Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research

An in-depth psychometric analysis of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale: calibration with Rasch-Andrich model

Authors: Víctor B. Arias González, María Teresa Crespo Sierra, Benito Arias Martínez, Agustín Martínez-Molina, Fernando P. Ponce

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) is inarguably one of the best-known instruments in the field of resilience assessment. However, the criteria for the psychometric quality of the instrument were based only on classical test theory.

Method

The aim of this paper has focused on the calibration of the CD-RISC with a nonclinical sample of 444 adults using the Rasch-Andrich Rating Scale Model, in order to clarify its structure and analyze its psychometric properties at the level of item.

Results

Two items showed misfit to the model and were eliminated. The remaining 22 items form basically a unidimensional scale. The CD-RISC has good psychometric properties. The fit of both the items and the persons to the Rasch model was good, and the response categories were functioning properly. Two of the items showed differential item functioning.

Conclusions

The CD-RISC has an obvious ceiling effect, which suggests to include more difficult items in future versions of the scale.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Fergus S, Zimmerman MA. Adolescent resilience: a framework for understanding healthy development in the face of risk. Annu Rev Public Health. 2005;26:399–419.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Haskett ME, Nears K, Ward CS, McPherson AV. Diversity in adjustment of maltreated children: factors associated with resilient functioning. Clin Psychol Rev. 2006;26:796–812.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Evans R, Pinnock K. Promoting resilience and protective factors in the children’s fund. J Child Poverty. 2007;13:21–36.CrossRef
5.
Olsson CA, Bond L, Burns JM, Vella-Brodrick DA, Sawyer SM. Adolescent resilience: a concept analysis. J Adolesc. 2003;26:1–11.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Vanderbilt-Adriance E, Shaw DS. Conceptualizing and re-evaluating resilience across levels of risk, time, and domains of competence. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2008;11:30–58.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
7.
8.
Windle G. What is resilience? A systematic review and concept analysis. Rev Clin Gerontol. 2010;21:1–18.
9.
Windle G. What is resilience? A review and concept analysis. Rev Clin Gerontol. 2011;21:151–69.CrossRef
10.
Wagnild GM, Young HM. Development and psychometric evaluation of the resilience scale. J Nurs Meas. 1993;1:165–78.PubMed
11.
Block J, Kremen AM. IQ and ego-resiliency: Conceptual and empirical connections and separateness. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996;70:349–61.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Klohnen EC. Conceptual analysis and measurement of the construct of ego-resiliency. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996;70:1067–79.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Hurtes KP, Allen LR. Measuring resiliency in youth: the resiliency attitudes and skills profile. Ther Recreat J. 2001;35(4):333–47.
14.
Connor KM, Davidson JRT. Development of a new resilience scale: the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depress Anxiety. 2003;18:76–82.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Oshio A, Kaneko H, Nagamine S, Nakaya M. Construct validity of the adolescent resilience scale. Psychol Rep. 2003;93:1217–22.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Friborg O, Barlaug D, Martinussen M, Rosenvinge JH, Hjemdal O. Resilience in relation to personality and intelligence. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2005;14:29–42.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Friborg O, Hjemdal O, Rosenvinge JH, Martinussen M. A new rating scale for adult resilience: what are the central protective resources behind healthy adjustment? Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2003;12:65–76.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Bartone P. Test-retest reliability of the Dispositional Resilience Scale-15, a brief hardiness scale. Psychol Rep. 2007;101:943–4.PubMed
19.
Campbell-Sills L, Stein MB. Psychometric analysis and refinement of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): validation of a 10 item measure of resilience. J Trauma Stress. 2007;20:1019–28.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Donnon T, Hammond W. A psychometric assessment of the self reported youth resiliency assessing developmental strengths questionnaire. Psychol Rep. 2007;100:963–78.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Sun J, Stewart D. Development of population-based resilience measures in the primary school setting. Health Educ. 2007;7:575–99.
22.
Smith BW, Dalen J, Wiggins K, Tooley E, Christopher P, Bernard J. The brief resilience scale: assessing the ability to bounce back. Int J Behav Med. 2008;15:194–200.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Ungar M, Liebenberg L, Boothroyd R, Kwong WM, Lee TY, Leblanc J, et al. The study of youth resilience across cultures: Lessons from a pilot study of measurement development. Res Hum Dev. 2008;5:166–80.CrossRef
24.
Windle G, Markland DA, Woods B. Examination of a theoretical model of psychological resilience in older age. Aging Ment Health. 2008;12:285–92.CrossRefPubMed
25.
26.
Sočan G. Assessment of reliability when test items are not essentially t-equivalent. In Developments in Survey Methodology. Edited by Ferligoj A, Mrvar A. Metodološki zvezki, 15, Ljubljana: FDV;2000:23-35.
27.
Ten Berge JMF, Sočan G. The greatest lower bound to the reliability of a test and the hypothesis of unidimensionality. Psychometrika. 2004;69:613–25.CrossRef
28.
