after hard times .77 .79 .70 .89
2. I have a hard time making it through stressful events (R) .73 .78 .68 .91
3. It does not take me long to recover from a stressful event .78 .78 .71 .71
4. It is hard for me to snap back when something bad happens (R) .85 .90 .70 .85
5. I usually come through difficult times with little trouble .69 .69 .71 .68
6. I tend to take a long time to get over set-backs in my life (R) .84 .81 .67 .68
Note. Sample 1 =128 undergraduate students; Sample 2 =64 undergraduate students; Sample 3 =112 cardiac
rehabilitation patients; Sample 4 =50 women with fibromyalgia or healthy controls. R =reverse coded items.
on a 5-point scale. The CD-RISC was included in
Sample 1.
Ego Resiliency Scale (Block & Kremen, 1996). This
was designed to assess “the ability to change from
and also return to the individual’s characteristics level
of ego-control after the temporary, accommodation-
requiring, stressing influence is no longer acutely
present” (Block & Kremen, 1996; p. 351). It contains
14 items responded to on a 4-point scale and was in-
cluded in Sample 1.
2. Other Personal Characteristics
Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R; Scheier,
Carver, & Bridges, 1994). The LOT-R included three
items assessing optimism and three items assessing
pessimism. The items are responded to on a 5-point
scale. The optimism items were in all samples and the
pessimism items were in Samples, 1, 2, and 4.
Purpose in Life (Ryff & Keyes, 1995). This assesses
the belief that one’s life has meaning and purpose. The
items are scored on a 6-point scale. The 9-item version
was in Samples 1 and 4 and the 3-item version was in
Sample 3.
Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20; Bagby, Parker,
& Taylor, 1994). The TAS-20 was designed to assess
difficulty finding words for feelings. The 20 items are
scored on a 5-point scale and were included in Samples
1 and 4.
Type D Personality (DS14; Denollet, 2005). The
DS14 assesses for Type D personality. Type D is a
joint tendency toward negative affectivity and social
inhibition and has been related to poor cardiac prog-
nosis (Denollet, 2005). Fourteen items are scored on a
5-point scale. Seven items assess negative affectivity
and seven items assess social inhibition. It was included
in Sample 3.
3. Coping Styles
Brief COPE (Carver, 1997). The Brief COPE con-
sists of 28 items to assess 14 coping strategies. The
items are scores on a 4-point scale. All of the items
were included in Samples 1 and 4, and items for se-
lected strategies were included in Samples 2 and 3.
4. Social Relationships
Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL;
Cohen, Mermelstein, Karmarck, & Hoberman, 1985).
The ISEL consists of 12 items to assess social support
using a 4-point scale. It was included in Samples 1 and
MOS Social Support Survey (MOS-SSS; Sherbourne
& Stewart, 1991). This consists of 20 items assessing
social support using a 5-point scale. An 8-item short
version was in Sample 3, and the full 20-item version
was in Sample 4.
Negative Social Interactions (Finch, Okun, Barrera,
Zautra, & Reich, 1989). This measure includes four
items to assess negative social interactions. These items
were included in Samples 1, 2, and 4.
5. Health-Related Outcomes
Brief Health-Related Measures. Sample 3 also in-
cluded one 7-point item assessing the number of ex-
ercise days per week. Samples 3 and 4 included a 10-
point item measuring fatigue. Sample 4 included three
visual analogue scales assessing current, worse, and
average pain that were summed to form an overall in-
dex of pain.
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS;
Zigmond & Snaith, 1983). There are 7 items each to
assess anxiety and depression. The items are scored on
a 4-point scale. The HADS was included in Samples 3
and 4.
Mental Health Inventory (Veit & Ware, 1983). This
consists of 9 items to assess anxiety and 9 items to
assess depression. The items are scored on 5- or 6-point
scales. These items were included in Samples 1 and 2.
Mood Adjective Checklist (Larsen & Diener, 1992).
Six items were included to assess negative affect and
six items were included to assess positive affect. They
were scored on a 6-point scale and were included in
Sample 3.
Physical Symptoms Index (Moos, Cronkite, &
Finney, 1986). This measure includes 12 items to as-
sess physical symptoms such as headaches and consti-
pation. It was included in Samples 1, 3, and 4.
Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; Cohen, Kamarck, &
Mermelstein, 1983). The PSS consists of 10 items that
assess perceived stress. The items are scored on a 4-
point scale. The PSS was included in all four samples.
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Wat-
son, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). The PANAS includes
20 items to assess positive and negative affect. It was
scored on a 5-point scale and included in Samples 1,
2, and 4.
