Journal of Nursing Measurement, Volume 19, Number 3, 2011

14-Item Resilience Scale (RS-14): Psychometric Properties of the Brazilian Version

Bruno Figueiredo Damsio, MPsy, PhDc Juliane Callegaro Borsa, MPsy, PhDc
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre

Joilson Pereira da Silva, PhD

Universidade Federal de Sergipe, Itabaiana
The Resilience Scale (RS) was developed to evaluate the levels of resilience in the general population. Its reduced version (RS-14) has presented reliable internal consistency and external validity. However, its psychometric properties have not been systematically evaluated. The objective of this study was to present the psychometric properties of the Brazilian RS-14. A total of 1,139 subjects selected by convenience (62.9% women) from 14 to 59 years old (M 5 26.1, SD 5 11.61) participated in the study. Exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) and parallel analysis were conducted in order to assess the factor structure of the scale. A 13-item single-factor solution was achieved. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and multigroup CFA (MGCFA) corroborated the goodness of fit and measurement invariance of the obtained exploratory solution. The levels of resilience correlated negatively with depression and positively with meaning in life and self-efficacy. Keywords: resilience; scale; validation; multigroup confirmatory factor analysis; parallel analysis

n the last decades, there has been an increasing interest in understanding the strengths that are associated with healthy adjustment trajectories, such as resilience (Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007; Ryan & Caltabiano, 2009; von Soest, Mossige, Stefansen, & Hjemdal, 2010). As a key factor in the process of overcoming and adapting from negative events, resilience has become one of the most researched topics in the mental health field (Oshio, Kaneko, Nagamine, & Nakaya, 2003). The theoretical and empirical literature on resilience reflects little consensus about its definition, with substantial variations in operationalization and measurement of key constructs (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000). Some studies comprehend resilience as an individual characteristic that moderates the negative effects of stress and promotes positive adaptation (Charney, 2004; Wagnild & Young, 1993), whereas others explicitly rejected this individual trait model (Masten, 2001; Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990). This latter perspective understands resilience as a dynamic process involving personal strengths and capacities, external resources such as a healthy family environment, and presence of external support systems that reinforce efficient coping and adaptive adjustment. In others
2011 Springer Publishing Company
http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/1061-3749.19.3.131

131

132

Damsio et al.

words, resilience is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct that varies with context, time, age, gender, social support systems, family environments, and cultural origins, as well as individual capabilities (Luthar et al., 2000; Masten & Wright, 2010). Because of the growing interest in this concept and the necessity of briefly evaluating the ability to cope with different situations, some scales have been developed to measure the resilience construct. Two examples of instruments for assessing resilience in children and adolescents are the Adolescent Resilience Scale (Oshio et al., 2003) and the Resilience Scale for Adolescents (READ; von Soest et al., 2010). Addressed to assessing adults resilience, a greater number of instruments are available, as for example, the Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA; Friborg, Barlaug, Martinussen, Rosenvinge, & Hjemdal, 2005), the Resilience in Midlife Scale (RIM Scale; Ryan & Caltabiano, 2009), the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC; Connor & Davidson, 2003), the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS; Smith et al., 2008), and the Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS; Sinclair & Wallston, 2004). One of the most widely used instruments in resilience research is the Resilience Scale (RS) by Wagnild and Young (1993). The RS is the first instrument developed to measure resilience and can be applied in a wide variety of age groups, from adolescents to older people (Ahern, Kiehl, Sole, & Byers, 2006). The RS was developed from a qualitative study of 24 women who showed positive psychosocial adaptation from different life events (Wagnild & Young, 1990). Each woman was asked to tell how they conducted a self-identified loss. According to their narratives and followed by a review of the literature, the authors acknowledged five common components identified to be personal constituents of resilience: equanimity, perseverance, selfreliance, meaningfulness, and existential aloneness (Wagnild, 2010; Wagnild & Young, 1993). Equanimity is referred as a balanced perspective of life and experiences and might be viewed as sitting loose and taking what comes, thus moderating the extreme responses to adversity, a construct often related to the sense of humor. Perseverance is the ability to keep going despite setbacks, generally found in people who tend to recognize and rely on their personal strengths and capabilities. Self-reliance is considered a self-efficacy belief specially linked to problem-solving skills. In general, this ability is achieved with life experiences and is most frequently encountered in people who comprehends and accepts their own capabilities and limitations. Meaningfulness is the belief that life has a purpose and recognition that there is a reason for which to live. Finally, existential aloneness is the realization that each person is unique and that although some experiences can be shared, others must be faced alone (Wagnild, 2009; Wagnild & Young, 1993). The first version of the Resilience Scale (RS-25; Wagnild & Young, 1993) consisted in a 25-item instrument aiming to evaluate the individual resilience degree through the five personal characteristics aforementioned. Used in a random sample of 810 North American older adults, the authors found, through principal component analysis (PCA) and oblimin rotation, a two-factor solution as the most reliable. The first factor, titled Personal Competence, was composed of 17 items. The second factor, titled Acceptance of Self and Life was constituted by eight items. The two-factor solution explained 44% of the construct variance. After its original publication, the RS-25 has been translated and adapted for many languages in several countries such as Brazil (Pesce et al., 2005), Argentina (Rodrguez et al., 2009), Sweden (Nygren, Randstrm, Lejonklou, & Lundman, 2004), Japan (Nishi, Uehara, Kondo, & Matsuoka, 2010), and Spain (Heilemann, Lee, & Kury, 2003). The RS-25 has been consistently reliable with alpha coefficients ranging from .84 to .94. Convergent validity as well as test-retest reliability has also been extensively presented in these validation and adaptation studies. Although many validation criteria have been consistently reported, the RS-25 factor structure has not been stable and well clear, suggesting the need for further analyses,

