The evaluation of interventions and policies designed to promote resilience, and research to understand the determinants and associations, require reliable and valid measures to ensure data quality. This paper systematically reviews the psychometric rigour of resilience measurement scales developed for use in general and clinical populations. Eight electronic abstract databases and the internet were searched and reference lists of all identified papers were hand searched. The focus was to identify peer reviewed journal articles where resilience was a key focus and/or is assessed. Two authors independently extracted data and performed a quality assessment of the scale psychometric properties. Nineteen resilience measures were reviewed; four of these were refinements of the original measure. All the measures had some missing information regarding the psychometric properties. Overall, the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, the Resilience Scale for Adults and the Brief Resilience Scale received the best psychometric ratings. The conceptual and theoretical adequacy of a number of the scales was questionable. We found no current 'gold standard' amongst 15 measures of resilience. A number of the scales are in the early stages of development, and all require further validation work. Given increasing interest in resilience from major international funders, key policy makers and practice, researchers are urged to report relevant validation statistics when using the measures.

/pdf/a-methodological-review-of-resilience-measurement-scales-9l403fighb.pdf

A methodological review of resilience measurement scales.

The authors report on the development and calibration of item banks for depression, anxiety, and anger as part of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®). Comprehensive literature searches yielded an initial bank of 1,404 items from 305 instruments. After qualitative item analysis (including focus groups and cognitive interviewing), 168 items (56 for each construct) were written in a first person, past tense format with a 7-day time frame and five response options reflecting frequency. The calibration sample included nearly 15,000 respondents. Final banks of 28, 29, and 29 items were calibrated for depression, anxiety, and anger, respectively, using item response theory. Test information curves showed that the PROMIS item banks provided more information than conventional measures in a range of severity from approximately -1 to +3 standard deviations (with higher scores indicating greater distress). Short forms consisting of seven to eight items provided information comparable to legacy measures containing more items.

/pdf/item-banks-for-measuring-emotional-distress-from-the-patient-21olowl3pz.pdf

Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®): depression, anxiety, and anger.

The current study examines changes over time in a commonly used measure of dispositional empathy. A cross-temporal meta-analysis was conducted on 72 samples of American college students who completed at least one of the four subscales (Empathic Concern, Perspective Taking, Fantasy, and Personal Distress) of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) between 1979 and 2009 (total N = 13,737). Overall, the authors found changes in the most prototypically empathic subscales of the IRI: Empathic Concern was most sharply dropping, followed by Perspective Taking. The IRI Fantasy and Personal Distress subscales exhibited no changes over time. Additional analyses found that the declines in Perspective Taking and Empathic Concern are relatively recent phenomena and are most pronounced in samples from after 2000.

https://www.ipearlab.org/media/publications/Changes_in_Dispositional_Empathy_-_Sara_Konrath.pdf

Changes in Dispositional Empathy in American College Students Over Time: A Meta-Analysis

The purpose of this study was to apply a set of rarely reported psychometric indices that, nevertheless, are important to consider when evaluating psychological measures. All can be derived from a standardized loading matrix in a confirmatory bifactor model: omega reliability coefficients, factor determinacy, construct replicability, explained common variance, and percentage of uncontaminated correlations. We calculated these indices and extended the findings of 50 recent bifactor model estimation studies published in psychopathology, personality, and assessment journals. These bifactor derived indices (most not presented in the articles) provided a clearer and more complete picture of the psychometric properties of the assessment instruments. We reached 2 firm conclusions. First, although all measures had been tagged “multidimensional,” unit-weighted total scores overwhelmingly reflected variance due to a single latent variable. Second, unit-weighted subscale scores often have ambiguous interpret...

Applying Bifactor Statistical Indices in the Evaluation of Psychological Measures.

An international team of investigators in 11 countries have worked collaboratively to develop a culturally and contextually relevant measure of youth resilience, the Child and Youth Resilience Measure (CYRM-28). The team used a mixed methods design that facilitated understanding of both common and unique aspects of resilience across cultures. Quantitative and qualitative stages to its development ensure the CYRM-28 has good content-related validity across research sites. Crossover comparison analyses of the findings from the quantitative administration of the pilot measure with 1,451 youth and qualitative interviews with 89 youth support the CYRM-28 as a culturally sensitive measure of youth resilience. The implications of this mixed methods approach to the development of measures for cross-cultural research are discussed.

Assessing Resilience Across Cultures Using Mixed Methods: Construction of the Child and Youth Resilience Measure:

EDITORIAL BOARD Robert Davison Aviles, Bradley University Harley E. Baker, California State University–Channel Islands Jean-Guy Blais, Universite de Montreal, Canada Catherine Y. Chang, Georgia State University Robert C. Chope, San Francisco State University Kevin O. Cokley, University of Missouri, Columbia Patricia B. Elmore, Southern Illinois University Shawn Fitzgerald, Kent State University John J. Fremer, Educational Testing Service Vicente Ponsoda Gil, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Spain Jo-Ida C. Hansen, University of Minnesota Charles C. Healy, University of California at Los Angeles Robin K. Henson, University of North Texas Flaviu Adrian Hodis, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand Janet K. Holt, Northern Illinois University David A. Jepsen, The University of Iowa Gregory Arief D. Liem, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University Wei-Cheng J. Mau, Wichita State University Larry Maucieri, Governors State College Patricia Jo McDivitt, Data Recognition Corporation Peter F. Merenda, University of Rhode Island Matthew J. Miller, University of Maryland Ralph O. Mueller, University of Hartford Jane E. Myers, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro Philip D. Parker, University of Western Sydney Ralph L. Piedmont, Loyola College in Maryland Alex L. Pieterse, University at Albany, SUNY Nicholas J. Ruiz, Winona State University James P. Sampson, Jr., Florida State University William D. Schafer, University of Maryland, College Park William E. Sedlacek, University of Maryland, College Park Marie F. Shoffner, University of Virginia Len Sperry, Florida Atlantic University Kevin Stoltz, University of Mississippi Jody L. Swartz-Kulstad, Seton Hall University Bruce Thompson, Texas A&M University Timothy R. Vansickle, Minnesota Department of Education Steve Vensel, Palm Beach Atlantic University Dan Williamson, Lindsey Wilson College F. Robert Wilson, University of Cincinnati

Philip D. Parker

Papers

measurement and evaluation in counseling and Development