Statistical Analyses
The primary analyses assessed the factor structure,
reliability, and validity of the BRS. The factor struc-
ture was examined by principal components analyses
(PCA) with a varimax rotation retaining eigenvalues >
1. Internal consistency was examined using Cronbach’s
alpha, and test-retest reliability was examined using the
intra-class correlation (ICC) for absolute agreement.
Convergent validity was assessed by zero-order corre-
lations between the BRS and the other measures. Dis-
criminant predictive validity was assessed by partial
correlations, with health-related outcomes controlling
for other predictors. In addition, we compared mean
BRS scores across samples and subgroups using inde-
pendent samples t-tests.
Table 2 displays the descriptive statistics for age,
gender, and the BRS for each sample. Samples 1 and
2 were young and primarily female. Sample 3 was rel-
atively old and primarily male. Sample 4 was middle-
aged and all female. The mean BRS scores ranged from
3.53 in Sample 1 to 3.98 in Sample 3. BRS scores were
significantly higher in Sample 3 than in Samples 1, 2,
and 4 combined (3.98 vs. 3.56, t =5.053, df =352,
p<.001), which did not differ from each other.
Factor Structure and Reliability
Table 1 shows the PCA loadings of the BRS items
for each of the four samples. The results for each sam-
ple revealed a one-factor solution accounting for 55–
67% of the variance (Samples 1–4 =61%, 61%, 57%,
67%, respectively). The loadings ranged from .68 to
.91. Internal consistency was good, with Cronbach’s
alpha ranging from .80–.91(Samples 1–4 =.84, .87,
Tabl e 2. Descriptive Statistics for the Four Samples
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4
Sample size 128 64 112 50
Age (years) 20.4 (4.0) 19.8 (3.0) 62.8 (10.5) 47.3 (8.2)
Gender(% female) 76 67 24 100
BRS scores 3.53 (0.68) 3.57 (0.76) 3.98 (0.68) 3.61 (0.85)
Note. Standard deviations are listed in parentheses.
.80, .91, respectively). The BRS was given twice in
two samples with a test-retest reliability (ICC) of .69
for one month in 48 participants from Sample 2 and
.62 for three months in 61 participants from Sample 3.
Convergent Validity
Table 3 shows the zero-order correlations between
the BRS and personal characteristics, social relations,
coping, and health outcomes for each sample. The BRS
was positively correlated with the resilience measures,
optimism, and purpose in life, and negatively correlated
with pessimism and alexithymia. In addition, it was
positively correlated with social support and negatively
correlated with negative interactions. Finally, it was
consistently positively correlated with active coping
and positive reframing and negatively correlated with
behavioral disengagement, denial, and self-blame.
With regard to health-related outcomes, the BRS
was consistently negatively correlated with perceived
stress, anxiety, depression, negative affect, and physi-
cal symptoms. In addition, it was positively correlated
with positive affect in three of the four samples and
with exercise days per week in the cardiac rehabilita-
tion sample. It was negatively correlated with fatigue
in the cardiac sample and negatively correlated with
fatigue and pain in the sample of middle-aged women.
Discriminant Predictive Validity
We examined discriminant predictive validity in the
two larger samples. Table 4 shows the zero-order and
partial correlations between each of the BRS, CD-
RISC, ego resiliency, and the health outcomes in the
first undergraduate sample. The zero-order correlations
revealed that the “resilience” measures were almost
always related in the expected direction with the out-
comes, with the exception that ego resiliency was only
marginally related to less negative affect.
The partial correlations were obtained by correlat-
ing each resilience measure with each outcome, while
controlling for both of the other “resilience” mea-
sures. The BRS was still negatively related to perceived
stress, anxiety, depression, negative affect, and physi-
cal symptoms. The CD-RISC was still negatively re-
lated to perceived stress and still positively related to
positive affect. The ego resiliency scale was still posi-
tively related to positive affect.
