The prospective for the interest was the need for a get older-appropriate dimensions of resilience suitable for teens and young adults

The prospective for the interest was the need for a get older-appropriate dimensions of resilience suitable for teens and young adults

Small Variation RS-fourteen

While looking for a good and you may valid means, not merely necessary for various other populations but also where in actuality the advised factor design is going to be confirmed, a few significant requirements was indeed for the interest. “The new RS-14 demonstrates the brevity, readability, and you will easier scoring which have been identified as important functions when deciding on products to be used with kids” (Pritzker and you may Minter, 2014, p. 332). The newest RS-14 “will even promote details of the brand new trend and you may character of resilience using a widely accessible way of measuring strength which often have a tendency to permit evaluations which have earlier in the day and you can future search,” which “deliver help facts that it’s good psychometrically sound measure to evaluate personal resilience for the age range from kids and young adults” (Wagnild, 2009a; Pritzker and you will Minter, 2014).

Additionally, Yang mais aussi al

Trying to find a great deal more economic version of the Strength Measure, coming down completion day, and you may designing alot more especially for explore which have young people, Wagnild (2009a) changed the brand new RS-twenty-five to14 circumstances. New brief “RS-fourteen size includes fourteen thinking-declaration facts mentioned with each other a seven-point get measure ranging from ‘1-highly disagree’ in order to ‘7-firmly consent.’ Higher scores try indicative regarding resilience top. With regards to the article writers, scores is determined from the a bottom line of reaction opinions for each and every product, ergo helping ratings to help you are normally taken for fourteen to help you 98.” Score below 65 indicate lowest strength; between 65 and you may 81 inform you average strength; more than 81 could be interpreted since highest quantities of strength (Wagnild and you may 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 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 fetlife Hesap Nasıl Silme 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).

Lascia un commento

Il tuo indirizzo email non sarà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *