ArticlePDF Available


Content may be subject to copyright.
IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM)
e-ISSN: 2278-487X, p-ISSN: 2319-7668. Volume 19, Issue 4. Ver. III (Apr. 2017), PP 23-33
DOI: 10.9790/487X-1904032333 23 | Page
A Critical Review of Scales Used in Resilience Research
Isyaku Salisu 1) & Norashida Hashim 2)
1)School of Business Management, College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) 06010 Sintok, Kedah
Darul Aman, Malaysia.
2)School of Business Management, College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) 06010 Sintok, Kedah
Darul Aman, Malaysia.
Abstract: This paper reviewed some of the most commonly used measures of resilience. Among these measures,
four of them were found to be used more frequently than others and therefore discussed. These are Connor-
Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale 10 (CD-RISC 10), Resilience Scale
for Adults (RSA), Brief Resilience Scale (BRS). The scales were presented in tables. After critical examination,
CD-RISC and CD-RISC 10 scales were found to be the most dominant scales in assessing resilience as they
possess best psychometric properties.
I. Introduction
In today’s dynamic environment, the capability of an individual, organizations and community to be
resilient is very vital. Individual, communities, entrepreneurial organizations as well as countries at large are all
vulnerable to environmental uncertainties and changes which present so many repercussions such as diseases,
disasters, terrorism, economic shocks, human error as well as equipment failure etc. (Bhamra, Dani, & Burnard,
2011). In this regard, “resilience has a bright future ahead of it as an explanatory concept in various allied fields
that deal with environmental extremes” (Alexander, 2013, p. 2714).
The concept of resilience has attracted serious attention of researchers, practitioners and policy makers
for over five decades ago (Duarte Alonso, 2015; Duarte Alonso& Bressan, 2015; Bonanno et al., 2015;
Distelberg, Martin, Borieux, & Oloo, 2015; McGreavy, 2015; Rivera, & Kapucu, 2015; Abramson et al., 2014;
Béné, Newsham, Davies, Ulrichs, & Godfrey‐Wood, 2014) and it has becomes conspicuous in virtually all
human endeavours and in different academic disciplines (Ledesma, 2014; Bhamra et al., 2011; Djalante, Holley,
& Thomalla, 2011) such as individual and organisational psychology (Powley, 2009), supply chain management
(Hohenstein, Feisel, Hartmann, & Giunipero, 2015; Tukamuhabwa, Stevenson, Busby, & Zorzini, 2015),
strategic management (Ortiz‐de‐Mandojana& Bansal, 2015), safety engineering (Hollnagel, 2015; Harrington&
Laussen, 2015) and ecology (Childers et al., 2015), especially after the prominent work of Gunderson and
Holling (2001) who popularized the concept among scholars and practitioners (Limnios et al., 2014). Further,
the frequency of usage of the term especially how it featured in the journals and articles’ titles in the social
science researches most especially from 2010, has unequivocally shown the dominant role it plays in various
aspects of human life (Bonanno et al., 2015). More so, a lot of money is being spent on resilience projects
around the world (McGreavy, 2015).
II. Resilience
According to Dahlberg, Johannessen-Henry, Raju, and Tulsiani, (2015), the concept of resilience has
different designation from different disciplines and scholars. In social sciences, economists label it as coping
capacity and anthropologists termed it bounce back better (e.g. Alexander, 2013). In business is referred to as
“business continuity plan” and in psychology, it refers to capability to mitigate shock (Shimada, 2014) ecologist
termed it adaptation (e.g. Holling 1973) and engineering considered to be a capability of a structure to absorb
shock while at the same time retaining its functions (Walker & Cooper, 2011). It is a concept that symbolizes
strength, capability, elasticity as well as evolution and has been used for centuries (Alexander, 2013). More so,
the concept has been featuring as a keyword in different conceptual as well as theoretical articles and titles in
academic journals especially in the field of disaster studies, taught in higher institutions of learning and are
entrenched in different policies around the globe (Dahlberg et al., 2015). It “cuts across disciplines and within a
discipline”. (p. 51) and “cuts across development, humanitarian and environmental processes” (Mitchell, 2012,
p.9). In fact, Zolli and Healey (2012) argued that the concept has virtually affect every part of human existence,
hence is “a powerful lens through which we can view major issues” (p. 16).
A Critical Review of Scales Used in Resilience Research
DOI: 10.9790/487X-1904032333 24 | Page
Table 1
Definitions of Resilience
Cheshire, Esparcia, & Shucksmith, 2015
Individuals’ ability to adapt to, and recover from disturbing events
Hobfoll, Stevens, & Zalta, 2015
The ability of individuals or human systems to absorb stressors and return to their
original state when that stressor is lifted without creating permanent damage or harm.
Everly Jr, Strouse, & McCormack, 2015
The ability to see yourself in the dark abyss of failure, humiliation or depression
and bounce back not only to where you were before but to even greater height of
success, happiness, and inner strength.
Ledesma, 2014
The ability to bounce back from adversity, frustration, and misfortune.
Limnios, Mazzarol, Ghadouani, & Schilizzi,
The magnitude of disturbance the system can tolerate and still persist.
Boin, Comfort & Demchak, 2010
The capacity of a social system (e.g. an organization, city, or society) to proactively
adapt to and recover from disturbances that are perceived within the system to fall
outside the range of normal and expected disturbances.
Connor & Davidson, 2003
Personal qualities that enable one to thrive in the face of adversity.
Resilience is a Polysemous” construct (Strunz, 2012, p.113) having various definitions (see table 1)
that share some similarities “the capacity of the individual to overcome adversity” and “ability to bounce back”
(Chadwick, 2014). As contentious as the definitions of resilience, generally, there has been agreement among
scholars that the resilience differs among places, context and the nature of the threats/events. As such, it is very
hard (if not impossible) to establish a generic scale that will suit all places, all context and all events. This
difficulty can be seen by the overflow of different conceptualization and operationalization as well as proposed
measures of resilience in the literature. This paper presents several scales used to measure resilience, including
the author name, dimensions (factors), number of items and scales used (see table 1). According to Windle,
Bennett, and Noyes, (2011) who reviewed 19 validated scales of resilience found that the psychometric
properties of these scales vary, some are better than the others. Likewise, all have some challenges regarding
their psychometric properties. But they argued that Resilience Scale for Adults, Brief Resilience Scale and the
Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) have the finest psychometric ratings. Therefore, these will be
Table 2
Resilience Instruments
Number of
Prince-Embury, 2006,
2008 & 2009
Emotional reactivity
1. Sense of mastery
Sense of relatedness
Sense of Mastery Scale
Wagnild & Young,
Personal competence
Acceptance of self and life
von Eisenhart Rothe et
al., 2013
Damásio, Borsa, & da
Silva, 2011
existential aloneness
Baruth & Carroll,
Adaptable personality
Supportive environment
Fewer stressors
Compensating experiences
Friborg et al., 2003;
Friborg et al., 2009
Positive perception of self
Positive perception of
Social competence
Structured style
Family cohesion
Social resources
Connor & Davidson,
Personal competence, high
standards, and tenacity
A Critical Review of Scales Used in Resilience Research
DOI: 10.9790/487X-1904032333 25 | Page
Trust in one’s instinct,
tolerance of negative
effects, and strengthening
effects of stresss
Positive acceptance of
change and secure
Spiritual influences
Cambell-Sills & Stein,
Vaishnavi, Connor, &
Davidson, 2007
Jew, Green, & Kroger,
Active skill acquisition
Future orientation
Independence/risk taking
Martin, Distelberg,
Palmer, & Jeste, 2015
Access to social support
Perceived economic and
social resources,
Spirituality and religiosity,
Relational accord,
Emotional expression and
Emotional regulation
Corrigan, Salzer,
Ralph, Songster, &
Keck, 2004
Personal confidence and
Willingness to ask for
Goal and success
Reliance on others
No domination by
Windle, Markland, &
Woods, 2008
Personal competence
Ungar etal., 2008
Gartland, Bond,
Olsson, Buzwell, &
Sawyer, 2011
Smith et al., 2008
Oshio et al., 2003)
Novelty seeking
Emotional regulation
Positive future orientation
Hjemdal et al., 2007)
Personal competence
Social competence
Structured style
Family cohesion
Madsen, & Abell,
Problem Solving
Sinclair & Wallston,
Adaptive coping (Polk’s
situational patterns)
Ryan & Caltabiano,
Family/social networks
Internal locus of control
Coping and adaptation
A Critical Review of Scales Used in Resilience Research
DOI: 10.9790/487X-1904032333 26 | Page
MIIRM- Multidimensional Individual and
Interpersonal Resilience Measure
CDRISC - ConnorDavidson Resilience Scale
RSA - Resilience Scale for Adults
BRS - Brief Resilience Scale
PR - Psychological Resilience
RAS - Recovery Assessment Scale
RSAS - Resilience Skills and Abilities Scale
ARQ - Adolescent Resilience Questionnaire
ARS - Adolescent Resilience Scale
READ - Resilience Scale for Adolescents
RSCA RSCA - Resiliency Scales for Children and
RS - Resiliency Scales
BPFI - Baruth Protective Factor's Inventory
BRCS - Brief Resilient Coping Scale
RIM - Resilience in Midlife Scale
CYRM - Child and Youth Resilience Measure
TRS - Trauma Resilience Scale
MMPR MMPR- Multidimensional Measure of Personal
ERS - Ego Resiliency Scale
ER89-R - Ego Resiliency Scale Revise
Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA)
RSA is a self-reported scale developed by (Friborg, Hjemdal, Rosenvinge, & Martinussen, 2003) to
measure individuals’ protective resilience elements (Smith-Osborne, & Whitehill Bolton, 2013). So many
scholars used it and applaud its psychometrics - validity and reliability (Hjemdal et al., 2011; Friborg, Hjemdal,
Martinussen, & Rosenvinge, 2009, 2006). Initially, the scale was five factor comprised of 45 items of five
dimensions: personal competence, social competence, family coherence, social support and personal structure.