Table 5 shows the zero-order and partial correlations
between the BRS, optimism, social support, and Type
D and the health outcomes in the cardiac sample. The
zero-order correlations revealed that the BRS was cor-
related with all seven outcomes and that optimism, so-
cial support, and Type D were correlated with five out-
comes. The partial correlations showed that the BRS
was still related to perceived stress, anxiety, depres-
sion, negative affect, fatigue, and marginally to exercise
days. Optimism was still related to perceived stress,
Tabl e 3. Correlations Between the Brief Resilience Scale and Other
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4
Personal characteristics
Alexithymia .47∗∗ ——.44∗∗
CD-RISC .59∗∗ ———
Ego resiliency .51∗∗ —— 49
Optimism .45∗∗ .63∗∗ .69∗∗ .55∗∗
Pessimism .40∗∗ .56∗∗ .32
Purpose in life .46∗∗ .47∗∗ .67∗∗
Social relationships
Negative interactions .25∗∗ .47∗∗ .46∗∗
Social support .28∗∗ .27.30∗∗ .40∗∗
Acceptance .43∗∗ .42∗∗ .18+.22
Active coping .40∗∗ .41∗∗ .38∗∗ .31
Behavioral disengagement .39∗∗ ——.52∗∗
Denial .37∗∗ .33.32∗∗ .53∗∗
Humor .32∗∗ .18 .09 .08
Planning .27∗∗ —— .42∗∗
Positive reframing .40∗∗ .41∗∗ .38∗∗ .31
Religion .16+—— .08
Self-blame .27∗∗ .47∗∗ .36∗∗ .35
Self-distraction .07 .26+
Substance use .06 .45∗∗ .22.32
Using emotional support .16+.10 — .13
Using instrumental support .15+.33.12
Venting .14 — .04 .16
Health-related outcomes
Anxiety .46∗∗ .56∗∗ .53∗∗ .60∗∗
Depression .41∗∗ .49∗∗ .50∗∗ .66∗∗
Exercise days .23
Fatigue .32∗∗ .55∗∗
Negative affect .34∗∗ .53∗∗ .51∗∗ .68∗∗
Pain — — — .59∗∗
Perceived stress .60∗∗ .71∗∗ .61∗∗ .64∗∗
Physical symptoms .39∗∗ .28.50∗∗
Positive affect .46∗∗ .17 .45∗∗ .63∗∗
Note. Sample 1 =128 students; Sample 2 =64 students; Sample 3 =112 cardiac
patients; Sample 4 =50 women with fibromyalgia or healthy controls. +p<.10,
*p<.05, **p<.01.
anxiety, and positive affect, and marginally to nega-
tive affect. Social support was still related to positive
affect and marginally to anxiety. Type D was still re-
lated to depression and negative affect and marginally
to positive affect.
Subgroup Differences in BRS Scores
Finally, we wanted to determine whether there were
subgroup differences in mean BRS scores between men
and women within samples, between participants with
Tabl e 4. Zero-Order and Partial Correlations between Resilience Measures and Outcomes for
Undergraduate Studentsa
Zero-Order Correlations Partial Correlations
BRS CD-RISC Ego Resiliency BRS CD-RISC Ego Resiliency
Perceived stress –.60** –.53** –.40** –.38** –.26* .04
Anxiety –.46** –.40** –.33** –.29** –.15 –.02
Depression –.41** –.35** .28** –.21* –.14 –.04
Negative affect –.34** –.25** –.16+–.24* –.14 .12
Positive affect .46** .68** .69** .09 .40** .26**
Physical symptoms –.39** –.35** –.25* –.23* –.15 .04
aSample 1 (128 undergraduates students). +p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01.
Tabl e 5. Zero-Order and Partial Correlations of the Brief Resilience Scale, Optimism, Social Support, and Type D
for Cardiac Patientsa
Zero-Order Correlations Partial Correlations
BRS Optimism Social Support Type D BRS Optimism Social Support Type D
Perceived stress .61∗∗ .38∗∗ .29∗∗ .35∗∗ .46∗∗ .30∗∗ .12 .05
Anxiety .53∗∗ .34∗∗ .35∗∗ .36∗∗ .33∗∗ .24∗−.20+.01
Depression .50∗∗ .25∗∗ .26∗∗ .46∗∗ .37∗∗ .08 .17 .32∗∗
Negative affect .51∗∗ .39∗∗ .19+.43∗∗ .35∗∗ .22+.01 .20
Positive affect .45∗∗ .40∗∗ .25∗∗ .36∗∗ .20+.28.23.19+
Fatigue .32∗∗ .18+.19.13 .28∗∗ .07 .17 .00
Exercise days .23.06 .11 .08 .19+.07 .06 .06
aSample 3 (112 cardiac rehabilitation patients). +p<.10, p<.05, ∗∗p<.01.
Type D and without Type D in Sample 3, and between
women with and without fibromyalgia in Sample 4.
There were no differences between men and women in
Samples 1 and 2, but BRS scores were higher in men
(M=4.07, SD =0.66) than for women (M=3.67,
SD =0.70) in Sample 3 (t =2.673, df =110, p<.01,
d=.60). Gender differences could not be examined in
Sample 4 because it only included women. In Sample 3,
the BRS scores were higher for the 93 cardiac patients
without Type D (M=4.11, SD =0.60) than for the 19
cardiac patients with Type D (M=3.27, SD =0.67;
t=5.318, df =110, p<.001, d=1.32). Finally, in
Sample 4, BRS scores were higher for the 30 women
without fibromyalgia (M=3.96, SD =0.58) than for
the 20 women with fibromyalgia (M=3.09, SD =
0.93; t =4.074, df =48, p<.001; d=1.12).
The purpose of this study was to test a new brief
resilience scale to assess the ability to bounce back or
recover from stress. We examined the BRS in two stu-
dent and two behavioral medicine samples. We found
that the BRS demonstrated good internal consistency
and test-retest reliability. In addition, our hypotheses
that it would represent one factor, would be related to
resilience resources and health-outcomes, and would
predict health outcomes beyond resilience resources
were supported. Finally, there were BRS score dif-
ferences between those with and without Type D and
those with and without fibromyalgia.
The results suggest that the BRS may have a unique
place in behavioral medicine research. First, previous
measures of resilience target the personal character-
istics that may promote positive adaptation and not
resilience itself. The BRS is the only measure that
specifically assesses resilience in its original and most
basic meaning: to bounce back or recover from stress
(Agnes, 2005). When studying people who are already
ill, assessing the specific ability to recover may be more
important than assessing the ability to resist illness.
Second, the BRS may be uniquely related to health
when controlling for previous resilience measures and
measures of individual resilience resources (e.g., op-
timism and social support). Since the BRS is framed
with regard to negative events (“stressful events,” “hard
times,” “difficult times,” “set-backs”), it is not surpris-
ing that its unique effects were specific to reducing
negative outcomes (anxiety, depression, negative af-
fect, physical symptoms).
Third, the relationship that we found between the
BRS and resilience resources suggests it may medi-
ate the effects of resilience resources on health out-
comes. Resources such as optimism, social support,
active coping, and the range of those assessed by pre-
vious resilience measures may facilitate the ability to
recover from stress or adversity. The ability to recover
itself may, in turn, have a more direct relationship with
health outcomes.
Finally, these studies have limitations which lay the
groundwork for future studies using the BRS. The
BRS needs to be used in longitudinal studies to de-
termine whether it predicts recovery from important
health stressors. In addition, the BRS needs to be com-
pared with physiological indicators of bouncing back
or recovery from stress and illness (Charney, 2004).
Last, the relationship between the BRS and other forms
of positive adaptation, such as thriving and posttrau-
matic growth, and their effects on health needs to be
Agnes, M. (Ed.). (2005). Webster’s new college dictionary.
Cleveland, OH: Wiley.
Ahern, N. R., Kiehl, E. M., Sole, M. L., & Byers, J. (2006). A review
of instruments measuring resilience. Issues in Comprehensive
Pediatric Nursing, 29, 103–125.
Bagby, M. R., Parker, J. D. A., & Taylor, G. J. (1994). The twenty-
item Toronto Alexithymia Scale-I item selection and cross-
validation of the factor structure. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 38,23–32.
Block, J., & Kremen, A. M. (1996). IQ and ego-resiliency: Con-
ceptual and empirical connections and separateness. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 349–361.
Carver, C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol’s
too long: Consider the Brief COPE. International Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 4, 92–100.
Carver, C. S. (1998). Resilience and thriving: Issues, models, and
linkages. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 245–266.
Chan, I. W. S., Lai, J. C. L., & Wong, K. W. N. (2006). Resilience
is associated with better recovery in Chinese people diagnosed
with coronary heart disease. Psychology and Health, 21(3),
Charney, D. S. (2004). Psychobiological mechanisms of resilience
and vulnerability: Implications for successful adaptation to ex-
treme stress. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161, 195–216.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T.,& Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure
of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24,
Cohen, S., Mermelstein, R., Karmarck, T., & Hoberman, H. (1985).
Measuring the functional components of social support. In I.
G. Sarason & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Social support: Theory,
research, and application. The Hague, Holland: Martinus Ni-
Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2003). Development of a
new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale
(CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18, 76–82.
Denollet, J. (2005). DS14: Standard assessment of negative affec-
tivity, social inhibition, and Type D personality. Psychosomatic
Medicine, 67, 89–97.
Finch, J. F., Okun, M. A., Barrera, M., Zautra, A. J., & Reich, J.
W. (1989). Positive and negative social ties among older adults:
Measurement models and the prediction of psychological stress
and well-being. American Journal of Community Psychology,
17, 585–605.
Larsen, R., & Diener, E. (1992). Promises and problems with the
circumplex model of emotion. In M. S. Clarke (Ed.), Emotion
(pp. 25–59). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in de-
velopment. American Psychologist, 56, 227–238.
