Brief Version RS-14

While looking for a helpful and legitimate appliance, not simply needed for more populations also where the proposed factor construction are going to be affirmed, one or two major goals was indeed during the notice. “The new RS-14 reveals the fresh brevity, readability, and you can easier rating that have been defined as essential functions when deciding on instruments to be used which have adolescents” (Pritzker and you can Minter, 2014, p. 332). The brand new RS-fourteen “will even provide details of the latest trend and you will profile out of resilience making use of an accessible measure of resilience which have a tendency to enable evaluations with past and you will upcoming search,” and therefore “will give support research that it’s a great psychometrically sound size to assess private strength inside age range away from kids and young adults” (Wagnild, 2009a; Pritzker and you can Minter, 2014).

The newest small variation RS-fourteen might have been tested out of the framework therefore was found one email address details are not necessarily entirely consistent

Looking for even more economic version of your own Resilience Level, decreasing conclusion go out, and you may design more particularly for fool around with that have young adults, Wagnild (2009a) altered the latest RS-25 to14 things. The fresh new short term “RS-fourteen measure include 14 self-statement points mentioned together a good 7-point rating level anywhere between ‘1-firmly disagree’ in order to ‘7-highly concur.’ High scores is actually an indicator from resilience peak. According to writers, results are computed of the a bottom line off impulse philosophy each items, therefore providing scores to help you start from 14 in order to 98.” Results lower than 65 suggest lowest strength; ranging from 65 and you may 81 tell you average strength; over 81 might be translated as the high amounts of resilience (Wagnild and you can 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). Moreover, Yang et al. (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). Some discrepancies exist between findings of different studies; for instance the Brazilian version with 13 items (Damasio et al., 2011) or 12 items in https://datingranking.net/fr/rencontres-asexuees/ 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).