Content uploaded by Norashidah Hashim
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Norashidah Hashim on Jan 18, 2018
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
www.iosrjournals.org
DOI: 10.9790/487X-1904032333 www.iosrjournals.org 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 www.iosrjournals.org 24 | Page
Table 1
Definitions of Resilience
Authors/Year
Definitions
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,
2014
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
discussed.
Table 2
Resilience Instruments
Instrument
Authors
Dimensions
Number of
Items
Scaling
RSCA
Prince-Embury, 2006,
2008 & 2009
Emotional reactivity
1. Sense of mastery
64
5-point Likert scale
Sense of relatedness
Sense of Mastery Scale
RS
Wagnild & Young,
1993
Personal competence
25
7-point Likert scale
Acceptance of self and life
RS-11
von Eisenhart Rothe et
al., 2013
Unidimensional
11
7-point Likert scale
RS-14
Damásio, Borsa, & da
Silva, 2011
Self-reliance
Meaningfulness
Equanimity
Perseverance
existential aloneness
14
7-point Likert scale
BPFI
Baruth & Carroll,
2002
Adaptable personality
16
5-point Likert scale
Supportive environment
Fewer stressors
Compensating experiences
RSA
Friborg et al., 2003;
Friborg et al., 2009
Positive perception of self
33
Semantic differential
response format
Positive perception of
future
Social competence
Structured style
Family cohesion
Social resources
CD-RISC
Connor & Davidson,
2003
Personal competence, high
standards, and tenacity
25
5-point Likert scale
A Critical Review of Scales Used in Resilience Research
DOI: 10.9790/487X-1904032333 www.iosrjournals.org 25 | Page
Trust in one’s instinct,
tolerance of negative
effects, and strengthening
effects of stresss
Positive acceptance of
change and secure
relationships
Control
Spiritual influences
CD-RISC-10
Cambell-Sills & Stein,
2007
Unidimensional
10
5-point Likert scale
CD-RISC-2
Vaishnavi, Connor, &
Davidson, 2007
Unidimensional
2
5-point Likert scale
RSAS
Jew, Green, & Kroger,
1999
Active skill acquisition
35
5-point Likert scale
Future orientation
Independence/risk taking
MIIRM
Martin, Distelberg,
Palmer, & Jeste, 2015
Self-efficacy,
Access to social support
network
Optimism
Perceived economic and
social resources,
Spirituality and religiosity,
Relational accord,
Emotional expression and
communication,
Emotional regulation
22
5 and 4-point Likert
scale
RAS
Corrigan, Salzer,
Ralph, Songster, &
Keck, 2004
Personal confidence and
hope
Willingness to ask for
help
Goal and success
orientation
Reliance on others
No domination by
symptoms
24
5 and4-point Likert
scale
PR
Windle, Markland, &
Woods, 2008
Self-esteem,
Personal competence
Control
19
CYRM
Ungar etal., 2008
Individual
Relational
Community
Culture
28
5-point Likert scale
ARQ
Gartland, Bond,
Olsson, Buzwell, &
Sawyer, 2011
Individual
Family
Peers
School
Community
93
5-point Likert scale
BRS
Smith et al., 2008
Unidimensional
6
5-point Likert scale
ARS
Oshio et al., 2003)
Novelty seeking
Emotional regulation
21
5-point rating scale
Positive future orientation
READ
Hjemdal et al., 2007)
Personal competence
Social competence
28
5-point Likert scale
Structured style
Family cohesion
TRS
Madsen, & Abell,
2010
Problem Solving
Relationship
Optimism
Spirituality
59
7-point Likert scale
BRCS
Sinclair & Wallston,
2004
Adaptive coping (Polk’s
situational patterns)
4
5-point rating scale
RIM
Ryan & Caltabiano,
2009
Self-efficacy
25
5-point Likert scale
Family/social networks
Perseverance
Internal locus of control
Coping and adaptation
A Critical Review of Scales Used in Resilience Research
DOI: 10.9790/487X-1904032333 www.iosrjournals.org 26 | Page
Key
MIIRM- Multidimensional Individual and
Interpersonal Resilience Measure
CDRISC - Connor–Davidson 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
Adolescents
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
Resilience
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.
