The mark into the focus is the need for an age-appropriate aspect out-of strength right for teens and you may young adults

Brief Version RS-fourteen

When shopping for a useful and you can appropriate means, not only you’ll need for more populations also the spot where the advised foundation framework are affirmed, two big requirements were within the desire. “New RS-fourteen shows the latest brevity, readability, and you can ease of scoring that happen to be identified as extremely important properties when selecting instruments to be used having teenagers” (Pritzker and you can Minter, 2014, p. 332). This new RS-fourteen “may also promote details of the brand new pattern and you may profile away from resilience using an available everywhere measure of resilience which often have a tendency to permit comparisons which have earlier and coming browse,” and this “offers support facts that it is a psychometrically voice level to assess individual strength for the a long time of teenagers and young adults” (Wagnild, 2009a; Pritzker and Minter, 2014).

Moreover, Yang ainsi que al

Wanting a great deal more financial adaptation of Resilience Size, coming down end big date, and developing significantly more specifically for have fun with which have young people, Wagnild (2009a) modified the fresh RS-25 to14 factors. The newest temporary “RS-fourteen size contains fourteen mind-report factors counted collectively an effective seven-section score size between ‘1-highly disagree’ so you can ‘7-highly consent.’ High scores try indicative regarding resilience height. Depending on the article writers, ratings hiki indir try determined because of the a realization out of effect viewpoints for each and every item, thus providing score so you’re able to are priced between fourteen in order to 98.” Score lower than 65 imply lowest resilience; between 65 and you may 81 reveal moderate resilience; more than 81 might be translated since highest quantities of strength (Wagnild and you will More youthful, 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).