BACKGROUND: While resilience has been defined as resistance to illness, adaptation, and thriving, the ability to bounce back or recover from stress is closest to its original meaning. Previous resilience measures assess resources that may promote resilience rather than recovery, resistance, adaptation, or thriving. PURPOSE: To test a new brief resilience scale. METHOD: The brief resilience scale (BRS) was created to assess the ability to bounce back or recover from stress. Its psychometric characteristics were examined in four samples, including two student samples and samples with cardiac and chronic pain patients. RESULTS: The BRS was reliable and measured as a unitary construct. It was predictably related to personal characteristics, social relations, coping, and health in all samples. It was negatively related to anxiety, depression, negative affect, and physical symptoms when other resilience measures and optimism, social support, and Type D personality (high negative affect and high social inhibition) were controlled. There were large differences in BRS scores between cardiac patients with and without Type D and women with and without fibromyalgia. CONCLUSION: The BRS is a reliable means of assessing resilience as the ability to bounce back or recover from stress and may provide unique and important information about people coping with health-related stressors.
BACKGROUND: While resilience has been defined as resistance to illness, adaptation, and thriving, the ability to bounce back or recover from stress is closest to its original meaning. Previous resilience measures assess resources that may promote resilience rather than recovery, resistance, adaptation, or thriving. PURPOSE: To test a new brief resilience scale. METHOD: The brief resilience scale (BRS) was created to assess the ability to bounce back or recover from stress. Its psychometric characteristics were examined in four samples, including two student samples and samples with cardiac and chronic painpatients. RESULTS: The BRS was reliable and measured as a unitary construct. It was predictably related to personal characteristics, social relations, coping, and health in all samples. It was negatively related to anxiety, depression, negative affect, and physical symptoms when other resilience measures and optimism, social support, and Type D personality (high negative affect and high social inhibition) were controlled. There were large differences in BRS scores between cardiac patients with and without Type D and women with and without fibromyalgia. CONCLUSION: The BRS is a reliable means of assessing resilience as the ability to bounce back or recover from stress and may provide unique and important information about people coping with health-related stressors.
Authors: David C Steffens; Kevin J Manning; Rong Wu; James J Grady; Richard H Fortinsky; Howard A Tennen Journal: Int Psychogeriatr Date: 2015-09-01 Impact factor: 3.878
Authors: Emily Bariola; Anthony Lyons; William Leonard; Marian Pitts; Paul Badcock; Murray Couch Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Mapuana C K Antonio; Earl S Hishinuma; Claire Townsend Ing; Fumiaki Hamagami; Adrienne Dillard; B Puni Kekauoha; Cappy Solatorio; Kevin Cassel; Kathryn L Braun; Joseph Keaweʻaimoku Kaholokula Journal: Behav Med Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 3.104
Authors: Kathryn A Thompson; Hailey W Bulls; Kimberly T Sibille; Emily J Bartley; Toni L Glover; Ellen L Terry; Ivana A Vaughn; Josue S Cardoso; Adriana Sotolongo; Roland Staud; Laura B Hughes; Jeffrey C Edberg; David T Redden; Laurence A Bradley; Burel R Goodin; Roger B Fillingim Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: Mario Maj; Dan J Stein; Gordon Parker; Mark Zimmerman; Giovanni A Fava; Marc De Hert; Koen Demyttenaere; Roger S McIntyre; Thomas Widiger; Hans-Ulrich Wittchen Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 49.548