MMPR
Wei & Taormina 2014
Determination
Endurance
Adaptability
Recuperability
40
5-point Likert scale
ER
Klohnen
(1996)
Confident optimism
Productive and
autonomous activity
Interpersonal warmth and
insight
Skilled expressiveness
ERS
Bromley, Johnson &
Cohen, 2006
Confident optimism
Productive activity
Insight and warmth
Skilled expressiveness
102
dichotomous dummy
variables (0 and 1)
ER89
Block & Kremen,
1996
Unidimensional
14
4-point scale
ER89-R
Alessandri,
Vecchione, Caprara &
Letzring, 2012
Vecchione et al.,
2010
Openness to Life
experiences
Optimal Regulation
10
7-point Likert scale
A Critical Review of Scales Used in Resilience Research
DOI: 10.9790/487X-1904032333 www.iosrjournals.org 27 | Page
Table 3
Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA)
S/N
Items
Personal Competence
1
I believe in my own abilities
2
Believing in myself helps me to overcome difficult times
3
I know that I succeed if I carry on
4
I know how to reach my goals
5
No matter what happens I always find a solution
6
I am comfortable together with other persons
7
My future feels promising
8
I know that I can solve my personal problems
9
I am pleased with myself
10
I have realistic plans for the future
11
I completely trust my judgments and decisions
12
At hard times I know that better times will come
Social competence
1
I am good at getting in touch with new people
2
I easily establish new friendships
3
It is easy for me to think of good conversational topics
4
I easily adjust to new social milieus
5
It is easy for me to make other people laugh
6
I enjoy being with other people
7
I know how to start a conversation
8
I easily laugh
9
It is important for me to be flexible in social circumstances
10
I experience good relations with both women and men
Family coherence
1
There are strong bonds in my family
2
I enjoy being with my family
3
In our family we are loyal towards each other
4
In my family we enjoy finding common activities
5
Even at difficult times my family keeps a positive outlook on the future
6
In my family we have a common understanding of what’s important in life
7
There are few conflicts in my family
Social support
1
I have some close friends/family members who really care about me
2
I have some friends/family members who back me up
3
I always have someone who can help me when needed
4
I have some close friends/family members who are good at encouraging me
5
I am quickly notified if some family members get into a crisis
6
I can discuss personal matters with friends/family members
7
I have some close friends/family members who value my abilities
8
I regularly keep in touch with my family
9
There are strong bonds between my friends
Personal structure
1
Rules and regular routines make my daily life easier
2
I keep up my daily routines even at difficult times
3
I prefer to plan my actions
4
I work best when I reach for a goal
5
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 www.iosrjournals.org 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
S/N
Items
1
Able to adapt to change
2
Close and secure relationships
3
Sometimes fate or God can help
4
Can deal with whatever comes
5
Past success gives confidence for new challenge
6
See the humorous side of things
7
Coping with stress strengthens
8
Tend to bounce back after illness or hardship
9
Things happen for a reason
10
Best effort no matter what
11
You can achieve your goals
12
When things look hopeless, I don’t give up
13
Know where to turn for help
14
Under pressure, focus and think clearly
15
Prefer to take the lead in problem solving
16
Not easily discouraged by failure
17
Think of self as strong person
18
Make unpopular or difficult decisions
A Critical Review of Scales Used in Resilience Research
DOI: 10.9790/487X-1904032333 www.iosrjournals.org 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
S/N
Items
1
I am able to adapt to change
2
I can deal with whatever comes
3
I tries to see humorous side of problems
4
Coping with stress can strengthen me
5
I tend to bounce back after illness or hardship
6
I can achieve goals despite obstacles
7
I can stay focused under pressure
8
I am not easily discouraged by failure
9
I think of self as strong person
10
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.
19
Can handle unpleasant feelings
20
Have to act on a hunch
21
Strong sense of purpose
22
In control of your life
23
I like challenges
25
You work to attain your goals
25
Pride in your achievements
Source: Connor and Davison 2003
A Critical Review of Scales Used in Resilience Research
DOI: 10.9790/487X-1904032333 www.iosrjournals.org 30 | Page
Table 6
S/N
Brief Resilience Scale (BRS)
1
I tend to bounce back quickly after hard times
2
I have a hard time making it through stressful events (R)
3
It does not take me long to recover from a stressful event
4
It is hard for me to snap back when something bad happens (R)
5
I usually come through difficult times with little trouble
6
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.
References
[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), 139–146.
[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 Connor–Davidson 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),
527-531.
[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),
3774-3791.
[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 www.iosrjournals.org 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-
570.
[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 Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD–RISC) With Liver Transplant Candidates. Journal of personality assessment, 97(5),
487-493.
[34]. Fernandez, A. C., Fehon, D. C., Treloar, H., Ng, R., & Sledge, W. H. (2015). Resilience in Organ Transplantation: An Application
of the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD–RISC) With Liver Transplant Candidates. Journal of personality assessment, 97(5),
487-493.
[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 Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Journal of affective disorders, 155, 149-
153.
[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 Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Journal of affective disorders, 155, 149-
153.
[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-
433.
[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
Connor–Davidson 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 Connor–Davidson 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 www.iosrjournals.org 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),
2158244014545464.
[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 Connor–Davidson 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), 1–20.
[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 Adolescents–A 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-
180.
[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 www.iosrjournals.org 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 ER89–R 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 KORA–age 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 Connor–Davidson 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.
