Ruslan Leontjevas1, Wendie Op de Beek2, Johan Lataster3, Nele Jacobs3. 1. Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, The Netherlands; Department of Primary and Community Care, Center for Family Medicine, Geriatric Care and Public health, Radboud University Nijmegen, Medical Centre, The Netherlands. Electronic address: roeslan.leontjevas@ou.nl. 2. Het Spectrum, Geriatric Healthcare Centre, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Open University of the Netherlands, Heerlen, The Netherlands; Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, School of Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Resilience to affective disorders in rehabilitating patients or in individuals with a severe disability is of special research interest. However, there is no gold standard for measuring resilience. We aimed to test the accuracy of the Dutch translation of the Brief Resilience Scale (BRSnl) and of the Resilience Scale (RSnl) in recognizing rehabilitating patients without anxiety and depression, and to determine the reliability and construct validity of both scales. METHODS: A within-subjects longitudinal study with six assessments, each one week apart. Forty residents of a nursing home rehabilitating unit were interviewed to assess resilience (BRSnl and RSnl), optimism and pessimism (LOT-R), depression and anxiety (HADS), positive and negative affect (PANAS), and pain (VAS). RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristic analyses for recognizing the absence of depression and anxiety (HADS-score≤7) revealed better accuracy (P=0.038) for the BRSnl (AUC=0.84; p<0.0001) than for the RSnl (AUC=0.68; P=0.017). The scales correlated moderately at baseline (rs=0.35; p=0.026), and at four-week follow-up (rs=0.50; p=0.004). The RSnl was positively associated with positive outcomes (optimism and positive affect), and the BRSnl positively with positive outcomes, and negatively with negative outcomes (pessimism, anxiety and negative affect). The RSnl showed a better four-week test-retest reliability (ICC, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.97) than the BRSnl (0.66; 95% CI, 0.29 to.83). LIMITATIONS: Short study duration, a relatively small sample. CONCLUSION: The BRSnl showed better performance in detecting people without depression and anxiety than the RSnl, and performed better on construct validity.
BACKGROUND: Resilience to affective disorders in rehabilitating patients or in individuals with a severe disability is of special research interest. However, there is no gold standard for measuring resilience. We aimed to test the accuracy of the Dutch translation of the Brief Resilience Scale (BRSnl) and of the Resilience Scale (RSnl) in recognizing rehabilitating patients without anxiety and depression, and to determine the reliability and construct validity of both scales. METHODS: A within-subjects longitudinal study with six assessments, each one week apart. Forty residents of a nursing home rehabilitating unit were interviewed to assess resilience (BRSnl and RSnl), optimism and pessimism (LOT-R), depression and anxiety (HADS), positive and negative affect (PANAS), and pain (VAS). RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristic analyses for recognizing the absence of depression and anxiety (HADS-score≤7) revealed better accuracy (P=0.038) for the BRSnl (AUC=0.84; p<0.0001) than for the RSnl (AUC=0.68; P=0.017). The scales correlated moderately at baseline (rs=0.35; p=0.026), and at four-week follow-up (rs=0.50; p=0.004). The RSnl was positively associated with positive outcomes (optimism and positive affect), and the BRSnl positively with positive outcomes, and negatively with negative outcomes (pessimism, anxiety and negative affect). The RSnl showed a better four-week test-retest reliability (ICC, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.97) than the BRSnl (0.66; 95% CI, 0.29 to.83). LIMITATIONS: Short study duration, a relatively small sample. CONCLUSION: The BRSnl showed better performance in detecting people without depression and anxiety than the RSnl, and performed better on construct validity.
Authors: Andrea Chmitorz; Mario Wenzel; Rolf-Dieter Stieglitz; Angela Kunzler; Christiana Bagusat; Isabella Helmreich; Anna Gerlicher; Miriam Kampa; Thomas Kubiak; Raffael Kalisch; Klaus Lieb; Oliver Tüscher Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-02-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Remko Soer; Marianne W M C Six Dijkstra; Hendrik J Bieleman; Roy E Stewart; Michiel F Reneman; Frits G J Oosterveld; Karlein M G Schreurs Journal: J Occup Health Date: 2019-03-22 Impact factor: 2.708
Authors: Bernice C van Aken; Ayuk Bakia; André I Wierdsma; Yolande Voskes; Jaap Van Weeghel; Evelyn M M van Bussel; Carla Hagestein; Andrea M Ruissen; Pien Leendertse; Wishal V Sewbalak; Daphne A van der Draai; Alice Hammink; M E Mandos; Mark van der Gaag; Annette E Bonebakker; Christina M Van Der Feltz-Cornelis; Cornelis L Mulder Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2021-01-12 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Mary F Love; Andrea Nicole Brooks; Sonya D Cox; Munachi Okpala; Gail Cooksey; Audrey Sarah Cohen; Anjail Z Sharrief Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-08-10 Impact factor: 4.086
Authors: Jesús Montero-Marin; Mattie Tops; Rick Manzanera; Marcelo M Piva Demarzo; Melchor Álvarez de Mon; Javier García-Campayo Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2015-12-17