Cronbach’s alpha, 0.90, 0.83, 0.87, 0.83 and 0.67 respectively.
Compared to the existing resilience scales, the RSA covers all three of the main classes of resilience;
dispositional attributes, family cohesion/warmth and external support systems. The first consists of three aspects
‘personal competence’, ‘social competence’ and ‘personal structure’. ‘Personal competence’ assessed the level
of self-esteem, self-efficacy, self-liking, hope, determination and a realistic orientation to life. ‘Social
competence’ assessed the extraversion, social adeptness, cheerful mood, an ability to initiate activities, good
communication skills and flexibility in social matters. ‘Personal structure’ assessed the ability to uphold daily
routines, to plan and organize. The second class was comprised by the dimension ‘family coherence’ that
assessed the amount of family conflict, cooperation, support, loyalty and stability. The third and last class
‘external support systems’ was consisted of the ‘social support’ that assessed the access to external support from
friends and relatives, intimacy, and the individual’s ability to provide support (Friborg et al 2003).
Later, study conducted to verify the factor structure of the scale, the CFA shows better fit as six factor
model by splitting the personal strength into planned future and perception of self (Basim, & Cetin, 2011;
Jowkar, Friborg, & Hjemdal, 2010). These six factors consist of perception of self (α = .74), planned future (α =
.73), social competence (α = .83), structured style (α = .80), family cohesion (α = .80), and social resources (α =
.74) (Friborg et al., 2005; Hjemdal et al., 2006) of thirty three (33) indicators on 5-rating scale. It was initially
validated in Scandinavia on 183 adults population aged 18-75 (Friborg et al., 2003). After the original
validation,the authors frequently revalidate and modify it (Friborg et al., 2009; Friborg et al., 2005).
In summary, the scale operationalizes the concept of resilience in both contextual and psychological term
(Smith-Osborne & Whitehill Bolton, 2013; Basim & Cetin, 2011; Jowkar et al., 2010) and the five-dimensional
scale corresponds well with the overall categorization of resilience, recapitulated as characterized by (i)
personal/dispositional attributes, (ii) family support and (iii) external support systems. Therefore, the authors
recommends that the RSA-scale might be used as a valid and reliable measurement of resilience.
Wei & Taormina 2014
Confident optimism
Productive and
autonomous activity
Interpersonal warmth and
Skilled expressiveness
Bromley, Johnson &
Cohen, 2006
Confident optimism
Productive activity
Insight and warmth
Skilled expressiveness
Block & Kremen,
Vecchione, Caprara &
Letzring, 2012
Vecchione et al.,
Openness to Life
Optimal Regulation
A Critical Review of Scales Used in Resilience Research
DOI: 10.9790/487X-1904032333 27 | Page
Table 3
Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA)
Personal Competence
I believe in my own abilities
Believing in myself helps me to overcome difficult times
I know that I succeed if I carry on
I know how to reach my goals
No matter what happens I always find a solution
I am comfortable together with other persons
My future feels promising
I know that I can solve my personal problems
I am pleased with myself
I have realistic plans for the future
I completely trust my judgments and decisions
At hard times I know that better times will come
Social competence
I am good at getting in touch with new people
I easily establish new friendships
It is easy for me to think of good conversational topics
I easily adjust to new social milieus
It is easy for me to make other people laugh
I enjoy being with other people
I know how to start a conversation
I easily laugh
It is important for me to be flexible in social circumstances
I experience good relations with both women and men
Family coherence
There are strong bonds in my family
I enjoy being with my family
In our family we are loyal towards each other
In my family we enjoy finding common activities
Even at difficult times my family keeps a positive outlook on the future
In my family we have a common understanding of what’s important in life
There are few conflicts in my family
Social support
I have some close friends/family members who really care about me
I have some friends/family members who back me up
I always have someone who can help me when needed
I have some close friends/family members who are good at encouraging me
I am quickly notified if some family members get into a crisis
I can discuss personal matters with friends/family members
I have some close friends/family members who value my abilities
I regularly keep in touch with my family
There are strong bonds between my friends
Personal structure
Rules and regular routines make my daily life easier
I keep up my daily routines even at difficult times
I prefer to plan my actions
I work best when I reach for a goal
I am good at organizing my time
Sources:Friborg, Hjemdal, Rosenvinge, & Martinussen, 2003
A Critical Review of Scales Used in Resilience Research
DOI: 10.9790/487X-1904032333 28 | Page
Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC)
Due to inherent problems in most of the scales developed to measure resilience such as lack of
wider acceptability and applicability, Connor and Davidson (2003) developed CD-RISC, a valid and reliable
resilience measurement aimed at remedying the challenges of other measurements. It is a brief self-rated
instrument that measure resilience, which consists of 25 items on 5-point Likert scale (Connor & Davidson,
2003). The measurement content was extracted from different number of sources, from Kobasa’s seminal work
(Kobasa, 1979), Rutter’s work (Rutter, 1985), Lyons (1991) and experiences of Shackleton’s heroic adventure
in the Antarctic in 1912 (Alexander, 1998).
After the pioneer work of Connor and Davidson (2003), several studies examine the psychometric
properties of CD-RISC, assessing its validity and reliability (Ni et al., 2016; Fernandez, Fehon, Treloar, Ng, &
Sledge, 2015; Jeong et al., 2015;Asante & Meyer-Weitz, 2014; Ayala & Manzano, 2014; Fu, Leoutsakos, &
Underwood, 2014; Liu, Fairweather-Schmidt, Burns, & Roberts, 2014; Coates, Phares, & Dedrick, 2013;
Manzano & Ayala, 2013; Dolores et al., 2012; Goins, Gregg, & Fiske, 2012; Jung et al., 2012; Notario-Pacheco
et al., 2011; Baek, Lee, Joo, Lee, & Choi, 2010; Burns & Anstey, 2010; Jowkar et al., 2010;Karaırmak, 2010;
Singh & Yu, 2010; Wang, Shi, Zhang, & Zhang, 2010; Khoshouei, 2009; Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007). These
studies documented that the scale has a better psychometric properties compared to others and therefore, it
“appears to be one of the more widely used resilience measures” (Goins et al., 2012, p.3)
Initially, CD-RISC was a five factor scale personal competence, high standards, and tenacity (8
items); trust in one’s instinct, tolerance of negative effects, and strengthening effects of stress (7 items); positive
acceptance of change and secure relationships (5 items); control (3 items) and spiritual influences (2 items),
(Connor & Davidson, 2003), but, after several refinements, validations and revalidations, studies found it fit on
different factors such as the original five factor model, (Pangallo, Zibarras, Lewis, & Flaxman, 2015; Windle et
al., 2011; Yu, Lau, Mak, Zhang & Lui, 2011; Jowkar, et al., 2010 ), four factor model (Wu, Tan, & Liu, 2017;
Lamond et al., 2009), three factor model, (Ayala, & Manzano, 2014; Karaırmak, 2010; Yu & Zhang, 2007), two
factor model and others one factor undimensional model (Fernandez et al., 2015; Jeong et al., 2015; Coates et
al., 2013; Gucciardi, Jackson, Coulter, & Mallett, 2011; Burns & Anstey, 2010; Wang, Shi, Zhang, & Zhang,
2010; Campbell-Sills, & Stein, 2007; Vaishnavi, Connor, & Davidson, 2007). Furthermore, for its crucial role in
explaining the concept of resilience, the CD-RISC is one of the most widely validated scale in resilience
literature, (Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007), and it has been translated into many languages across wide range of
populations (Gucciardi et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2011). The scale has been tested using sample of young adults
(Burns & Anstey, 2010), earthquake survivors (Karairmak, 2010), teenagers (Jorgensen & Seedat, 2008), young
women (Clauss-Ehlers, 2008), nurses (Gillespie, Chaboyer, & Wallis, 2007), graduate students (Singh & Yu,
2010) as well as general population (Yu & Zhang, 2007).
Table 4
Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale CD-RISC
Able to adapt to change
Close and secure relationships
Sometimes fate or God can help
Can deal with whatever comes
Past success gives confidence for new challenge
See the humorous side of things
Coping with stress strengthens
Tend to bounce back after illness or hardship
Things happen for a reason
Best effort no matter what
You can achieve your goals
When things look hopeless, I don’t give up
Know where to turn for help
Under pressure, focus and think clearly
Prefer to take the lead in problem solving
Not easily discouraged by failure
Think of self as strong person
Make unpopular or difficult decisions
A Critical Review of Scales Used in Resilience Research
DOI: 10.9790/487X-1904032333 29 | Page
Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) 10
As a result of instability in the five factor structure of CD-RISC (Fu, Leoutsakos, & Underwood, 2014)
discussed above, and inability of the researchers to agree on the best possible factor compositions of the scale
(Notario-Pacheco et al., 2011), Campbell-Sills & Stein, (2007) extracted and validated CD-RISC 10, a
unidimensional 10 items scale that have high loadings, show high level of consistency or loaded onto very
strong factor from the original 25 item of Connor and Davidson (2003) and validated them using 1,743 sample
of undergraduate students (Coates, Phares, & Dedrick, 2013). Subsequently, Burns and Anstey (2010) and
Gucciardi, Jackson, Coulter, & Mallett, (2011) validated it using sample of Australian adult.Although, both have
good psychometric properties, CD-RISC 10 possessed better and more established factor structure and is more
robust, more efficient as well as simple and parsimonious (Ye et al., 2017; Dolores et al, 2012; Goins et al.,
2012; Gucciardi et al., 2011; Notario-Pacheco et al., 2011; Burns & Anstey 2010; Campbell-Sills & Stein,
2007). It is also good for assessing resilience of low-income population (Coates et al., 2013).
Table 5
Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale 10
I am able to adapt to change
I can deal with whatever comes
I tries to see humorous side of problems
Coping with stress can strengthen me
I tend to bounce back after illness or hardship
I can achieve goals despite obstacles
I can stay focused under pressure
I am not easily discouraged by failure
I think of self as strong person
I can handle unpleasant feelings
Source: Campbell-Sills & Stein, (2007)
Brief Resilience Scale (BRS)
Developed and validated by Smith et al., (2008), brief resilience scale is a self-reported aimed at
assessing the most basic and the original sense of resilience, that is “the ability to bounce back from stress”
(Smith, Tooley, Christopher, & Kay, 2010, p. 168). Its psychometric properties were evaluated in four different
samples (Smith et al., 2008) with good Cronbach’s alpha of 0.80 and above in all the samples studied (Smith, et
al., 2010). It is unidimensional construct with 6 indicators rating on 5-point ranging from 1, strongly disagree to
5, strongly agree. In other words, the scale was reliable as unitary construct. It was predictably linked to social
relations, coping, personal characteristics and health in all samples. It was negatively associated to depression,
negative affect, anxiety and physical symptoms. 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 stressors.
According to the authors, the BRS may have an exceptional place in behavioural research because
previous measures of resilience do not target the resilience itself but the personal characteristics that may
promote positive adaptation. Hence, 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.
Can handle unpleasant feelings
Have to act on a hunch
Strong sense of purpose
In control of your life
I like challenges
You work to attain your goals
Pride in your achievements
Source: Connor and Davison 2003
A Critical Review of Scales Used in Resilience Research
DOI: 10.9790/487X-1904032333 30 | Page
Table 6
Brief Resilience Scale (BRS)
I tend to bounce back quickly after hard times
I have a hard time making it through stressful events (R)
It does not take me long to recover from a stressful event
It is hard for me to snap back when something bad happens (R)
I usually come through difficult times with little trouble
I tend to take a long time to get over set-backs in my life (R)
Note. R = reverse coded items.
Source: Smith et al., 2008
III. Conclusion
This paper review some of the scales frequently used to measure resilience. In all the measurements
reviewed, based on their psychometric properties; their validity as well as reliability, the most widely used scale
for measuring resilience is CD-RISC, most especially the 10-items scale (Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007). This
paper also discovered that majority of studies that used CD-RISC were conducted in medical and or disaster
studies. It is therefore imperative to use this scale to assess the resilience of individuals in other fields such as
entrepreneurship and general management.
[1]. Abramson, D. M., Grattan, L. M., Mayer, B., Colten, C. E., Arosemena, F. A., Bedimo-Rung, A., & Lichtveld, M. (2014). The
Resilience Activation Framework: a conceptual model of how access to social resources promotes adaptation and rapid recovery in
post-disaster settings. The journal of behavioral health services and research, 42(1), 42-57.
[2]. Agnes, M. (Ed.). (2005). Webster’s new college dictionary. Cleveland, OH: Wiley.
[3]. Alessandri, G., Vecchione, M., Caprara, G., & Letzring, T. D. (2012). The ego resiliency scale revised. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment. 28(2), 139146.
[4]. Alexander C. (1998). The Endurance: Shackleton’s legendary Antarctic expedition. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
[5]. Alexander, D. E. (2013). Resilience and disaster risk reduction: an etymological journey. Natural Hazards and Earth System
Science, 13(11), 2707-2716.
[6]. Asante, K. O., & Meyer-Weitz, A. (2014). Measuring resilience among homeless youth: psychometric assessment of the Connor-
Davidson Resilience Scale in Ghana. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 24(4), 321-326.
[7]. Ayala, J. C., & Manzano, G. (2014). The resilience of the entrepreneur. Influence on the success of the business. A longitudinal
analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 42, 126-135.
[8]. Baek, H. S., Lee, K. U., Joo, E. J., Lee, M. Y., & Choi, K. S. (2010). Reliability and validity of the Korean version of the Connor-
Davidson Resilience Scale.Psychiatry investigation, 7(2), 109-115.
[9]. Baruth, K. E., & Caroll, J. J. (2002). A formal assessment of resilience: The Baruth Protective Factors Inventory. The Journal of
Individual Psychology 58(3), 235-244.
[10]. Basim, H. N., & Cetin, F. (2011). The reliability and validity of the Resilience Scale for Adults-Turkish Version. Turkish Journal of
Psychiatry, 22(2), 104.
[11]. Béné, C., Newsham, A., Davies, M., Ulrichs, M., & Godfrey‐Wood, R. (2014). Review article: Resilience, poverty and
development. Journal of International Development, 26(5), 598-623.
[12]. Bhamra, R., Dani, S., & Burnard, K. (2011). Resilience: the concept, a literature review and future directions. International Journal
of Production Research, 49(18), 5375-5393.
[13]. Block, J., & Kremen, A. M. (1996). IQ and ego-resiliency: conceptual and empirical connections and separateness. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 70(2), 349.
[14]. Boin, A, Comfort L.K & Demchak C.C., (2010), The rise of resilience, in Comfort L.K., Boin A. & Demchak C.C., eds, Designing
Resilience: Preparing for Extreme Events, Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 1 12.
[15]. Bonanno, G. A., Romero, S. A., & Klein, S. I. (2015). The Temporal Elements of Psychological Resilience: An Integrative
Framework for the Study of Individuals, Families, and Communities. Psychological Inquiry, 26(2), 139-169.
[16]. Burns, R. A., & Anstey, K. J. (2010). The ConnorDavidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): Testing the invariance of a uni-
dimensional resilience measure that is independent of positive and negative affect. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(5),
[17]. Campbell-Sills, L., & Stein, M. B. (2007). Psychometric analysis and refinement of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-
RISC): validation of a 10-item measure of resilience. Journal of traumatic stress, 20(6), 1019.
[18]. Chadwick, S. (2014). Social and Emotional Resilience. In Impacts of Cyberbullying, Building Social and Emotional Resilience in
Schools (pp. 31-55). Springer International Publishing.
[19]. Cheshire, L., Esparcia, J., & Shucksmith, M. (2015). Community resilience, social capital and territorial governance. Ager: Revista
de estudios sobre despoblación y desarrollo rural= Journal of depopulation and rural development studies, (18), 7-38.
[20]. Childers, D. L., Cadenasso, M. L., Grove, J. M., Marshall, V., McGrath, B., & Pickett, S. T. (2015). An ecology for cities: A
transformational nexus of design and ecology to advance climate change resilience and urban sustainability. Sustainability, 7(4),
[21]. Clauss-Ehlers, C. S. (2008). Sociocultural factors, resilience, and coping: Support for a culturally sensitive measure of
resilience. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(3), 197-212.
[22]. Coates, E. E., Phares, V., & Dedrick, R. F. (2013). Psychometric properties of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale 10 among
low-income, African American men. Psychological assessment, 25(4), 1349.
[23]. Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor‐Davidson resilience scale
(CD‐RISC). Depression and anxiety, 18(2), 76-82.
[24]. Corrigan, P. W., Salzer, M., Ralph, R. O., Sangster, Y., & Keck, L. (2004). Examining the factor structure of the recovery
assessment scale. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 30(4), 1035.
