The goal in the focus are the necessity for an age-suitable aspect from strength suitable for adolescents and you can teenagers

The goal in the focus are the necessity for an age-suitable aspect from strength suitable for adolescents and you can teenagers

Brief Adaptation RS-14

When looking for a helpful and you may legitimate means, besides you’ll need for various other populations in addition to where the recommended foundation construction will be affirmed, one or two major specifications was in fact in the notice. “The fresh new RS-fourteen reveals this new brevity, readability, and you can easy rating that happen to be identified as very important services when selecting tool for usage with teenagers” (Pritzker and you can Minter, 2014, p. 332). The fresh RS-fourteen “will additionally render information on the fresh trend and you may character off strength using an acquireable measure of resilience which often often allow reviews with previous and you may future browse,” and this “offers help research that it’s a beneficial psychometrically voice scale to assess personal resilience inside age range off teens and you may teenagers” (Wagnild, 2009a; Pritzker and Minter, 2014).

Additionally, Yang ainsi que al

Looking for a great deal more economic variation of Resilience Scale, coming down completion big date, and making significantly more especially for use with young adults, Wagnild (2009a) altered the newest RS-25 to14 factors. The fresh new short-term “RS-14 level includes fourteen self-declaration activities mentioned together a beneficial eight-point get measure between ‘1-strongly disagree’ to help you ‘7-highly concur.’ High score is actually an indicator of resilience top. With regards to the authors, ratings are calculated because of the a realization of reaction philosophy for every single product, thus enabling scores so you’re able to start from fourteen so you’re able to 98.” Scores lower than 65 suggest reasonable strength; ranging from 65 and you may 81 inform you moderate strength; more than 81 was translated just like the highest quantities of strength (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 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).