The goal in interest was the necessity for an era-suitable dimension regarding resilience right for teens and you can young adults

Small Variation RS-fourteen

When searching for a helpful and you may appropriate software, not merely you’ll need for other populations and also where in actuality the proposed grounds framework is going to be verified, a couple biggest requires was basically inside notice. “This new RS-14 reveals the latest brevity, readability, and you will easier scoring which were identified as essential services when selecting tool to be used that have adolescents” (Pritzker and you will Minter, 2014, p. 332). The newest RS-14 “might provide specifics of this new trend and you can character out of strength utilizing a widely accessible measure of strength which in turn have a tendency to permit evaluations having earlier and upcoming search,” which “offers help proof that it’s an excellent psychometrically sound scale to assess private resilience inside age groups away from kids and you may young adults” (Wagnild, 2009a; Pritzker and you will Minter, 2014).

More over, Yang ainsi que al

Searching for way more economic variation of the Strength Size, coming down end big date, and you can design far more specifically for have fun with having teenagers, Wagnild (2009a) modified new RS-twenty five to14 factors. This new short term “RS-14 level consists of fourteen notice-statement circumstances counted with each other a beneficial 7-point get measure anywhere between ‘1-strongly disagree’ to help you ‘7-firmly agree.’ Higher ratings try a sign from strength height. According to article filipino cupid çevrimiçi authors, ratings are computed because of the a bottom line out-of response viewpoints for every single item, therefore enabling results to help you include 14 in order to 98.” Results less than 65 imply lowest strength; anywhere between 65 and you may 81 tell you average resilience; a lot more than 81 could well be interpreted given that higher amounts of resilience (Wagnild and you may Younger, 1993; Wagnild, 2009b, 2014).

Using principal components analyses supported a single-factor solution; remaining in the RS-14 scale were those items with all item factor loadings >0.40. Reported psychometric properties of the RS-14 have demonstrated sound psychometric properties comparable to those of the RS-25: evidence of a one-factor structure was found and high reliability (coefficient Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90 and greater 0.96) and a strong correlation with the full version (r = 0.97, p = 0.001) were obtained (Wagnild, 2014). The overall factorability of the RS-14 demonstrated a robust one-factor measure of resilience, which has been replicated and has been confirmed in different studies and in the adaptations of this version for different countries (Wagnild, 2014). For instance: German ? = 0.91 (Schumacher et al., 2005); Portugal ? = 0.82 (Oliveira et al., 2015); Finland ? = 0.87 (Losoi et al., 2013); Japan ? = 0.88 (Nishi et al., 2010); China ? = 0.92 (Tian and Hong, 2013); Korean ? = 0.90 (Kwon and Kwon, 2014); Spain ? = 0.79 (Heilemann et al., 2003); Italian ? = 0.88 (Callegari et al., 2016); and Greek ? = 0.89 (Ntountoulaki et al., 2017). (2012) “examined the measurement invariance of the RS?14 in samples of U.S., Chinese, and Taiwanese college students and supported a one-factor model that demonstrated scalar invariance across cultures” (Yang et al., 2012). The short version RS-14 has been tested regarding its structure and it was found that results are not always totally consistent. Some discrepancies exist between findings of different studies; for instance the Brazilian version with 13 items (Damasio et al., 2011) or 12 items in the Portuguese adaptation for adolescents (Oliveira et al., 2015), and in the German Version 11 items (Schumacher et al., 2005). These discrepancies can eventually result from sampling issues: some studies used participants from very different developmental phases (Damasio et al., 2011), and others used participants <13 years old, an option that is not appropriate given that the authors of the RS advise against the use of the scale with participants from earlier ages (Wagnild, 2009b; Pritzker and Minter, 2014).