A Critical Review of Scales Used in Resilience Research
DOI: 10.9790/487X-1904032333 31 | Page
[25]. Dahlberg, R., Johannessen-Henry, C. T., Raju, E., & Tulsiani, S. (2015). Resilience in disaster research: three versions. Civil
Engineering and Environmental Systems, 32(1-2), 44-54.
[26]. Damásio, B. F., Borsa, J. C., & da Silva, J. P. (2011). 14-item resilience scale (RS-14): psychometric properties of the Brazilian
version. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 19(3), 131-145.
[27]. Distelberg, B. J., Martin, A. V. S., Borieux, M., & Oloo, W. A. (2015). Multidimensional Family Resilience Assessment: The
Individual, Family, and Community Resilience (IFCR) Profile. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 25(6), 552-
[28]. Djalante, R., Holley, C., & Thomalla, F. (2011). Adaptive governance and managing resilience to natural hazards. International
Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2(4), 1-14.
[29]. Dolores, S. P. M., Garrido-Abejar, M., Notario-Pacheco, B., Bartolomé-Gutiérrez, R., Solera-Martínez, M., & Martínez-Vizcaíno,
V. (2012). Validity of the Connor-Davidson resilience scale (10 items) in a population of elderly. Enfermeria clinica, 23(1), 14-21.
[30]. Duarte Alonso, A. (2015). Resilience in the context of two traditional Spanish rural sectors: an exploratory study. Journal of
Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 9(2), 182-203.
[31]. Duarte Alonso, A., & Bressan, A. (2015). Resilience in the context of Italian micro and small wineries: an empirical
study. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 27(1), 40-60.
[32]. Everly Jr, G. S., Strouse, D. A., & McCormack, D. K. (2015). Stronger: Develop the Resilience You Need to Succeed. AMACOM
Div American Management Association.
[33]. Fernandez, A. C., Fehon, D. C., Treloar, H., Ng, R., & Sledge, W. H. (2015). Resilience in Organ Transplantation: An Application
of the ConnorDavidson Resilience Scale (CDRISC) With Liver Transplant Candidates. Journal of personality assessment, 97(5),
[34]. Fernandez, A. C., Fehon, D. C., Treloar, H., Ng, R., & Sledge, W. H. (2015). Resilience in Organ Transplantation: An Application
of the ConnorDavidson Resilience Scale (CDRISC) With Liver Transplant Candidates. Journal of personality assessment, 97(5),
[35]. Friborg, O., Hjemdal, O., Martinussen, M., & Rosenvinge, J. H. (2009). Empirical support for resilience as more than the
counterpart and absence of vulnerability and symptoms of mental disorder. Journal of Individual Differences, 30(3), 138.
[36]. Friborg, O., Hjemdal, O., Rosenvinge, J. H., & Martinussen, M. (2003). A new rating scale for adult resilience: What are the central
protective resources behind healthy adjustment?. International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 12(2), 65-76.
[37]. Fu, C., Leoutsakos, J. M., & Underwood, C. (2014). An examination of resilience cross-culturally in child and adolescent survivors
of the 2008 China earthquake using the ConnorDavidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Journal of affective disorders, 155, 149-
[38]. Fu, C., Leoutsakos, J. M., & Underwood, C. (2014). An examination of resilience cross-culturally in child and adolescent survivors
of the 2008 China earthquake using the ConnorDavidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Journal of affective disorders, 155, 149-
[39]. Gartland, D., Bond, L., Olsson, C. A., Buzwell, S., & Sawyer, S. M. (2011). Development of a multi-dimensional measure of
resilience in adolescents: the Adolescent Resilience Questionnaire. BMC medical research methodology, 11(1), 134.
[40]. Gillespie, B. M., Chaboyer, W., Wallis, M., & Grimbeek, P. (2007). Resilience in the operating room: Developing and testing of a
resilience model. Journal of advanced nursing, 59(4), 427-438.
[41]. Goins, R. T., Gregg, J. J., & Fiske, A. (2012). Psychometric properties of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale with older
American Indians: The Native Elder Care Study. Research on Aging, 35(2), 123-143.
[42]. Gucciardi, D. F., Jackson, B., Coulter, T. J., & Mallett, C. J. (2011). The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC):
Dimensionality and age-related measurement invariance with Australian cricketers. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(4), 423-
[43]. Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (Eds.). (2001). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
[44]. Harrington, K., & Laussen, P. C. (2015). Resilience and Systems Engineering. In Pediatric and Congenital Cardiac Care (pp. 331-
340). Springer London.
[45]. Hjemdal, O., Friborg, O., Braun, S., Kempenaers, C., Linkowski, P., & Fossion, P. (2011). The Resilience Scale for Adults:
Construct validity and measurement in a Belgian sample. International journal of testing, 11(1), 53-70.
[46]. Hobfoll, S. E., Stevens, N. R., & Zalta, A. K. (2015). Expanding the Science of Resilience: Conserving Resources in the Aid of
Adaptation. Psychological Inquiry, 26(2), 174-180.
[47]. Hohenstein, N. O., Feisel, E., Hartmann, E., & Giunipero, L. (2015). Research on the phenomenon of supply chain resilience: A
systematic review and paths for further investigation. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, 45(1/2), 90-117.
[48]. Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 1-23.
[49]. Hollnagel, E. (2015). Systemic accidents from a resilience engineering perspective. Conexão SIPAER, 6(1), 1-3.
[50]. Jeong, H. S., Kang, I., Namgung, E., Im, J. J., Jeon, Y., Son, J., ... & Kim, J. E. (2015). Validation of the Korean version of the
ConnorDavidson Resilience Scale-2 in firefighters and rescue workers. Comprehensive psychiatry, 59, 123-128
[51]. Jew, C. L., Green, K. E., & Kroger, J. (1999). Development and validation of a measure of resiliency. Measurement and evaluation
in counseling and development, 32(2), 75.
[52]. Jorgensen, I. E., & Seedat, S. (2008). Factor structure of the Connor-Davidson resilience scale in South African
adolescents. International journal of adolescent medicine and health, 20(1), 23-32.
[53]. Jowkar, B., Friborg, O., & Hjemdal, O. (2010). Cross‐cultural validation of the Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA) in
Iran. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,51(5), 418-425
[54]. Jung, Y. E., Min, J. A., Shin, A. Y., Han, S. Y., Lee, K. U., Kim, T. S., ... & Chae, J. H. (2012). The Korean Version of the Connor
Davidson Resilience Scale: An Extended Validation. Stress and Health, 28(4), 319-326.
[55]. Karaırmak, Ö. (2010). Establishing the psychometric qualities of the ConnorDavidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) using
exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis in a trauma survivor sample. Psychiatry Research, 179(3), 350-356.
[56]. Khoshouei, M. S. (2009). Psychometric evaluation of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) using Iranian
students. International Journal of Testing, 9(1), 60-66.
[57]. Klohnen, E. C. (1996). Conceptual analysis and measurement of the construct of ego-resiliency. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 70(5), 1067.
[58]. Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: an inquiry into hardiness. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 37(1), 1.
A Critical Review of Scales Used in Resilience Research
DOI: 10.9790/487X-1904032333 32 | Page
[59]. Lamond, A. J., Depp, C. A., Allison, M., Langer, R., Reichstadt, J., Moore, D. J., ... & Jeste, D. V. (2008). Measurement and
predictors of resilience among community-dwelling older women. Journal of psychiatric research, 43(2), 148-154.
[60]. Ledesma, J. (2014). Conceptual Frameworks and Research Models on Resilience in Leadership. SAGE Open, 4(3),
[61]. Limnios, E. A. M., Mazzarol, T., Ghadouani, A., & Schilizzi, S. G. (2014). The resilience architecture framework: Four
organizational archetypes. European Management Journal, 32(1), 104-116.
[62]. Limnios, E. A. M., Mazzarol, T., Ghadouani, A., & Schilizzi, S. G. (2014). The resilience architecture framework: Four
organizational archetypes. European Management Journal, 32(1), 104-116.
[63]. Liu, D. W., Fairweather-Schmidt, A. K., Burns, R. A., & Roberts, R. M. (2014). The Connor-Davidson resilience scale:
Establishing invariance between gender across the lifespan in a large community based study. Journal of Psychopathology and
Behavioral Assessment, 37(2), 340-348.
[64]. Lyons, J. A. (1991). Strategies for assessing the potential for positive adjustment following trauma. Journal of Traumatic
Stress, 4(1), 93-111.
[65]. Madsen, M. D., & Abell, N. (2010). Trauma resilience scale: Validation of protective factors associated with adaptation following
violence. Research on Social Work Practice, 20(2), 223-233.
[66]. Manzano, G. & Ayala, J.C., (2013). Psychometric properties of Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale in a Spanish sample of
entrepreneurs. Psicothema,25(2), 245-251.
[67]. Martin, A. V. S., Distelberg, B., Palmer, B. W., & Jeste, D. V. (2015). Development of a new multidimensional individual and
interpersonal resilience measure for older adults. Aging & mental health, 19(1), 32-45.
[68]. McGreavy, B. (2015). Resilience as discourse. Environmental Communication, (ahead-of-print), 1-18.
