Loading…

Does the Brief Resilience Scale actually measure resilience and succumbing? Comparing artefactual and substantive models

Objective: The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) is a relatively new and increasingly used measure of resilience. Despite its popularity, evidence regarding its unitary factor structure has been equivocal. The aim of this study was to examine whether the BRS should be operationalised as a single or dual...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Advances in mental health 2021-05, Vol.19 (2), p.192-201
Main Authors: McKay, Samuel, Skues, Jason L., Williams, Ben J.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-461d08e0e18a9fb166cfabfc2560e6c79011a5816a902ebdbfb7743e9a235eca3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-461d08e0e18a9fb166cfabfc2560e6c79011a5816a902ebdbfb7743e9a235eca3
container_end_page 201
container_issue 2
container_start_page 192
container_title Advances in mental health
container_volume 19
creator McKay, Samuel
Skues, Jason L.
Williams, Ben J.
description Objective: The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) is a relatively new and increasingly used measure of resilience. Despite its popularity, evidence regarding its unitary factor structure has been equivocal. The aim of this study was to examine whether the BRS should be operationalised as a single or dual factor model and further test the validity of the scale. Method: A sample of 288 adults (mean age = 34 years) completed an online survey measuring resilience, the Big-Five personality traits, positive and negative affect, perceived stress, and life satisfaction. Results: Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that a single-factor model that accounted for method effects within the negatively worded items had the best fit to the data. Additionally, no evidence of a dual factor structure was found using discriminant, construct and criterion validity markers of the Big-Five, life satisfaction, perceived stress or positive and negative affect. Results also demonstrated moderate to strong positive relationships between the BRS and measures of psychological wellbeing. Finally, the BRS was positively related to all Big-Five personality factors with the exception of a strong negative relationship with neuroticism. Discussion: The current findings support the conceptualisation of the BRS as a unidimensional measure of resilience. Moreover, the study lends further support to validity of the BRS as a brief measure of resilience through demonstrating expected relationships with markers of wellbeing and the Big-Five personality factors.
doi_str_mv 10.1080/18387357.2019.1688667
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2541138729</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2541138729</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-461d08e0e18a9fb166cfabfc2560e6c79011a5816a902ebdbfb7743e9a235eca3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kNtKxDAQhosouKz7CELA665J06bplYf1CAuCh-swTSfapW3WJFX37e3aFe_MTYaZ75-BL4qOGZ0zKukpk1zmPMvnCWXFnAkphcj3osnQz-O0oNn-Ty3jLXQYzbxf0eENk4Jnk-jryqIn4Q3JpavRkEf0dVNjp5E8aWiQgA49NM2GtAi-d0jcHwFdRXyvdd-Wdfd6Rha2XYMbSgIuoBmjO6r0AbpQfyBpbYWNP4oODDQeZ7t_Gr3cXD8v7uLlw-394mIZa85liFPBKiqRIpNQmJIJoQ2URieZoCh0XlDGIJNMQEETLKvSlHmeciwg4Rlq4NPoZNy7dva9Rx_UyvauG06qJEsZG-wlxUBlI6Wd9d6hUWtXt-A2ilG19ax-PautZ7XzPOTOx1zdGeta-LSuqVSATWOdcdDp2iv-_4pvReWGhg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2541138729</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Does the Brief Resilience Scale actually measure resilience and succumbing? Comparing artefactual and substantive models</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>Taylor and Francis:Jisc Collections:Taylor and Francis Read and Publish Agreement 2024-2025:Social Sciences and Humanities Collection (Reading list)</source><creator>McKay, Samuel ; Skues, Jason L. ; Williams, Ben J.</creator><creatorcontrib>McKay, Samuel ; Skues, Jason L. ; Williams, Ben J.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective: The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) is a relatively new and increasingly used measure of resilience. Despite its popularity, evidence regarding its unitary factor structure has been equivocal. The aim of this study was to examine whether the BRS should be operationalised as a single or dual factor model and further test the validity of the scale. Method: A sample of 288 adults (mean age = 34 years) completed an online survey measuring resilience, the Big-Five personality traits, positive and negative affect, perceived stress, and life satisfaction. Results: Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that a single-factor model that accounted for method effects within the negatively worded items had the best fit to the data. Additionally, no evidence of a dual factor structure was found using discriminant, construct and criterion validity markers of the Big-Five, life satisfaction, perceived stress or positive and negative affect. Results also demonstrated moderate to strong positive relationships between the BRS and measures of psychological wellbeing. Finally, the BRS was positively related to all Big-Five personality factors with the exception of a strong negative relationship with neuroticism. Discussion: The current findings support the conceptualisation of the BRS as a unidimensional measure of resilience. Moreover, the study lends further support to validity of the BRS as a brief measure of resilience through demonstrating expected relationships with markers of wellbeing and the Big-Five personality factors.