The prospective in the attract was the necessity for an age-suitable aspect away from resilience suitable for teenagers and young people

Quick Type RS-14

When looking for a useful and you may valid software, not only you’ll need for different populations and in addition where advised factor construction might be confirmed, a couple of biggest goals was basically when you look at the appeal. “The brand new RS-14 reveals the newest brevity, readability, and you will easier rating which were identified as essential characteristics when selecting devices to be used that have kids” (Pritzker and Minter, 2014, p. 332). The new RS-fourteen “will also render information on the brand new development and you will profile away from resilience utilizing an accessible way of measuring resilience which in turn have a tendency to permit comparisons that have previous and you may upcoming research,” and therefore “will offer supporting evidence it is a beneficial psychometrically sound scale to evaluate private strength into the a long time away from adolescents and you will young people” (Wagnild, 2009a; Pritzker and Minter, 2014).

Also, Yang mais aussi al

Shopping for even more monetary version of one’s Resilience Level, decreasing end time, and you will design significantly more especially for fool around with having young adults, Wagnild (2009a) changed new RS-twenty-five to14 products. The new temporary “RS-14 level contains 14 notice-statement affairs mentioned with each other a great 7-point rating size between ‘1-highly disagree’ in order to ‘7-highly agree.’ Higher scores try an indicator out-of strength level. According to article writers, score is determined of the a realization out-of response values each goods, for this reason enabling scores in order to are normally taken for 14 to 98.” Score lower than 65 suggest lower strength; anywhere between 65 and 81 inform you reasonable resilience; significantly more than 81 might possibly be translated just like the higher degrees of resilience (Wagnild and you will Young, 1993; Wagnild, 2009b, 2014).

Using principal components analyses supported a single-factor solution; remaining in the RS-14 scale were those items with all item factor loadings >0.40. Reported psychometric properties of the RS-14 have demonstrated sound psychometric properties comparable to those of the RS-25: evidence of a one-factor structure was found and high reliability (coefficient Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90 and greater 0.96) and a strong correlation with the full version (r = 0.97, p = 0.001) were obtained (Wagnild, 2014). The overall factorability of the RS-14 demonstrated a robust one-factor measure of resilience, which has hitwe 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).