[69]. McGreavy, B. (2015). Resilience as discourse. Environmental Communication, (ahead-of-print), 1-18.
[70]. Mitchell, T. (2012). Options for including disaster resilience in post-2015 development goals. Background Note. London: ODI.
[71]. Ni, M. Y., Li, T. K., Nancy, X. Y., Pang, H., Chan, B. H., Leung, G. M., & Stewart, S. M. (2016). Normative data and psychometric
properties of the ConnorDavidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) and the abbreviated version (CD-RISC2) among the general
population in Hong Kong. Quality of Life Research, 25(1), 111-116.
[72]. Notario-Pacheco, B., Solera-Martínez, M., Serrano-Parra, M. D., Bartolomé-Gutiérrez, R., García-Campayo, J., & Martínez-
Vizcaíno, V. (2011). Reliability and validity of the Spanish version of the 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (10-item CD-
RISC) in young adults. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 9(63), 1-6.
[73]. Ortiz‐de‐Mandojana, N., & Bansal, P. (2015). The long‐term benefits of organizational resilience through sustainable business
practices. Strategic Management Journal.
[74]. Pangallo, A., Zibarras, L., Lewis, R., & Flaxman, P. (2015). Resilience through the lens of interactionism: A systematic review.
Psychological Assessment, 27(1), 120.
[75]. Powley, E. H. (2009). Reclaiming resilience and safety: Resilience activation in the critical period of crisis. Human
Relations, 62(9), 1289-1326.
[76]. Prince-Embury, S. (2006). Resiliency Scales for Children and AdolescentsA profile of Personal Strengths (RSCA). San Antonio,
TX: Pearson Education.
[77]. Prince-Embury, S. (2008). The resiliency scales for children and adolescents, psychological symptoms, and clinical status in
adolescents. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 23(1), 41-56.
[78]. Prince-Embury, S. (2009). The resiliency scales for children and adolescents as related to parent education level and race/ethnicity
in children. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 24(2), 167-182.
[79]. Rivera, F. I., & Kapucu, N. (2015). Resilience. In Disaster Vulnerability, Hazards and Resilience (pp. 69-81). Springer
International Publishing.
[80]. Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity. Protective factors and resistance to psychiatric disorder. The British Journal
of Psychiatry, 147(6), 598-611.
[81]. Ryan, L., & Caltabiano, M. L. (2009). Development of a new resilience scale: The Resilience in Midlife Scale (RIM Scale). Asian
Social Science, 5(11), 39.
[82]. Shimada, G. (2014). Resilience and Social Capital. Perspectives on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, Japan International
Cooperation Agency Research Institute (JICA-RI)151-162.
[83]. Sinclair, V. G., & Wallston, K. A. (2004). The development and psychometric evaluation of the Brief Resilient Coping
Scale. Assessment, 11(1), 94-101.
[84]. Singh, K., & Yu, X. N. (2010). Psychometric evaluation of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) in a sample of Indian
students. Journal of Psychology, 1(1), 23-30.
[85]. Singh, K., & Yu, X. N. (2010). Psychometric evaluation of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) in a sample of Indian
students. Journal of Psychology, 1(1), 23-30.
[86]. Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The brief resilience scale: assessing the
ability to bounce back. International journal of behavioral medicine, 15(3), 194-200.
[87]. Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The brief resilience scale: assessing the
ability to bounce back. International journal of behavioral medicine, 15(3), 194-200.
[88]. Smith, B. W., Tooley, E. M., Christopher, P. J., & Kay, V. S. (2010). Resilience as the ability to bounce back from stress: A
neglected personal resource?. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(3), 166-176.
[89]. Smith-Osborne, A., & Whitehill Bolton, K. (2013). Assessing resilience: A review of measures across the life course. Journal of
evidence-based social work, 10(2), 111-126.
[90]. Strunz, S. (2012). Is conceptual vagueness an asset? Arguments from philosophy of science applied to the concept of
resilience. Ecological Economics, 76, 112-118.
[91]. Tukamuhabwa, B. R., Stevenson, M., Busby, J., & Zorzini, M. (2015). Supply chain resilience: definition, review and theoretical
foundations for further study. International Journal of Production Research, 53(18), 5592-5623.
[92]. Ungar, M., Liebenberg, L., Boothroyd, R., Kwong, W. M., Lee, T. Y., Leblanc, J., ... & Makhnach, A. (2008). The study of youth
resilience across cultures: Lessons from a pilot study of measurement development. Research in Human Development, 5(3), 166-
[93]. Vaishnavi, S., Connor, K., & Davidson, J. R. (2007). An abbreviated version of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC),
the CD-RISC2: Psychometric properties and applications in psychopharmacological trials. Psychiatry research, 152(2), 293-297.
[94]. Vaishnavi, S., Connor, K., & Davidson, J. R. (2007). An abbreviated version of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC),
the CD-RISC2: Psychometric properties and applications in psychopharmacological trials. Psychiatry research, 152(2), 293-297.
A Critical Review of Scales Used in Resilience Research
DOI: 10.9790/487X-1904032333 33 | Page
[95]. Vecchione, M., Alessandri, G., Barbaranelli, C., & Gerbino, M. (2010). Stability and change of ego resiliency from late adolescence
to young adulthood: A multiperspective study using the ER89R Scale. Journal of personality assessment, 92(3), 212-221.
[96]. von Eisenhart Rothe, A., Zenger, M., Lacruz, M. E., Emeny, R., Baumert, J., Haefner, S., & Ladwig, K. H. (2013). Validation and
development of a shorter version of the resilience scale RS-11: results from the population-based KORAage study. BMC
psychology, 1(1), 1.
[97]. Wagnild, G., & Young, H. (1993). Development and psychometric. Journal of nursing measurement, 1(2), 165-178.
[98]. Walker, J., & Cooper, M. (2011). Genealogies of resilience from systems ecology to the political economy of crisis
adaptation. Security dialogue, 42(2), 143-160.
[99]. Wang, L., Shi, Z., Zhang, Y., & Zhang, Z. (2010). Psychometric properties of the 10‐item ConnorDavidson Resilience Scale in
Chinese earthquake victims. Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences, 64(5), 499-504.
[100]. Wei, W., & Taormina, R. J. (2014). A new multidimensional measure of personal resilience and its use: Chinese nurse resilience,
organizational socialization and career success. Nursing inquiry, 21(4), 346-357.
[101]. Windle, G., Bennett, K. M., & Noyes, J. (2011). A methodological review of resilience measurement scales. Health and quality of
life outcomes, 9(8), 1-18.
[102]. Windle, G., Markland, D. A., & Woods, R. T. (2008). Examination of a theoretical model of psychological resilience in older
age. Aging and Mental Health, 12(3), 285-292.
[103]. Wu, L., Tan, Y., & Liu, Y. (2017). Factor structure and psychometric evaluation of the Connor-Davidson resilience scale in a new
employee population of China. BMC psychiatry, 17(1), 49.
[104]. Yu, X. N., Lau, J. T., Mak, W. W., Zhang, J., & Lui, W. W. (2011). Factor structure and psychometric properties of the Connor-
Davidson Resilience Scale among Chinese adolescents. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 52(2), 218-224.
[105]. Yu, X., & Zhang, J. (2007). Factor analysis and psychometric evaluation of the Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC) with
Chinese people. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 35(1), 19-30.
[106]. Yu, X., & Zhang, J. (2007). Factor analysis and psychometric evaluation of the Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC) with
Chinese people. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 35(1), 19-30.
[107]. Zolli, A., & Healy, A. M. (2012). Resilience: Why things bounce back. Simon and Schuster.
... Additionally, measurement tools are important for assessing the outcomes of interventions intended to improve the health and well-being of vulnerable adolescents. Although there are at least 15 different instruments to measure resilience, the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC)© is the most widely used [24] and has the most consistent psychometric properties [25,26], but moderate psychometric quality [25]. The CD-RISC has largely been used in studies of adults [24], but some international studies in Australia [27], China [28], and South Africa [29] focused on adolescents. ...
... Performance variability of the CD-RISC has also been observed in populations other than Latinos. In a critical review of scales used for resilience research [26], the CD-RISC-25 was observed to have multiple refinements, validations, and revalidations, resulting in different factor arrangements that included five, four, three, two, and one factor models. When compared with 20 other instruments that measure the same construct, Salisu and Hashim [26] reported the CD-RISC-25 is the most dominant scale for assessing resilience because of its more consistent psychometric properties. ...
... In a critical review of scales used for resilience research [26], the CD-RISC-25 was observed to have multiple refinements, validations, and revalidations, resulting in different factor arrangements that included five, four, three, two, and one factor models. When compared with 20 other instruments that measure the same construct, Salisu and Hashim [26] reported the CD-RISC-25 is the most dominant scale for assessing resilience because of its more consistent psychometric properties. However, some researchers have suggested the CD-RISC-10 as a unidimensional model is more stable across cultures and contexts [32,75]. ...