Psychometric Properties of Brazilian RS-14

133

as predicted in the original study (Wagnild & Young, 1993). Refinement studies led to the construction of a shorter instrument (RS-14), consisted by 14 items from the original RS-25 (Wagnild, 2010). The nine items excluded were those that showed an inter-item correlation above .40 in the authors previous studies (Wagnild, 2010). The validation study of the RS-14 was conducted in a sample of 690 middle-aged and older adults. The 14 items from the RS-14 were entered into a PCA using oblimin rotation. A one-factor solution accounting for 53% of the total variance was found. All items loaded higher than .40, ranging from .42 to .64. Cronbachs alpha reliability was .93. The RS-25 and RS-14 were strongly correlated (r 5 .97, p , .001). Additional recent analysis of the RS-14 using the same extraction and rotation methods (PCA and oblimin, respectively) in another sample of 1,161 individuals (average 36.4 years old) strongly supported the one-factor solution (Cronbachs a 5 .91, explained variance 5 46%; Wagnild, 2010). Searching in the literature, only one study reporting the psychometric properties of the RS-14 was found (Nishi et al., 2010). Conducting a PCA, as used in the original study, Nishi et al. (2010) also found a single-factor solution. All items loaded onto the first component and had factor loadings greater than .49. The total variance was 39.4%. In this study, the RS-14 showed a negative correlation with depression symptoms (r 5 2.28, p , .01) and social disability (r 5 2.32, p , .01) and positive correlations with selfesteem (r 5 .28, p , .01) and social support (r 5 .38, p , .01). By now, the RS-14 has shown a reliable convergent validity as well as an invariant factor structure (Nishi et al., 2010; Wagnild, 2010). However, no confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) study has been reported testing the goodness of fit of the RS-14. Because of its theoretical relevance and the need for a brief scale to evaluate the degree of peoples resilience in the general population in Brazil, this study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Brazilian RS-14.

METHOD Participants
The sample consisted of 1,139 subjects (62.9% women), from 14 to 59 years old (M 5 26.1, SD 5 11.61), residing at northeast of Brazil. Data were obtained from two independent studies. The first sample was composed of 629 youngsters (252 males and 377 females; ranging in age from 14 to 29 years old, with a mean age of 17.4 years old; SD 5 2.44), recruited to participate in this study as part of a larger research project focused on psychosocial aspects related to young resilience levels. The second sample was composed of 510 school teachers (171 males and 339 females; ranging in age from 18 to 59 years old, with mean age of 36.21 years old; SD 5 9.93), recruited to participate in a previous study, which aimed to evaluate the levels of psychological well-being and personal and contextual characteristics related to the process of teachers resilience. For the objective of this study, both samples were grouped together.

Procedures
For the first sample, participants were asked to respond to the instruments at different scholarly contexts (schools and preuniversity courses), from 13 public and private institutions. For the second sample, participants were asked to respond to the instruments in their workplaces. Teachers from 57 public and private schools were assessed. Both data

134

Damsio et al.

collections occurred after previous authorizations of the State University of Paraba Ethics Committee (Institutional Review Board). Participants provided written informed consent before the data were collected.