Moos, R. H., Cronkite, R. C., & Finney, J. W. (1986). Health and
Daily Living Manual (2nd ed.).Palo Alto, CA: Center for Health
Care Evaluation, Stanford University Medical Centers.
Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psycho-
logical well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 69, 719–727.
Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguish-
ing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery,
and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063–
Sherbourne, C. D., & Stewart, A. L. (1991). The MOS social support
survey. Social Science and Medicine, 32, 705–714.
Tusaie, K., & Dyer, J. (2004). Resilience: A historical review of the
construct. Holistic Nursing Practice, 18, 3–8.
Veit, C. T., & Ware, J. E. (1983). The structure of psychological
distress and well-being in general populations. Journal of Con-
sulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 730–742.
Wagnild, G. M., & Young, H. M. (1993). Development and psy-
chometric evaluation of the resilience scale. Journal of Nursing
Measurement, 1, 165–178.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and
validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The
PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54, 1063–1070.
Zautra, A. J., Johnson, L. M., & Davis, M. C. (2005). Posi-
tive affect as a source for resilience for women in chronic
pain. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 212–
Zigmond, A. S., & Snaith, R. P. (1983). The Hospital Anxiety and
Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 67, 361–
... The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) (Smith et al, 2008) was administered before and after the workshops to detect any quantitative changes in resilience perceptions. The BRS has 6 items, which are equally positively and negatively phrased, along a 5-point Likert scale with requested answers ranging from 'strongly disagree' to 'strongly agree'. ...
... (Smith et al, 2013). The Resiliency Scale was used to measure participants' capacity for resilience (Smith et al, 2008) The Feeling Consciousness Scale (FCS) was developed by Lindhard (2016) for her doctoral thesis. It was adapted for this study by adding some statements. ...
Full-text available
MOTIVATION: Whatever we approach the subject of ‘health’ – in every sense, physical, mental, spiritual, religious, or holistic - society has always been the perfect environment for them to grow, flourish and refine their tendencies. Today, amid the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the humanitarian crisis and global upheaval while after the Covid-19 pandemic, the health problem discovers new values, confronts the previous ones, and challenges them to exceed their limits and status, but especially to find new boundaries for them to achieve new levels in what is known today as ‘human’. It seems, day by day, that paradigms of what was implied to be ‘safe’ and ‘secure’ regarding ‘health’, are not so [anymore] and people cannot agree with the current paradigms of ‘health’ or at least the directions they head. Thus, in search of more than one-sided understanding of ‘health’, we strive to enrich the comprehension of the term itself in every direction a definition was ever built upon philosophy and practices, and to offer in return a holistic approach for healing and providing aids to health intimately interconnected with the person it concerns, rather than apart from it. Due to the strong interconnections between health and sustainable development, coordination and partnerships across sectors are crucial to ensure harmonized and effective efforts.
... Students answered the scale by responding to a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 5 (describe me very well) to 0 (does not describe me at all). The scale is well validated in similar previous work (Smith et al., 2008;Labrague and Ballad, 2021), and in the present study, the internal consistency value of the scale was 0.88. The scale's test-retest reliability was 0.89 in the present study. ...
This online survey included 256 undergraduate nursing students studying at Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital in North India. Lockdown/Pandemic Fatigue Questionnaire, Brief Resilience Scale, and Coping Behavior Questionnaire were used to collect the information. Appropriate descriptive and inferential statistics were applied to compute the results.
... The BRS-6 is conceived to measure the essence of resilience as the ability to bounce back from stress [89], and evidence from intervention studies suggests that the scale is sensitive to change [90,91]. Its items will be reformulated from "I" to "we" statements to assess family rather than individual ability. ...
Full-text available
Background Family members of critically ill patients face considerable uncertainty and distress during their close others’ intensive care unit (ICU) stay. About 20–60% of family members experience adverse mental health outcomes post-ICU, such as symptoms of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress. Guidelines recommend structured family inclusion, communication, and support, but the existing evidence base around protocolized family support interventions is modest and requires substantiation. Methods To test the clinical effectiveness and explore the implementation of a multicomponent, nurse-led family support intervention in ICUs, we will undertake a parallel, cluster-randomized, controlled, multicenter superiority hybrid-type 1 trial. It will include eight clusters (ICUs) per study arm, with a projected total sample size of 896 family members of adult, critically ill patients treated in the German-speaking part of Switzerland. The trial targets family members of critically ill patients with an expected ICU stay of 48 h or longer. Families in the intervention arm will receive a family support intervention in addition to usual care. The intervention consists of specialist nurse support that is mapped to the patient pathway with follow-up care and includes psycho-educational and relationship-focused family interventions, and structured, interprofessional communication, and shared decision-making with families. Families in the control arm will receive usual care. The primary study endpoint is quality of family care, operationalized as family members’ satisfaction with ICU care at discharge. Secondary endpoints include quality of communication and nurse support, family management of critical illness (functioning, resilience), and family members’ mental health (well-being, psychological distress) measured at admission, discharge, and after 3, 6, and 12 months. Data of all participants, regardless of protocol adherence, will be analyzed using linear mixed-effects models, with the individual participant as the unit of inference. Discussion This trial will examine the effectiveness of the family support intervention and generate knowledge of its implementability. Both types of evidence are necessary to determine whether the intervention works as intended in clinical practice and could be scaled up to other ICUs. The study findings will make a significant contribution to the current body of knowledge on effective ICU care that promotes family participation and well-being. Trial registration NCT05280691 . Prospectively registered on 20 February 2022.