Full-text available
Resilience describes the ability of someone to adapt to adverse life experiences by adjusting to demands with behavioral flexibility. When encountering crisis situations, resilient people typically spring back emotionally with increased strength and internal composure. Measuring resilience is important for assessing the ability of adolescents to respond to adverse situations. The objective of this study was to evaluate the psychometric performance of the Spanish version of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) © for South America (CD-RISC-25SA) in a population of vulnerable Peruvian adolescents. This study used a cross-sectional design to measure sociodemographic variables and resilience. Participants were 451 adolescents living in a shelter in Lima, Perú. Face and content validity were established by expert panel, construct validity was evaluated with exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, and internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach’s alpha. The analysis resulted in a four-dimensional model with 22 items explaining almost 27% of the variance with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.90. The dimensions included self-confidence and self-trust from previous experiences, internal resources to cope with difficult situations, personal competence and tenacity, and self-regulation with external resources. Two of the 3 items eliminated from the instrument were related to the original dimension “spirituality influences” which may have been incorrectly translated and adapted without equivalence of meaning for cross-cultural research. The CD-RISC-25SA is not a stable multidimensional instrument for measuring resilience across the cultures and contexts of countries. However, the instrument appears to be stable for measuring resilience as a single dimension. For measuring resilience in the context of Peru, a four-dimensional model with 22 items was validated. Variations in the psychometric properties of translated instruments may result from not establishing the equivalence of meaning for each item before performing cross-cultural research. Researchers need to search for a more precise understanding of resilience as a universal concept transferable across borders and through translations.
... A total of 38 evaluation factors were presented. Salisu et al. [25] reviewed four methods used to evaluate regulations (the Resilience Scale for Results, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale 10, and Brief Resilience Scale). Righi et al. [26] conducted a review of the literature with the aim of presenting a research agenda for RE. ...
... The definition of Teamwork was "how operators interact with each other to exchange information, coordinate behavior, and maintain social order." In another study, Salisu et al. [25] used a contributing factor called "Cooperation", and the definition represented "cooperation, including information transfer with other organizations." Thus, these factors were judged as the "Communication in Level 2" to have the same meaning, as they both denoted the interactions of operators or different organizations. ...
... 1.4 Adaptability [2,9,15,19,[24][25][26]31,43,56,57,60,61,70] How flexibly can emergency response organizations respond to situations? 1.4.1 Stopping Rule [2,19,24,51,65,66] Are there criteria in place for (1) discontinuing if the strategy one is currently applying is invalid, or (2) terminating if completed? 1.4.2 ...
Full-text available
Resilience engineering is a new approach to safety, focused on systems for coping with complexity and balancing productivity with safety. Since the early 2000s, several studies have been conducted on the application of resilience to various industries. However, the nuclear industry has yet to harness the full potential of the resilience concept. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) gave an inkling of the use of this concept in its report on the human and organizational factors related to the Fukushima nuclear power plant (NPP) accident. Although the ability of emergency response organizations (EROs) to reduce the radiation risks to the public in the case of accidents is crucial, no method has been developed so far to evaluate ERO resilience in NPPs. This paper aims to determine the factors that contribute to the resilience of EROs in NPPs. This work commenced by providing a systematic review of the literature on resilience factors as applied in several domains within the last two decades, including general domains, healthcare, transportation, infrastructure, process plants, and business. Based on the review, and the application of additional procedures like resilience analysis grid filtering, ERO applicability assessment, and merger/reclassification, the resilience factors are determined. Fifty-two factors contributing to the resilience of EROs in NPPs are proposed. The identified contributing factors are expected to aid efforts to develop resilience strategies and to measure the resilience of EROs in NPPs.
... This could add to credibility of initiatives that seek identification of the major determinants of resilience in different population samples and its enhancement thereafter [3]. A number of measurement scales have been introduced for application in studies on resilience such as the Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA) [8], the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) [9], the Resilience Scale (RS) [10] but there are reports about limitations of these measures in terms of wider acceptability and applicability [11]. The Connor-Davidson scale of resilience (CD-RISC) is a self-report scale comprised of 25 items that aims to measure resilience among the potential respondents [2]. ...
... Due to observed instability of the five-factor structure the original CD-RISC 25 and inability of the researchers to agree on its best possible factor compositions [11], Campbell-Sills & Stein [16], extracted and validated a summarized version of the CD-RISC with 10 items (CD-RISC 10) that indicated robust loading values and high level of consistency when compared to the original 25 items CD-RISC. Validity and reliability of the two versions have been studied in several studies [17][18][19] and both (CD-RISC 25 and CD-RISC 10) revealed good psychometric properties. ...
... Validity and reliability of the two versions have been studied in several studies [17][18][19] and both (CD-RISC 25 and CD-RISC 10) revealed good psychometric properties. However, CD-RISC 10 possessed better and more established factor structure and is suggested to be more robust, efficient, simple to use and parsimonious [11]. ...
Full-text available
Background Resilience is an ability of an individual to respond positively to environmental challenges. This ability could help elderly people to better cope with their age-related changes and diseases. The aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of Persian version of abridged Connor- Davidson scale of resilience among Iranian elderly people with chronic diseases. Methods Standard translation/back-translation procedure was applied to prepare the Persian version of abridged Connor-Davidson scale of resilience (CD-RISC 10-P) and its face and content validity were examined by an expert panel. The internal consistency and reliability of the drafted CD-RISC 10-P were investigated using the Cronbach’s alpha and intra-class correlation coefficients. A sample of 400 Muslim and Zoroastrian Persian older adults residing in the city of Yazd, Iran was recruited to assess factor structure of CD-RISC 10-P using the confirmatory factor analysis. Results The calculated values of the Cronbach’s alpha (0.89) and ICC (0.90) coefficients were in the within of acceptable range. The confirmatory factor analysis outputs also confirmed the unidimensionality of the CD-RISC 10-P (RMSEA = 0.073, SRMR = 0.030). Conclusions The study findings showed that the CD-RISC 10-P is a valid and reliable scale to measure resilience with age-related challenges of chronic diseases among Persian-speaking elderly people. Cross-cultural adaptability of the CD-RISC 10-P is recommended to be assessed in different subgroups of the Iranian elderly people and possibly in other Persian-speaking populations of different countries.
... The CD-RISC was developed to measure resilience as "persistence and hardiness" [48]. Though there is no gold standard measure of resilience [49], the CD-RISC is one of the most widely used resilience measures [50] and has been validated in the general population in both English and French [51]. The CD-RISC 25-item version has previously been used with farmers in Canada [15], but the 10-item version has since been recommended for use in research due to superior psychometrics [50]. ...
... Though there is no gold standard measure of resilience [49], the CD-RISC is one of the most widely used resilience measures [50] and has been validated in the general population in both English and French [51]. The CD-RISC 25-item version has previously been used with farmers in Canada [15], but the 10-item version has since been recommended for use in research due to superior psychometrics [50]. The measure asks participants to rate their agreement with 10 statements in the past month on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 0 (not true at all) to 4 (true nearly all the time). ...
Full-text available
Farmers in Canada faced higher levels of mental distress than the general public prior to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and are generally less likely than the public to seek help. However, the mental health impacts of COVID-19 on farmers in Canada remain unexplored. Our objective was to investigate mental health outcomes among farmers in Canada by gender and within the context of COVID-19. We conducted a national, online, cross-sectional survey of farmers in Canada (February–May 2021). The survey included validated scales of anxiety, depression, perceived stress, burnout (emotional exhaustion, cynicism, professional efficacy), alcohol use, resilience, and questions regarding participants’ perceived changes in these outcomes during the pandemic. Data were also collected on the impact of COVID-19 specific social and economic factors on mental health, help-seeking, and sense of community belonging through the pandemic. Descriptive statistics were summarized, and Chi-square analyses and t-tests were conducted to compare survey results between genders and to data collected in our similar 2016 survey and normative population data. A total of 1167 farmers participated in the survey. Participants scored more severely across scales than scale norms and the general Canadian population during COVID-19. Scale means were consistent between the 2016 and 2021 samples. Most participants with moderate to severe scores for any outcome reported worsening symptoms since the pandemic began. Women fared significantly worse than men across measures. Over twice as many women reported seeking mental health or substance use support during the pandemic than men. Participants rated the mental health impacts of all social and economic factors related to COVID-19 examined significantly (p < 0.05) differently than the Canadian public. The pandemic has negatively impacted the mental health of farmers in Canada and in ways that differ from the general population. National level and gender-specific mental health supports are needed to help improve the mental health of farmers in Canada.
... Siksi resilienssin mittaamiseen soveltuu useissa aikaisemmissa tutkimuksissa validoitu Brief Resilience Scale, joka pyrkii henkilökohtaisten ominaisuuksien sijaan arviomaan resilienssiä sen alkuperäisen merkityksen mukaisesti: kykynä ponnistaa takaisin vaikeuksista. (Smith, Tooley, Christopher & Kay 2010;Salisu & Hashim 2017.) Organisaation tai oppilaitoksen tuella on katsottu olevan merkitys opettajien resilienssille, ja useissa opettajien resilienssiä koskevissa tutkimuksissa on luotu erinäisiä patteristoja mittaamaan tätä osa-aluetta (ks. ...