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1838-7357</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1837-4905</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/18387357.2019.1688667</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Maleny: Routledge</publisher><subject>Big-5 personality factors ; Brief Resilience Scale ; CFA ; Confirmatory factor analysis ; Coping ; Five factor model ; Life satisfaction ; Life stress ; Mental health ; Negative emotions ; Neuroticism ; Personality ; Personality traits ; Popularity ; Positive emotions ; Psychological well being ; Quantitative psychology ; Questionnaires ; reliability ; Resilience ; Validity</subject><ispartof>Advances in mental health, 2021-05, Vol.19 (2), p.192-201</ispartof><rights>2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor &amp; Francis Group 2019</rights><rights>2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor &amp; Francis Group</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-461d08e0e18a9fb166cfabfc2560e6c79011a5816a902ebdbfb7743e9a235eca3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-461d08e0e18a9fb166cfabfc2560e6c79011a5816a902ebdbfb7743e9a235eca3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2700-5285</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,30976,33200</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>McKay, Samuel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Skues, Jason L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williams, Ben J.</creatorcontrib><title>Does the Brief Resilience Scale actually measure resilience and succumbing? Comparing artefactual and substantive models</title><title>Advances in mental health</title><description>Objective: The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) is a relatively new and increasingly used measure of resilience. Despite its popularity, evidence regarding its unitary factor structure has been equivocal. The aim of this study was to examine whether the BRS should be operationalised as a single or dual factor model and further test the validity of the scale. Method: A sample of 288 adults (mean age = 34 years) completed an online survey measuring resilience, the Big-Five personality traits, positive and negative affect, perceived stress, and life satisfaction. Results: Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that a single-factor model that accounted for method effects within the negatively worded items had the best fit to the data. Additionally, no evidence of a dual factor structure was found using discriminant, construct and criterion validity markers of the Big-Five, life satisfaction, perceived stress or positive and negative affect. Results also demonstrated moderate to strong positive relationships between the BRS and measures of psychological wellbeing. Finally, the BRS was positively related to all Big-Five personality factors with the exception of a strong negative relationship with neuroticism. Discussion: The current findings support the conceptualisation of the BRS as a unidimensional measure of resilience. Moreover, the study lends further support to validity of the BRS as a brief measure of resilience through demonstrating expected relationships with markers of wellbeing and the Big-Five personality factors.</description><subject>Big-5 personality factors</subject><subject>Brief Resilience Scale</subject><subject>CFA</subject><subject>Confirmatory factor analysis</subject><subject>Coping</subject><subject>Five factor model</subject><subject>Life satisfaction</subject><subject>Life stress</subject><subject>Mental health</subject><subject>Negative emotions</subject><subject>Neuroticism</subject><subject>Personality</subject><subject>Personality traits</subject><subject>Popularity</subject><subject>Positive emotions</subject><subject>Psychological well being</subject><subject>Quantitative psychology</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>reliability</subject><subject>Resilience</subject><subject>Validity</subject><issn>1838-7357</issn><issn>1837-4905</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kNtKxDAQhosouKz7CELA665J06bplYf1CAuCh-swTSfapW3WJFX37e3aFe_MTYaZ75-BL4qOGZ0zKukpk1zmPMvnCWXFnAkphcj3osnQz-O0oNn-Ty3jLXQYzbxf0eENk4Jnk-jryqIn4Q3JpavRkEf0dVNjp5E8aWiQgA49NM2GtAi-d0jcHwFdRXyvdd-Wdfd6Rha2XYMbSgIuoBmjO6r0AbpQfyBpbYWNP4oODDQeZ7t_Gr3cXD8v7uLlw-394mIZa85liFPBKiqRIpNQmJIJoQ2URieZoCh0XlDGIJNMQEETLKvSlHmeciwg4Rlq4NPoZNy7dva9Rx_UyvauG06qJEsZG-wlxUBlI6Wd9d6hUWtXt-A2ilG19ax-PautZ7XzPOTOx1zdGeta-LSuqVSATWOdcdDp2iv-_4pvReWGhg</recordid><startdate>20210504</startdate><enddate>20210504</enddate><creator>McKay, Samuel</creator><creator>Skues, Jason L.</creator><creator>Williams, Ben J.</creator><general>Routledge</general><general>Taylor &amp; Francis Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K7.