Özel gereksinimli çocuk, her anne baba için kabul edilmesi zor, sosyal hayatta var olması ve gerekli sorumluluklarını yerine getirebilmesi için düzenli, disiplinli destek olunması gereken büyük bir sorumluluktur. Anne baba adayları ailelerine yeni katılacak bir bireyin mutluluğunu yaşarken bu bireyin özel gereksinimli olabileceği durumunu genellikle hiç düşünmez ve tüm sürecin normal addedilen şekilde ilerleyeceği heyecanı ile bekleyiş içine girerler. Fakat doğumdan önce, doğum sırasında ya da doğumdan sonra oluşabilecek özel gereksinim durumu, anne baba adayları için bir yıkım, hayal kırıklığı yaşatabilmekte, uyum sağlama süreci ise zorlu olabilmektedir. Bu sürece bazı anne babalar daha az yıpranarak uyum sağlamaktadır. Bu ve buna benzer zorlayıcı yaşam olaylarına karşı toparlanabilme gücü psikolojik sağlamlık olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Bu duruma uyum sağlama noktasında ailelerin destek aldığı önemli kaynaklardan birisi de maneviyattır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, özel gereksinimli çocuğu olan ailelerin psikolojik sağlamlığı ile maneviyat düzeyinin çeşitli değişkenlere göre ilişkisini incelemek ve sonuçlara ilişkin çözüm önerileri sunmaktır. Araştırmaya Kütahya ilinde yaşayan tesadüfi örnekleme yoluyla seçilen özel gereksinimli çocuğu bulunan 360 gönüllü anne-baba katılmıştır. Araştırma nicel verilere dayalı ilişkisel tarama modelinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırma verisi toplamak için “Kişisel Bilgi Formu”, “Maneviyat Ölçeği” ve “Kısa Psikolojik Sağlamlık Ölçeği” (KPSÖ) kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda elde edilen verilerin analizi SPSS 22 İstatistik Paket Programı aracılığı ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmada özel gereksinimli çocuğu olan ailelerin psikolojik sağlamlık ile maneviyat ilişkisi arasında pozitif yönde ve düşük düzeyde (r= ,214) anlamlı (p<,05) bir ilişki olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Değişkenlerin birbirleri üzerinde açıkladıkları varyans, %4,5’tir. Sosyo demografik değişkenlere göre de maneviyat ve psikolojik sağlamlık düzeylerinde farklılaşmalar ve anlamlı ilişkilere ulaşılmıştır.
Full-text available
Background/purpose- Psychological resilience is considered a factor that can support teachers' adaptation to rapidly changing situations such as COVID-19, and in turn help to reduce the fear they may experience. The current study aims to examine the effect of COVID-19 fear on happiness through the mediating effect of psychological resilience based on teachers' perceptions. Materials/methods- The study was designed according to the relational survey model, and was conducted with the participation of 346 teachers. Research data were collected through online surveys. The study used the Sobel, Aroian, and Goodman tests to test the significance of the effect of the mediator variables between the dependent and independent variables Results- The results of the study showed that teachers' fear of COVID-19 significantly affected their happiness level. However, it was found that fear related to COVID-19 significantly predicted resilience and teachers' resilience level had a significant effect on their happiness. Conclusion-Fear and resilience associated with COVID-19 have a significant impact on happiness. In addition, psychological resilience was found to have a mediating effect on the relationship between fear and happiness associated with COVID-19. The findings of this study will lead the other researchers to expand their studies to assess other behavioral variables, such as apathy and depression that might influence the relationship between fear of covid, resilience and happiness.