Measures
14-Item Resilience Scale (RS-14). The Brazilian version of the RS-14 used in this study was based on the adaptation process developed by Pesce et al. (2005), in which the RS-25 was translated and validated to the Brazilian sample. For the objective of this study, the nine items of the Brazilian RS-25 that did not compose the reduced version were deleted. The current version of the RS-14 contains five items referring to self-reliance (1, 5, 7, 12, and 14), three items referring to meaningfulness (2, 9, and 13), two items referring to equanimity (3 and 10), two items referring to perseverance (6 and 8), and two items referring to existential aloneness (4 and 11). The participants rate the items on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). 12-Item Purpose-in-Life Test (PILTest-12). The PILTest-12 (Aquino et al., 2009) is a reduced version of the Purpose in Life Test, developed by Crumbaugh and Maholick (1964). Composed of 12 items, the PILTest-12 evaluates, through a 7-point Likert scale (1 5 totally disagree and 7 5 totally agree), the degree of ones meaning in life. The higher the score, the higher the sense of meaning in life. In previous studies (Aquino, 2009; Aquino et al., 2009), the PILTest-12 presented a reliable single-factor solution, attested by Cronbachs a 5 .83. In this study, Cronbachs alpha was .82. General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). The GHQ-12 is the reduced version of the original General Health Questionnaire (Goldberg, 1972) and is one of the most widely used instruments to evaluate the degree of ones psychological well-being. The respondents rate the questionnaire on a scale ranging from 1 (more than habitual) to 4 (less than habitual). Brazilian validation studies reported a two-factor solution as the most reliable, with Cronbachs alpha ranging from .85 to .63 (Gouveia, Barbosa, Andrade, & Carneiro, 2010; Sarriera, Schwarcz, & Cmara, 1996). In this study, Cronbachs alpha was .80 and .66, to depression and self-efficacy subscales, respectively.

Data Analysis
The total sample was randomly split in two halves to analyze the construct validity of the RS-14. Different exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) were conducted with the first half (n 5 567), using PCA, according to the previous studies, and maximum likelihood (ML) extraction method. The first EFA was performed because of the importance on conducting the analysis with the same methods used in the previous and original studies (Nishi et al., 2010; Wagnild, 2010). However, considering that PCA is only a datareduction method, based on the linear correlation among the measured variables, and it is not appropriate when the objective is to identify latent constructs underlying a set of measured variables (Costello & Osborne, 2005), a second estimation method, ML, was chosen. For all EFAs, the oblimin rotation was chosen because of the possibility to allow factor correlations (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999). The sample adequacy was assessed by the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bartletts sphericity test measures. Reliability was assessed using Cronbachs alpha index. The number of factors extracted in the EFAs was confronted with Monte Carlo parallel analyses, which was used as the principal guideline to the factor retention, because of its better accuracy (Hayton, Allen, & Scarpello, 2004).