Technical Report
Full-text available
Tämä tutkimus tarkastelee oppilaitosten ja tarkemmin opettajien kriisivalmiuksia. Sillä, miten opettajat selviytyvät erilaisista kriiseistä, on heijastevaikutuksia koko koulutusjärjestelmään. Opettajien kriisivalmiuksien ja kriisinaikaisen suorituskyvyn voidaan ajatella yhteiskunnassa kannattelevan opetuksen jatkuvuutta ja mahdollistavan koulutusinstituutioiden toiminnan ylläpidon kriisiaikanakin. Teoreettisesti tutkimus kytkeytyy kriisinhallinnan käsitteiden yhteensovittamiseen oppilaitoskontekstissa. Tutkimus on osa laajempaa turvallisuuden- ja kriisinhallinnan teoreettista keskustelua, jossa riskiperusteisen varautumisen lisäksi tarkasteluun on nykyään nostettu toimijoiden resilienssi. Tutkimuksessa kuvataan, miten toimijoiden kriisivalmius rakentuu 1) strukturoidulla varautumisella karttuneista osaamistekijöistä eli tiedoista ja taidoista, joiden avulla pyritään ennakolta valmistautumaan kriisitilanteisiin, sekä 2) resilienssistä, jolla viitataan yksilön kykyyn kohdata vaikeuksia menettämättä toimintakykyään ja palautua näistä. Kokonaisuudessaan tutkimuksen tavoite on selkeyttää käsitteiden – kriisivalmiuden, resilienssin ja kriisinaikaisen suorituskyvyn – välisiä suhteita ja ymmärtää niiden kytköksiä niin yksilö- kuin organisaatiotasolla. Tulokset osoittavat, että kriisiosaamisella ja resilienssillä on positiivinen yhteys oletettuun kriisinaikaiseen suorituskykyyn. Tutkimustulosten mukaan opetushenkilöstön tiedot ja taidot toimia erilaisissa kriisitilanteissa ovat tyydyttäviä. Eriteltynä voidaan vielä sanoa, että taidoilla on tietoja vahvempi lineaarinen yhteys suorituskykyyn. Näin ollen kriisivalmiustaitojen harjoittelu on keskiössä opetushenkilöstön kriisinaikaisen suorituskyvyn tukemisessa. Kriisitilanteista selviämisen todennäköisyyttä tukee se, että resilienssi on vähintään normaalilla tasolla. Kansalliset strategiat, lainsäädäntö ja ohjeet jättävät verrattain paljon tulkinnanvaraa kriiseihin varautumisessa. Tämä johtaa siihen, että kriiseihin varautuminen kunnissa ei ole tasalaatuista. Toisaalta väljä säätely mahdollistaa paikallisuuden huomioimisen. Systemaattista kriiseihin varautumisen prosessia ei näytä olevan olemassa, vaan kunnat ja oppilaitokset varautuvat hyviksi katsomillaan tavoilla. Koronapandemia on kuitenkin vauhdittanut yhteistyökäytäntöjä eri toimijoiden välillä niin kunnissa kuin oppilaitoksissa, joten kriiseihin varautuminenkin saattaa tulevaisuudessa olla moniammatillisempaa ja laajempaa kuin aikaisemmin.
... Building resilience can help healthcare workers to better cope with and recover from adverse events to achieve better wellbeing (9)(10)(11). The scale used for measuring resilience in this study involves certain aspects of coping, such as adapting to changes, dealing with any circumstance, and considering the humorous side of problems (12). Successful management of stressful situations usually requires active coping, ways to diminish negative emotions, a positive outlook, moral compass, good social support, and cognitive flexibility, which are psychosocial factors of resilience that protect against and aid recovery from post-traumatic stress (13). ...
Full-text available
Background Frontline healthcare workers were at a high risk of infection and developing mental health problems during the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It is important to monitor the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and somatization among frontline healthcare workers in China.AimThis study aimed to investigate PTSD, somatization, resilience, and perceived stress among frontline healthcare workers fighting against COVID-19 and examine the mediating effects of perceived stress on resilience in both PTSD and somatization.Methods The study was conducted from December 2021 to February 2022 through an online survey of frontline healthcare workers fighting against COVID-19. The survey included questions regarding socio-demographic information, resilience (10-item Conner–Davidson Resilience Scale, CD-RISC-10), perceived stress (14-item Perceived Stress Scale, PSS), PTSD (Checklist-Civilian Version, PCL-C), and somatization (Symptom Checklist-90). The PROCESS macro for SPSS was used to examine the mediating effects of perceived stress.ResultsApproximately 14.9% of healthcare workers had possible PTSD (PCL-C score of ≥ 44), and 41.04% of the workers had low resilience (CD-RISC-10 score of ≤ 25.5). Approximately 54.05% of healthcare workers were symptomatic, and 14.7% had a moderate or higher degree of somatization with sleep-related problems as the most common symptom. Perceived stress was negatively correlated with resilience (r = –0.527, p < 0.001) and positively correlated with PTSD (r = 0.505, p < 0.001) and somatization (r = 0.361, p < 0.001). In addition, perceived stress mediated the relationship between resilience and PTSD [indirect b = –0.382; bootstrapped confidence interval (CI), –0.454, –0.319] and somatization (indirect effect b = –0.159; bootstrapped CI, –0.199, –0.123).Conclusion The prevalence of PTSD and somatic symptoms indicates that the mental health of frontline healthcare workers deserves more attention. Resilience is negatively associated with PTSD and somatization, and the relationship among resilience, PTSD, and somatization is mediated by perceived stress. Strategies for reducing perceived stress and increasing resilience may help to prevent and alleviate PTSD and somatization.
... This scale has been used in research on adolescents, younger and older adults, people from different cultures, and at-risk population. These studies reported Cronbach's alpha between .72 and .94. (Wagnild & Young, 1993;Salisu & Hashim, 2017;Scoloveno, 2017;Fernandes, Amaral, & Varahao, 2018). ...
Full-text available
Introduction: Every human being has experienced different stressful situations or hardships sometime in their life. For babies born via C-section this hardship can start at the time of birth. Over the last 10 years there has been an increase in the Cesarean birth type from 8.5% in 2005-06 to 17.5% in 2015-16. Past research has shown the difference in physiological development, increased risk of obesity and asthma, behavioral difficulties in children and adults born via cesarean birth type. Method: The present study aims to study whether there are any birth types and gender differences in Psychological resilience among adults. Online and in-person survey method was used to collect the data of 220 participants through snowball sampling. Resilience Scale (RS) by Wagnild and Young (1993) was used to measure Psychological resilience. Results: 173 participants reported that they were born with Vaginal Birth (78.63%) and 47 with Caesarean Section Birth (21.36%). There were 75% female (N = 165) participants and 25% male (N = 55) participants in this study. The Skewness and Kurtosis were calculated through SPSS 23rd version, which revealed the data was normally distributed. Thus, hypotheses were tested though Univariate Analysis of Variance. The mean difference between Vaginal Delivery (139.01) and Cesarean Section (136.82) was 2.37. The mean difference between female (137.82) and male (140.64) scores in Resilience Scale is 2.82. The test results of One way ANOVA revealed that there no significant differences in Psychological resilience of the participants based on their birth type (F (1,218) = .65, ns) and gender (F (1, 218) = 1.28, ns). Conclusion: 1) There was no difference in Psychological resilience among Indian adults born with Vaginal Delivery and Cesarean Section delivery. 2) Male and female didn't differ in their Psychological resilience.
Full-text available
ABSTRACT This study explores the experiences of trauma and transition into adulthood of African refugee and asylum-seeking care leavers in the UK. It aims to help practitioners better understand the impact of trauma on these young people and give them voice. Giving voice generates better research and develops the confidence of refugees (Temple and Moran, 2006). These young people make perilous journeys to the UK and battle traumatic experiences with the challenges of transitioning in a hostile environment. Supporting them is a challenge for local authorities. Despite these issues, there is little previous research interest about the experiences of trauma and transition into adulthood of African refugee and asylum-seeking care leavers in the UK. Psychoanalytically informed Free Association Narrative Interviews (FANI) were used to explore six young people’s unconscious processes. Cross-case analysis identified similarities in their stories but there were divergences and complexities in their trajectories. The young people felt relieved for telling their stories. Their mental health issues can be difficult to detect and transition into adulthood could deteriorate if faced with restrictions and barriers. Immigration status could impact their trajectories. Pre- migratory trauma, separation from family and adapting to a new system could exacerbate their trauma. They rated emotional support highly and felt that trauma could make them stronger. Their closeness or openness to the researcher is non- linear. The study concluded that the young people’s experience is complex. Practitioners need to be attentive to their inner world and external circumstances to better understand and support them. A more open practice and development of a psychosocial approach is recommended. Also, opportunities for the young people to tell their stories and be treated as individuals. It recommends future comparative study of the experiences and trajectories of young people coming to Western Europe from Africa with those from other continents and between those from British and non- British colonies.