In this evolving economy, it is important to develop work-ready graduates to meet the changing needs and demands of their careers. Developing work readiness will increase students’ employability and employment. However, attributes of work readiness are usually determined by the employers. The present study hopes to contribute towards a more holistic understanding of work readiness from the perspectives of diverse stakeholders, including employers and human resources (HR) professionals. Qualitative interview data was analysed based on a hybrid thematic approach, which is inductive and deductive coding (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). To identify the perspectives and characteristics of work readiness, 32 participants were interviewed and their transcripts were coded. The number of mentions per characteristics by participants were discussed according to each group (i.e. employers, university students and university instructors). Findings suggest that employers, university students and instructors were largely in agreement on the characteristics of work readiness. Similarities and differences in the participants’ perspective were discussed. Finally, implications of findings and recommendations were included in this chapter.
The present book chapter offers a multi-dimensional work readiness inventory to understand the relations of 21-dimensional attributes of work readiness. As there are still limited measures for assessing the work-ready attributes of graduates, this study developed and validated work readiness assessment inventory (WRAI) in the higher educational context of Singapore. Based on our existing knowledge, there is no such empirical study that has identified these attributes and investigated their relations on work readiness. The present study was based on a sample of final-year university students from a university in Singapore. First, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on 162 university students in a pilot study. Subsequently, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted in the main study with 914 university students. Factorial results supported the 21-dimension WRAI structure. Findings related to the importance of equipping our university graduates with relevant work-ready skills and preparing them for career success in this complex economy. This book chapter thus highlights how work readiness relates to the 21 attributes that are likely desired by employers and identifies the attributes that universities could develop in their students. Implications and directions of higher education will also be discussed.
Full-text available
Günümüzde sayıları giderek artmakta olan tek ebeveynli aileler genellikle anne ve çocuklarından oluşmaktadır. Bu çalışmada tek ebeveyn olan annelerin bilişsel esnekliği ile yaşam doyumu arasındaki ilişkide psikolojik sağlamlığın aracı rolünün değerlendirilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Ayrıca tek ebeveyn annelerin bilişsel esneklikleri, psikolojik sağlamlıkları ve yaşam doyumları; eğitim düzeyi, çalışma durumu, gelir düzeyi, psikolojik destek alma, psikiyatrik ilaç kullanma ve tek ebeveyn olma nedenine göre incelenmiştir. Çalışmada Kişisel Bilgi Formu, Kısa Psikolojik Sağlamlık Ölçeği, Yetişkin Yaşam Doyumu Ölçeği ve Bilişsel Esneklik Envanteri kullanılmıştır. Bu çalışma, yaşları 21 ile 75 arasında değişen ve yaşları ortalaması 41.97 (SS= 9.40) olan 265 tek ebeveyn olarak çocuklarıyla yaşamlarını sürdürmekte olan annelerle yürütülmüştür. Veriler SPSS 24.0 programı ve PROCESS eklentisi ile analiz edilmiştir. Yapılan analizler sonucunda, bilişsel esneklik, yaşam doyumu ve psikolojik sağlamlık arasında anlamlı pozitif ilişkilerin olduğu; bilişsel esneklik ile yaşam doyumu arasındaki ilişkide psikolojik sağlamlığın kısmi aracı rol üstlendiği gözlenmiştir. Bilişsel esnekliğin çalışma durumu, gelir düzeyi ve psikiyatrik ilaç kullanımı durumuna göre; psikolojik sağlamlığın çalışma durumu, gelir düzeyi, psikolojik destek alma ve psikiyatrik ilaç kullanma durumuna göre; yaşam doyumunun eğitim durumu, çalışma durumu ve gelir düzeyine göre anlamlı olarak farklılaştığı bulgulanmıştır.
Background: Endometriosis is a multifaceted chronic pain disorder that can have an impact on both physical and mental health. Women suffering from chronic pain may be more susceptible to various health disorders, especially during adversity, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Previous research has identified resilience as a mediator between internal or external stressors and well-being. Methods: An online survey was conducted during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany through patient support groups of women with endometriosis. The Brief Resilience Score (BRS) was employed to evaluate resilience, while the PHQ-4 questionnaire was used to assess self-reported mental health. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were applied to determine resilience’s independent risk and protective parameters. Results: High educational level was found to be an independent supportive moderator of high resilience in women with a resilience score greater than the study population’s median (BRS > 2.66; OR 2.715; 95% CI 1.472–5.007; p = 0.001) but not in women in the highest resilience score quartile (BRS > 3.33). A decrease in perceived social support was detected to be the most powerful independent risk factor for low resilience: OR 0.541, 95% CI 0.307–0.952, p = 0.033 for predicting BRS > 2.66, and OR 0.397, 95% CI 0.189–0.832, p = 0.014 for predicting scores > 3.33 on the BRS scale. A high burden of mental health symptoms, as measured by the PHQ-4 scale, was negatively associated with resilience. Conclusions: Satisfying social support and good mental health were shown to be key resources for resilience. The results of this study may assist in the identification of women at risk for low resilience and the development of resilience-building strategies in patients with endometriosis.