Psychometric Properties of Brazilian RS-14

135

Different CFAs with the second half of the sample (n 5 572), using ML estimation method, were conducted in order to evaluate the goodness of fit of the exploratory models. The ML estimation method was chosen, for both EFA and CFA, once our data presented an acceptable (i.e., nonsevere) degree of normality deviation (Lei & Lomax, 2005; Olsson, Foss, Troye, & Howell, 2000; West, Finch, & Curran, 1995). The absolute fit indexes calculated were chi-square (x2), chi-square/degree of freedom ratio (x2/df), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Parsimony fit was the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The comparative indexes used were comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI). These indexes were chosen because of their favorable performance in Monte Carlo researches (Brown, 2006; Hu & Bentler, 1999). According to many guidelines, x2/df might be less than 2 or 3; the closer SRMR to 0 the better; RMSEA values less than .06 indicate a good fit, between .06 and .08 a reasonable fit, between .08 and .10 a mediocre fit, and more than .10 a poor fit. CFI and TLI must be higher than .90 or .95 or close to it (Brown, 2006; Byrne, 2010). Both samples were appropriate to use the factor analyses according to multiple criteria: They include more than 200 subjects; exceed the sample/item ratio of 10:1 for the EFA (Hair et al., 2006); and exceed the ratio of 10 subjects for each parameter to be estimated, for the CFA (Brown, 2006; Byrne, 2010). Multigroup CFA (MGCFA) analyses were then conducted to evaluate measurement invariance of the RS-14 through distinct age (youngsters: from 14 to 29 years old, n 5 762; and adults: from 30 to 59 years old, n 5 377) and gender (male, n 5 423 and female, n 5 716) groups. The age groups aforementioned were defined according to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistic (IBGE) guidelines (IBGE, 1999). Although the range from 14 to 29 years old encompasses three different levels of youth (adolescent, young, and mature-young), these subdivisions were not accessed in this study. For both MGCFA (age and gender), four different models are presented. Model 1 (equal number of factors or configural invariance) is an unconstrained model and assesses whether the number of factors and the pattern of fixed and free parameters are equal across groups. Model 2 (equal factor loadings or metric invariance) analyzes if the factor loadings are equal across groups (i.e., it determines whether the measures have the same meaning and structure for different groups of respondents). Model 3 (equal latent variance or structural invariance) investigates whether latent (co)variance are equal across groups. Finally, Model 4 (equal measurement residuals or strict factorial invariance) evaluates whether the measurement residuals are equal across groups. The levels of assessment are ordered hierarchically, from Model 1 to Model 4. Thus, each constrained model is nested within a less restricted one (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). Differences between the models were evaluated by the chi-square difference test (Dx2) and CFI difference test (DCFI; Cheung & Rensvold, 2002; Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). Significant differences (i.e., Dx2[df] significant at p . .05 and DCFI . .01) observed between the goodness of fit indexes of the models indicate that the factor parameters are not the same across the specified groups. Convergent validity of the RS-14 was performed using the PILTest-12 and the GHQ-12 in a random sample of 250 subjects. We expected that the RS-14 correlated positively with the PILTest-12 (meaning in life) and GHQ-12 (self-efficacy) and negatively with the GHQ-12 (depression). Mann-Whitney tests with Monte Carlo simulations (99% confidence interval; 10,000 random samples) were conducted to analyze the effects of age and gender on the RS scores. The nonparametric tests were chosen instead of Students t test because of the large nonequivalence on the group sizes, which could affect the obtained results (Field, 2005; Markowski & Markowski, 1990).

136

Damsio et al.

RESULTS Exploratory Factor Analyses

The first EFA, using PCA, presented a one-component solution, which accounted for 31.93% of the explained variance of the construct (KMO 5 .874; Bartletts test of sphericity x2[91] 5 1,755.466, p , .001). All the 14 items loaded on the first component, with satisfactory factor loadings (i.e., . .30). For this solution, Cronbachs alpha was .82. A second EFA using ML extraction method with oblimin rotation encountered a twofactor solution with eigenvalue . 1 (Factor I: Eigenvalue 5 4.46; Factor II: Eigenvalue 5 1.13). The first factor was composed of 8 items (2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, and 13), whereas the second factor was composed of 6 items (1, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 14). For both factors, Cronbachs alpha was .73. The adequacy of this two-factor solution was assessed through a parallel analysis using marginally bootstrapped samples (PAMBS; Lattin, Carroll, & Green, 2003). The results showed that a single-factor solution is the most appropriate (Figure 1). When a single factor solution was forced, using the ML estimation method, item 3 (. . . Take things in stride) did not load significantly (i.e., . .30). For this model composed of 13 items, Cronbachs alpha was .83, and the explained variance was 31.93% (Table 1).

Confirmatory Factor Analyses and Multigroup Comparisons

Different CFAs with the second half of the sample (n 5 572) were conducted in order to assess the fit indexes of the obtained exploratory models. The goodness of fit using absolute, parsimony, and comparative fit indexes, as recommended by Brown (2006), are presented in Table 2.

6 5 4 Eigenvalues 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Dataset Eigenvalues Random Eigenvalues

Factor Number
Figure 1. Parallel analysis using marginally bootstrapped samples.

Psychometric Properties of Brazilian RS-14

137

TABLE 1. Exploratory Factor Analyses (PCA and ML) and Reliability Coefficients of the Brazilian RS-14 (n 5 567) Extraction Methods Principal Maximum Component Analysis Likelihood Items (Short Content) 9 . . . Be interested in things 2 . . . Have accomplished things in life 6 . . . To be determined 14 . . . Find my way out of difficulties 4 . . . Friends with myself 11 . . . Belief on itself 13 . . . Meaning in life 12 . . . People can rely on me 8 . . . Be self-disciplined 5 . . . Handle many things 1 . . . Manage things one way or another 7 . . . Get through difficult times 10 . . . Find something to laugh about 3 . . . Take things in stride Eigenvalue % explained variance M SD Cronbachs alpha coefficient
aItems

Resilience .68a .66a .64a .63a .63a .60a .58a .57a .56a .52a .50a .49a .45a .31a 4.47 31.93 76.27 12.71 .82

Resilience .64a .62a .61a .58a .58a .55a .53a .51a .52a .46a .44a .43a .40a .27 4.47 31.93 72.24 10.20 .83

loaded significantly in the factor.

