The target in appeal was the necessity for a years-suitable measurement from resilience suitable for adolescents and you will young people

The target in appeal was the necessity for a years-suitable measurement from resilience suitable for adolescents and you will young people

Brief Adaptation RS-14

When searching for a good and you will appropriate means, just needed for additional populations and in which the suggested foundation design is going to be verified, one or two big requires had been when you look at the focus. “The fresh RS-14 shows the new brevity, readability, and you will easier rating which were recognized as essential properties when deciding on tool to be used with teenagers” (Pritzker and you may Minter, 2014, p. 332). New RS-fourteen “also offer specifics of the newest development and profile regarding resilience using an available everywhere way of measuring resilience which in turn will permit comparisons with past and you may upcoming look,” and therefore “can give support evidence it is a great psychometrically sound level to assess private strength during the age christian cupid konum deÄŸiÅŸtirme range from adolescents and young adults” (Wagnild, 2009a; Pritzker and you will Minter, 2014).

Also, Yang et al

Interested in much more economic adaptation of the Strength Measure, coming down conclusion time, and designing way more especially for explore which have young people, Wagnild (2009a) changed the new RS-25 to14 things. The newest temporary “RS-14 level include fourteen care about-declaration factors counted collectively a good eight-point rating size ranging from ‘1-highly disagree’ to ‘7-highly consent.’ Large ratings was indicative out-of strength peak. Depending on the article writers, results is actually calculated by the a summary regarding response thinking for every single goods, for this reason providing results to help you include fourteen in order to 98.” Score lower than 65 indicate low strength; ranging from 65 and you may 81 reveal reasonable strength; more than 81 would-be translated as the higher amounts of strength (Wagnild and you will 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). (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).