Campbell-Sills L, Cohan SL, Stein MB. Relationship of resilience to personality, coping, and psychiatric symptoms in young adults. Behav Res Ther. 2006;44:585–99.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Menezes VA, Fernández B, Hernández L, Ramos F, Contador I. Resiliencia y el modelo Burnout-Engagement en cuidadores formales de ancianos. Psicothema. 2006;18(4):791–6.
30.
Singh K, Yu X. Psychometric evaluation of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) in a sample of Indian students. J Adolesc. 2010;1:23–30.
31.
Gucciardi DF, Jackson B, Coulter TJ, Mallet CJ. The Connor-Davidson Resilience scale (CD-RISC): dimensionality and age related measurement invariance with Australian cricketers. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2011;12:423–33.CrossRef
32.
Burns RA, Anstey KJ. The Connor-Davidson Resilience scale (CD-RISC): testing the invariance of a uni-dimensional resilience measure that is independent of positive and negative affect. Pers Individ Dif. 2010;48:527–31.CrossRef
33.
Yu X, Lau JTF, Mak WWS, Zhang J, Lui WWS, Zhang J. Factor structure and psychometric properties of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale among Chinese adolescents. Compr Psychiatry. 2011;52:218–24.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Lamond AJ, Depp CA, Allison M, Langer R, Reichstadt J, Moore DJ, et al. Measurement and predictors of resilience among community-dwelling older women. J Psychiatr Res. 2009;43:148–54.CrossRef
35.
Preacher KJ, McCallum RC. Repairing Tom Swift’s electric factor analysis machine. Underst Stat. 2003;2:13–43.CrossRef
36.
Notario-Pacheco B, Solera-Martínez M, Serrano-Parra MD, Bartolomé-Gutiérrez R, García-Campayo J, Martínez-Vizcaíno V. Reliability and validity of the Spanish version of the 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (10-item CD-RISC) in young adults. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;9:63.CrossRef
37.
Andrich D. Rasch models for measurement. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1988.
38.
Ayala RJ. The theory and practice of item response theory. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2009.
39.
Bond TG, Fox CM. Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah NJ: LEA; 2001.
40.
Crocker L, Algina J. Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning; 2008.
41.
Embretson SE, Hershberger SL. The new rules of measurement. Mahwah NJ: LEA; 1999.
42.
Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah NJ: LEA; 2000.
43.
Van der Linden WJ, Hambleton RK. Handbook of modern item response theory. New York: Springer; 1997.CrossRef
44.
Wright BD, Stone MH. Best test design. Rasch measurement. Chicago: MESA Press; 1979.
45.
Bobes J, Bascaran MT, García-Portilla MP, Bousoño M, Sáiz PA, Wallance DH. Banco de instrumentos básicos de psiquiatría clínica. Barcelona: Psquiatría ED; 2008.
46.
Lorenzo-Seva U, Ferrando PJ. FACTOR: a computer program to fit the exploratory factor analysis model. Behav Res Methods. 2006;38:88–91.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Andrich D. Rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika. 1978;43:561–73.CrossRef
48.
Andrich D. Rasch Models for Measurement. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Measurement in the Social sciences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1988.
49.
Rasch G. Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment tests. Chicago: MESA Press; 1960.
50.
Rasch G. On specific objectivity: an attempt at formalizing the request for generality and validity of scientific statements. In: Blegvad M, editor. The Danish Yearbook of Philosophy. Copenhagen: Munksgaard Publishing House; 1977. p. 58–94.
51.
Wright BD, Masters GN. Rating Scale Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago, MESA Press; 1982.
52.
Linacre JM. A user’s guide to WINSTEPS [Computer Manual]. Chicago: Winsteps; 2011.
53.
Linacre JM, Wright BD. WINSTEPS: Multiple Choice, Rating Scale, and Partial Credit Rasch Analysis [Computer Program]. Chicago: MESA; 1999.
54.
Hu L, Bentler PM. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to under-parameterized model misspecification. Psychol Methods. 1998;3:424–53.CrossRef
55.
Timmerman ME, Lorenzo-Seva U. Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychol Methods. 2011;16:209–20.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Velicer WF. Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika. 1976;41:321–7.CrossRef
57.
Linacre JM. A user’s guide to WINSTEPS-Ministep: Rasch-Model computer programs. Chicago: MESA; 2008.
58.
Prieto G, Delgado AR. Análisis de un test mediante el modelo de Rasch. Psicothema. 2003;15:94–100.
59.
Cohen J. Statistical Power for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
60.
61.
Linacre JM. Investigating rating scale category utility. J Outcome Meas. 1999;3:103–22.PubMed
62.
Zwick R, Thayer DT, Lewis C. An empirical Bayes approach to Mantel-Haenszel DIF analysis. J Educ Meas. 1999;36:1–28.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
An in-depth psychometric analysis of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale: calibration with Rasch-Andrich model
Authors
Víctor B. Arias González
María Teresa Crespo Sierra
Benito Arias Martínez
Agustín Martínez-Molina
Fernando P. Ponce
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-015-0345-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research Article

Development and content validity testing of a patient-reported outcomes questionnaire for the assessment of hereditary angioedema in observational studies

Research

The responsiveness of the EQ-5D and time trade-off scores in schizophrenia, affective disorders, and alcohol addiction

Research article

Dutch translation and cross-cultural validation of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT)

Research Article

Health state utilities associated with major clinical events in the context of secondary hyperparathyroidism and chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis

Research

Predictors of health-related quality of life in stroke patients after neurological inpatient rehabilitation: a prospective study

Research

Comparing the measurement equivalence of EQ-5D-5L across different modes of administration