Resilience refers to the process by which individuals use the ability to cope with challenges to successfully adapt to adverse situations, inclining towards the future and hope. The main aim of this study was to analyze the relation between resilience, personality traits, and hopelessness. Furthermore, we conducted comparisons between two age groups: young and older adults. The sample comprised 439 Spanish participants (66.7% women; M = 43.73, SD = 26.41; age range = 18–98 years). The Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale, NEO‐Five Factor Inventory, and Beck Hopelessness Scale were used to measure the main study variables. The results revealed a negative relation between resilience and neuroticism, and a positive association with the other personality traits. Additionally, levels of resilience were found to be negatively related to hopelessness. The group of older adults showed significantly lower resilience levels than the young adults, although age was not a significant predictor of resilience. Neuroticism, extraversion, openness, and hopelessness were the only predictors of resilience for the current study. This work contributes to the study of resilience and related factors, by attempting to understand the role of resilience and resistance to risk and how individuals tackle challenges over time, with important implications for mental health.
Early adolescence is a key developmental phase for promoting positive mental health and preventing psychological difficulties. Despite calls to develop the evidence base for universal interventions in early adolescence and the promise of process-based CBT, the literature is devoid of empirical investigations of the efficacy of universal process-based CBT in this cohort. This cluster randomized controlled trial aimed to extend the empirical literature by evaluating the efficacy of a six-session universal process-based CBT intervention in elementary schools. Twenty-nine schools were randomly allocated to intervention or waiting list control groups. Six hundred four participants completed measures of positive mental health, resilience, emotional literacy, and mindfulness at baseline, post-intervention, and six-week follow-up. Although participants reported that the intervention was satisfactory, it did not yield significantly superior growth rates on the outcome measures than the control condition at post-intervention or follow-up. Implications of the findings and directions for future research are discussed.
Full-text available
Background In order to find a suitable instrument to evaluate psychological resilience in Chinese new employee population, we intended to propose a possible factorial structure of Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Furthermore, we administered to explore its reliability and validity in the present population. Methods Participants were derived from the male new employees who had started working in the last 2–3 months from 12 machinery factories across 8 different provinces of China. Chinese version of CD-RISC was used to assess the resilience of the study participants. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to assess the possible factor structure, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to determine which factor structure was the most suitable among the present study sample. ResultsThe present 4-factor model (tolerance for stress, tenacity, and goal orientation; adaptability and acceptance of change; optimism and sense of security; and trust in one’s instinct) of CD-RISC showed good internal consistency, concurrent validity and consistent structure validity, and had presented better data fit than the original 5-factor and the Chinese 3-factor patterns. Each of the present 4-factor structure and the total score of CD-RISC were negatively and significantly associated with Global Severity Index T score and Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4+ score. Conclusions The measure of resilience is useful in screening high-risk employees who are vulnerable to stress. Optimal and tailored interventions can be further applied to avoid potential adverse events in this population. Longitudinal research should be required to determine whether aging and long-term health events can change the nature of resilience.
Full-text available
This paper examines the development over historical time of the meaning and uses of the term resilience. The objective is to deepen our understanding of how the term came to be adopted in disaster risk reduction and resolve some of the conflicts and controversies that have arisen when it has been used. The paper traces the development of resilience through the sciences, humanities, and legal and political spheres. It considers how mechanics passed the word to ecology and psychology, and how from there it was adopted by social research and sustainability science. As other authors have noted, as a concept, resilience involves some potentially serious conflicts or contradictions, for example between stability and dynamism, or between dynamic equilibrium (homeostasis) and evolution. Moreover, although the resilience concept works quite well within the confines of general systems theory, in situations in which a systems formulation inhibits rather than fosters explanation, a different interpretation of the term is warranted. This may be the case for disaster risk reduction, which involves transformation rather than preservation of the "state of the system". The article concludes that the modern conception of resilience derives benefit from a rich history of meanings and applications, but that it is dangerous – or at least potentially disappointing – to read to much into the term as a model and a paradigm.
Full-text available
The community resilience constitutes a conceptual framework for understanding the risks and changes that rural regions face. Nevertheless different paradigms and disciplines have influenced its development in particular directions. Along the way, what was initially formulated in the natural sciences has come to be embraced enthusiastically by the social sciences and harnessed to already contested concepts, such as community and social capital, as a way of explicating what should be resilient, the conditions and resources thought to foster resilience, and the ways in which resilience can be measured. But this has not occurred unproblematically and there are reasons to be cautious about the uncritical application of resilience thinking to social systems and contexts. Further, while the interest of this collection lies in the concept of rural community resilience, it is important to be mindful that there is nothing uniquely rural about the term since it has also been adopted in the urban context, arguably with even more fervour. It is worth asking, then, what, if anything, is distinct about the theory, policy and practice of rural community resilience and in what ways do rural studies scholars make a contribution to resilience debates that go beyond the immediate setting of rural spaces.
Full-text available
Psychological resilience has become a popular concept. Owing to that popularity, the word resilience has taken on myriad and often overlapping meanings. To be a useful framework for psychological research and theory, the authors argue, the study of resilience must explicitly reference each of four constituent temporal elements: (a) baseline or preadversity functioning, (b) the actual aversive circumstances, (c) postadversity resilient outcomes, and (d) predictors of resilient outcomes. Using this framework to review the existing literature, the most complete body of evidence is available on individual psychological resilience in children and adults. By contrast, the research on psychological resilience in families and communities is far more limited and lags well behind the rich theoretical perspective available from those literatures. The vast majority of research on resilience in families and communities has focused primarily on only one temporal element, possible predictors of resilient outcomes. Surprisingly, however, almost no scientific evidence is actually available for community or family resilient outcomes. We close by suggesting that there is room for optimism and that existing methods and measures could be relatively easily adapted to help fill these gaps. To that end, we propose a series of steps to guide future research.
When external events disrupt the normal flow of organizational and relational routines and practices, an organization’s latent capacity to rebound activates to enable positive adaptation and bounce back. This article examines an unexpected organizational crisis (a shooting and standoff in a business school) and presents a model for how resilience becomes activated in such situations. Three social mechanisms describe resilience activation. Liminal suspension describes how crisis temporarily undoes and alters formal relational structures and opens a temporal space for organization members to form and renew relationships. Compassionate witnessing describes how organization members’ interpersonal connections and opportunities for engagement respond to individuals’ needs. And relational redundancy describes how organization members’ social capital and connections across organizational and functional boundaries activate relational networks that enable resilience. Narrative accounts from the incident support the induced model.
Young people undergo continual changes affecting all aspects of their lives—social, cognitive, emotional and physical. The transition into young adulthood may present challenges for some and the need to develop social and emotional resilience to cope with these is crucial. Social and emotional wellbeing refers to the way a person thinks and feels about themselves and others. It includes being able to adapt and deal with daily challenges, which incorporate the need to be resilient and have a range of coping skills, while living a life of purpose and fulfilment. An emphasis on the behavioural and emotional strengths of young people, as well as how they respond to adversity or challenging situations. These competencies provide resilience against stressors of cyberbullying and help to prevent behavioural and emotional difficulties developing later in life. Research has found building social and emotional resilience in children and young people is crucial in dealing with cyberbullying. It is commonly viewed that protective factors assist in building resilience. Young people need to be taught coping strategies early as they immerse themselves in the online world. They are exposed to imagery and behaviour they may not experience so early in the offline world therefore building resilience in children and young people strengthens their ability to cope with negative online experiences such as cyberbullying.
Pediatric cardiac surgery is a complex, high-risk field characterized by a vulnerable patient population, technically demanding surgery, and technological and team challenges. Human factor studies have identified the importance of teamwork, communication, and standardization of some processes of care to improve outcomes. With demonstrable improvement in safety still lacking, continued reflection is warranted on the fundamental concepts which underlie safety efforts. Most studies have adapted a linear accident model with emphasis on error commission and recovery, adverse events, and latent conditions. More recent approaches to safety based on systems and resilience engineering are more applicable to complex systems of care, such as cardiac surgery. Systems engineering seeks to minimize risk through redesign. Resilience engineering explores how individuals and organizations negotiate complexity to create safety.
Studied personality as a conditioner of the effects of stressful life events on illness onset. Two groups of middle- and upper-level 40-49 yr old executives had comparably high degrees of stressful life events in the previous 3 yrs, as measured by the Schedule of Recent Events. One group of 86 Ss suffered high stress without falling ill, whereas the other group of 75 Ss reported becoming sick after their encounter with stressful life events. Illness was measured by the Seriousness of Illness Survey (A. R. Wyler et al 1970). Discriminant function analysis, run on half of the Ss in each group and cross-validated on the remaining cases, supported the prediction that high stress/low illness executives show, by comparison with high stress/high illness executives, more hardiness, that is, have a stronger commitment to self, an attitude of vigorousness toward the environment, a sense of meaningfulness, and an internal locus of control. (43 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).