Jan Hilbig1, Rima Viliūnienė2, Oddgeir Friborg3, Vilmantė Pakalniškienė4, Vita Danilevičiūtė5. 1. Clinic of Psychiatry, Vilnius University, Vasaros 5, 10309 Vilnius, Lithuania. Electronic address: jan.hilbig@web.de. 2. Clinic of Psychiatry, Vilnius University, Vasaros 5, 10309 Vilnius, Lithuania. Electronic address: rima.viliuniene@mf.vu.lt. 3. Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Psychology, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway. Electronic address: oddgeir.friborg@uit.no. 4. Vilmantė Pakalniškienė, Department of General Psychology, Vilnius University, Universiteto 9/1, 01513 Vilnius, Lithuania. Electronic address: vilmante.pakalniskiene@gmail.com. 5. Clinic of Psychiatry, Vilnius University, Vasaros 5, 10309 Vilnius, Lithuania. Electronic address: vita.danileviciute@mf.vu.lt.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Resilience, as an ability to withstand or rebound from crisis or adversity, is becoming an increasingly significant concept in health promotion and well-being. Individuals exhibiting resilience use skills or resources flexibly to solve situational demands. The Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA) may be used to assess protective resources, and the aim of the present study was to validate the Lithuanian translation. METHODS: The translated RSA was administered to a clinical (n=125) and a non clinical sample (n=499) to examine the discriminant validity of the RSA items with a confirmatory factor analysis, the internal consistency as well as construct validity by correlating it with the Quick Psycho-Affective Symptoms Scan (QPASS). RESULTS: The internal consistency, the test-retest stability and the factor structure were replicated as adequate, thus indicating good psychometric properties and support of discriminant validity. Females reported more resilience resources for the domains of social competence, family cohesion and social resources compared to men. The RSA subscales correlated negatively with the QPASS scores, and patients reported significantly less resilience resources than non-patients, thus indicating construct validity. CONCLUSIONS: Valid psychometric tools for research purposes and routine every-day use are urgently needed in Lithuania, a young nation still under numerous challenges due to social, economic and political transitions. The RSA represents a reliable and valid tool for assessing protective factors. Assessing resilience factors may extend the understanding of factors relevant for mental health problems as well as treatment prognosis beyond the capabilities of mere symptom oriented approaches.
BACKGROUND: Resilience, as an ability to withstand or rebound from crisis or adversity, is becoming an increasingly significant concept in health promotion and well-being. Individuals exhibiting resilience use skills or resources flexibly to solve situational demands. The Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA) may be used to assess protective resources, and the aim of the present study was to validate the Lithuanian translation. METHODS: The translated RSA was administered to a clinical (n=125) and a non clinical sample (n=499) to examine the discriminant validity of the RSA items with a confirmatory factor analysis, the internal consistency as well as construct validity by correlating it with the Quick Psycho-Affective Symptoms Scan (QPASS). RESULTS: The internal consistency, the test-retest stability and the factor structure were replicated as adequate, thus indicating good psychometric properties and support of discriminant validity. Females reported more resilience resources for the domains of social competence, family cohesion and social resources compared to men. The RSA subscales correlated negatively with the QPASS scores, and patients reported significantly less resilience resources than non-patients, thus indicating construct validity. CONCLUSIONS: Valid psychometric tools for research purposes and routine every-day use are urgently needed in Lithuania, a young nation still under numerous challenges due to social, economic and political transitions. The RSA represents a reliable and valid tool for assessing protective factors. Assessing resilience factors may extend the understanding of factors relevant for mental health problems as well as treatment prognosis beyond the capabilities of mere symptom oriented approaches.
Authors: Deshira D Wallace; Ruchir N Karmali; Christine Kim; Ann Marie White; Kurt C Stange; Kristen Hassmiller Lich Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Nursen Yalcin-Siedentopf; Theresia Pichler; Anna-Sophia Welte; Christine M Hoertnagl; Caroline C Klasen; Georg Kemmler; Christian M Siedentopf; Alex Hofer Journal: Arch Womens Ment Health Date: 2020-10-14 Impact factor: 3.633