The mark into the desire are the necessity for an age-compatible dimension away from strength right for teenagers and you may teenagers

The mark into the desire are the necessity for an age-compatible dimension away from strength right for teenagers and you may teenagers

Small Type RS-14

While looking for a good and you will good instrument, not just necessary for different populations also where proposed grounds design are going to be affirmed, a couple of biggest goals have been inside the notice. “The RS-14 demonstrates new brevity, readability, and you can simple scoring which have been identified as extremely important properties when deciding on products for use having kids” (Pritzker and you will Minter, 2014, p. 332). The fresh new RS-fourteen “will additionally offer details of this new trend and you may profile off strength utilizing a widely accessible measure of resilience which often have a tendency to enable contrasting which have prior and you can upcoming look,” which “deliver help evidence it is an effective psychometrically voice level to evaluate individual resilience from inside the age range off adolescents and you may young people” (Wagnild, 2009a; Pritzker and you can Minter, 2014).

Furthermore, Yang et al

Interested in so much more financial variation of your own Strength Measure, coming down end go out, and you can design a whole lot more especially for play with which have teenagers, Wagnild (2009a) altered new RS-twenty kik hack five to14 factors. This new temporary “RS-14 size contains fourteen worry about-statement points counted collectively a beneficial seven-section rating size between ‘1-firmly disagree’ to ‘7-firmly concur.’ Highest scores try a sign from resilience top. With regards to the article authors, results is actually calculated by a summation off reaction beliefs for every product, thus permitting ratings to help you may include 14 in order to 98.” Score below 65 imply lowest strength; between 65 and you may 81 reveal modest resilience; significantly more than 81 might possibly be interpreted due to the fact higher degrees of resilience (Wagnild and you can More youthful, 1993; Wagnild, 2009b, 2014).

Using principal components analyses supported a single-factor solution; remaining in the RS-14 scale were those items with all item factor loadings >0.40. Reported psychometric properties of the RS-14 have demonstrated sound psychometric properties comparable to those of the RS-25: evidence of a one-factor structure was found and high reliability (coefficient Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90 and greater 0.96) and a strong correlation with the full version (r = 0.97, p = 0.001) were obtained (Wagnild, 2014). The overall factorability of the RS-14 demonstrated a robust one-factor measure of resilience, which has been replicated and has been confirmed in different studies and in the adaptations of this version for different countries (Wagnild, 2014). For instance: German ? = 0.91 (Schumacher et al., 2005); Portugal ? = 0.82 (Oliveira et al., 2015); Finland ? = 0.87 (Losoi et al., 2013); Japan ? = 0.88 (Nishi et al., 2010); China ? = 0.92 (Tian and Hong, 2013); Korean ? = 0.90 (Kwon and Kwon, 2014); Spain ? = 0.79 (Heilemann et al., 2003); Italian ? = 0.88 (Callegari et al., 2016); and Greek ? = 0.89 (Ntountoulaki et al., 2017). (2012) “examined the measurement invariance of the RS?14 in samples of U.S., Chinese, and Taiwanese college students and supported a one-factor model that demonstrated scalar invariance across cultures” (Yang et al., 2012). The short version RS-14 has been tested regarding its structure and it was found that results are not always totally consistent. Some discrepancies exist between findings of different studies; for instance the Brazilian version with 13 items (Damasio et al., 2011) or 12 items in the Portuguese adaptation for adolescents (Oliveira et al., 2015), and in the German Version 11 items (Schumacher et al., 2005). These discrepancies can eventually result from sampling issues: some studies used participants from very different developmental phases (Damasio et al., 2011), and others used participants <13 years old, an option that is not appropriate given that the authors of the RS advise against the use of the scale with participants from earlier ages (Wagnild, 2009b; Pritzker and Minter, 2014).