Full-text available
Background: As concerns around student mental health increase, universities are looking at preventative and universal interventions. The aim was to conduct a systematic review of curriculum-embedded interventions that target student mental health and wellbeing at university. Method: This was a systematic review of longitudinal pre-/post-studies of curriculum-embedded interventions to improve the mental health and wellbeing of students. Seven electronic databases were searched from June 2015 to May 2020. The vote counting method was used to syn-thesise studies. Results: Forty-six studies were included in the review. Studies were heterogeneous, and mostly underpowered and rated 'poor' in the risk of bias assessment due to poor and inconsistent reporting. Overall, most curriculum-embedded interventions did not influence stress or anxiety. Discussion: There is no strong evidence to support the impact of curriculum-embedded interventions for improving student mental health or wellbeing. Greater funding opportunities would allow for multi-programme and inter-institutional collaboration to improve the power of studies. Improved quality of reporting would enable high-quality meta-analyses, optimizing conclusions being drawn.
Full-text available
Addressing shortcomings of the self-report Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS), two studies were conducted to reconstruct the item domain of the scale. The first study resulted in the development of a new twenty-item version of the scale—the TAS-20. The TAS-20 demonstrated good internal consistency and test-retest reliability, and a three-factor structure theoretically congruent with the alexithymia construct. The stability and replicability of this three-factor structure were demonstrated in the second study with both clinical and nonclinical populations by the use of confirmatory factor analysis.
Full-text available
This study investigated the impact of personal resilience (a composite measure of optimism, perceived control and self-esteem) on outcome measures in 67 Chinese coronary heart disease patients in response to an 8-week rehabilitation programme. The effect of personal resilience on posttraumatic growth attributed to the onset of heart disease was also examined. Results indicated that coronary heart disease patients high in personal resilience achieved better outcomes than those low in personal resilience, as indicated by higher physical and mental summary measures in SF-36, lower cholesterol levels and better performance on the 6 min walk test. Moreover, personal resilience was demonstrated to be a significant predictor of the level of posttraumatic growth although the rehabilitation programme exerted a weak mediating effect on the link between personal resilience and posttraumatic growth. Findings were discussed in relation to clinical implications of the construct of personal resilience and the intervention programme.
This article addresses distinctions underlying concepts of resilience and thriving and issues in conceptualizing thriving. Thriving (physical or psychological) may reflect decreased reactivity to subsequent stressors, faster recovery from subsequent stressors, or a consistently higher level of functioning. Psychological thriving may reflect gains in skill, knowledge, confidence, or a sense of security in personal relationships. Psychological thriving resembles other instances of growth. It probably does not depend on the occurrence of a discrete traumatic event or longer term trauma, though such events may elicit it. An important question is why some people thrive, whereas others are impaired, given the same event. A potential answer rests on the idea that differences in confidence and mastery are self-perpetuating and self-intensifying. This idea suggests a number of variables whose role in thriving is worth closer study, including personality variables such as optimism, contextual variables such as social support, and situational variables such as the coping reactions elicited by the adverse event.
The study of resilience in development has overturned many negative assumptions and deficit-focused models about children growing up under the threat of disadvantage and adversity. The most surprising conclusion emerging from studies of these children is the ordinariness of resilience. An examination of converging findings from variable-focused and person-focused investigations of these phenomena suggests that resilience is common and that it usually arises from the normative functions of human adaptational systems, with the greatest threats to human development being those that compromise these protective systems. The conclusion that resilience is made of ordinary rather than extraordinary processes offers a more positive outlook on human development and adaptation, as well as direction for policy and practice aimed at enhancing the development of children at risk for problems and psychopathology. The study of resilience in development has overturned many negative assumptions and deficit-focused models about children growing up under the threat of disadvantage and adversity.
In recent studies of the structure of affect, positive and negative affect have consistently emerged as two dominant and relatively independent dimensions. A number of mood scales have been created to measure these factors; however, many existing measures are inadequate, showing low reliability or poor convergent or discriminant validity. To fill the need for reliable and valid Positive Affect and Negative Affect scales that are also brief and easy to administer, we developed two 10-item mood scales that comprise the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). The scales are shown to be highly internally consistent, largely uncorrelated, and stable at appropriate levels over a 2-month time period. Normative data and factorial and external evidence of convergent and discriminant validity for the scales are also presented. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)