</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2700-5285</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210504</creationdate><title>Does the Brief Resilience Scale actually measure resilience and succumbing? Comparing artefactual and substantive models</title><author>McKay, Samuel ; Skues, Jason L. ; Williams, Ben J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-461d08e0e18a9fb166cfabfc2560e6c79011a5816a902ebdbfb7743e9a235eca3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Big-5 personality factors</topic><topic>Brief Resilience Scale</topic><topic>CFA</topic><topic>Confirmatory factor analysis</topic><topic>Coping</topic><topic>Five factor model</topic><topic>Life satisfaction</topic><topic>Life stress</topic><topic>Mental health</topic><topic>Negative emotions</topic><topic>Neuroticism</topic><topic>Personality</topic><topic>Personality traits</topic><topic>Popularity</topic><topic>Positive emotions</topic><topic>Psychological well being</topic><topic>Quantitative psychology</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>reliability</topic><topic>Resilience</topic><topic>Validity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>McKay, Samuel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Skues, Jason L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williams, Ben J.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><jtitle>Advances in mental health</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>McKay, Samuel</au><au>Skues, Jason L.</au><au>Williams, Ben J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Does the Brief Resilience Scale actually measure resilience and succumbing? Comparing artefactual and substantive models</atitle><jtitle>Advances in mental health</jtitle><date>2021-05-04</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>192</spage><epage>201</epage><pages>192-201</pages><issn>1838-7357</issn><eissn>1837-4905</eissn><abstract>Objective: The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) is a relatively new and increasingly used measure of resilience. Despite its popularity, evidence regarding its unitary factor structure has been equivocal. The aim of this study was to examine whether the BRS should be operationalised as a single or dual factor model and further test the validity of the scale. Method: A sample of 288 adults (mean age = 34 years) completed an online survey measuring resilience, the Big-Five personality traits, positive and negative affect, perceived stress, and life satisfaction. Results: Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that a single-factor model that accounted for method effects within the negatively worded items had the best fit to the data. Additionally, no evidence of a dual factor structure was found using discriminant, construct and criterion validity markers of the Big-Five, life satisfaction, perceived stress or positive and negative affect. Results also demonstrated moderate to strong positive relationships between the BRS and measures of psychological wellbeing. Finally, the BRS was positively related to all Big-Five personality factors with the exception of a strong negative relationship with neuroticism. Discussion: The current findings support the conceptualisation of the BRS as a unidimensional measure of resilience. Moreover, the study lends further support to validity of the BRS as a brief measure of resilience through demonstrating expected relationships with markers of wellbeing and the Big-Five personality factors.</abstract><cop>Maleny</cop><pub>Routledge</pub><doi>10.1080/18387357.2019.1688667</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2700-5285</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1838-7357
ispartof Advances in mental health, 2021-05, Vol.19 (2), p.192-201
issn 1838-7357
1837-4905
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2541138729
source Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); Taylor and Francis:Jisc Collections:Taylor and Francis Read and Publish Agreement 2024-2025:Social Sciences and Humanities Collection (Reading list)
subjects Big-5 personality factors
Brief Resilience Scale
CFA
Confirmatory factor analysis
Coping
Five factor model
Life satisfaction
Life stress
Mental health
Negative emotions
Neuroticism
Personality
Personality traits
Popularity
Positive emotions
Psychological well being
Quantitative psychology
Questionnaires
reliability
Resilience
Validity
title Does the Brief Resilience Scale actually measure resilience and succumbing? Comparing artefactual and substantive models
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-23T20%3A08%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Does%20the%20Brief%20Resilience%20Scale%20actually%20measure%20resilience%20and%20succumbing?%20Comparing%20artefactual%20and%20substantive%20models&rft.jtitle=Advances%20in%20mental%20health&rft.au=McKay,%20Samuel&rft.date=2021-05-04&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=192&rft.epage=201&rft.pages=192-201&rft.issn=1838-7357&rft.eissn=1837-4905&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/18387357.2019.1688667&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2541138729%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-461d08e0e18a9fb166cfabfc2560e6c79011a5816a902ebdbfb7743e9a235eca3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2541138729&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true