TABLE 2. Goodness of fit for the Resilience Scale Goodness of Fit Indexes Models RS-14 (PCA) RS-13 (ML) x2 (df) 213.820 (77) 192.180 (65) x2/df 2.777 2.957 SRMR .042 .041 RMSEA (90% CI) .056 (.047.065) .059 (.049.065) CFI .924 .928 TLI .910 .913

Note. SRMR 5 standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA 5 root mean square error of approximation; CI 5 confidence interval; CFI 5 comparative fit index; TLI 5 Tucker-Lewis index; PCA 5 principal component analysis; ML 5 maximum likelihood.

138

Damsio et al.

The goodness of fit for the different models were quite similar. As it can be seen in Table 2, the ratio x2/df and the RMSEA indexes of the PCA model are slightly better than the ML one-factor model. However, the SRMR, CFI, and TLI indexes of the ML onefactor model are better than the PCA one. The overall good fit of the models suggested the possibility of conducting measurement invariance analyses (Brown, 2006). For the measurement invariance and subsequent analyses, the RS-13 was chosen, considering the better adequacy of the extraction method. MGCFA were then conducted in the RS-13 to assess whether the parameters of this obtained factorial model were invariant across gender (male and female) and age (youngsters and adults) groups (Table 3). The first MGCFA was conducted in the gender group. The goodness of fit of Model 1 (equal number of factors) demonstrated, by the acceptable goodness of fit indexes, that the posited exploratory model is plausible for both men and women (i.e., same items measuring the same latent construct), matching the criteria of configural invariance (Byrne, 2010; Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). Model 2 (equal factor loadings), which evaluated the assumption of metric invariance, also had an overall good fit to the data and did not significantly degrade fit relative to the first model, Dx2(12) 5 19.750, ns (critical value for x2[12] 5 21.03, a 5 .05), and DCFI , .01. More than that, the second model demonstrated a slight improvement in the RMSEA and TLI goodness of fit indexes, comparing to the first one. Because the constraint of equal factor loadings did not significantly degrade the fit of the RS-13, it can be concluded that the indicators (items) evidence comparable relationships to the latent constructs for both male and female (Brown, 2006; Byrne, 2010). Considering the same criteria aforementioned (Dx2, DCFI), the fit of Model 3 (equal latent variance) presented contradictory findings. Although the Dx2 indicates significant changes in the model, Dx2(1) 5 19.830 (critical value for Dx2[1] 5 3.84, a 5 .05), the DCFI indicate that the models did not change significantly (DCFI 5 .006). Model 4 (equal measurement residuals) presented a significant degradation of the model as evaluated by the chi-square distribution, Dx2(13) 5 57.009, p , .05 (critical value for Dx2[13] 5 22.36, a 5 .05) and by the CFI difference test (DCFI 5 .013). In other words, the assumption of equal measurement residuals could not be achieved. A second MGCFA was conducted in order to evaluate the RS-13 measurement invariance across two different age groups: youngsters and adults (Table 3). Model 1 (equal number of factors) presented acceptable goodness of fit indexes, suggesting that the factor structure of the RS-13 is equal for both youngsters and adults groups. Model 2 (equal factor loadings) showed an overall good fit to the data and did not significantly degrade fit relative to the first model, Dx2(12) 5 12.014, ns (critical value for x2[12] 5 21.03, a 5 .05), and DCFI , .01. Relative to Model 3 (equal latent variance), once again, contradictory results were found: The Dx2 indicated significant changes in the model, Dx2(1) 5 8.605 (critical value for Dx2[1] 5 3.84, a 5 .05), but the DCFI indicated that the model did not change significantly (DCFI 5 .002). Finally, regarding Model 4 (equal measurement residuals), the assumption of invariance over again could not be achieved, neither by the chi-square difference tests, Dx2(13) 5 376,607 (critical value for Dx2[13] 5 22.36, a 5 .05) nor by the CFI difference test (DCFI . .01).

Convergent Validity
Pearsons correlations among the RS-13 with the meaning in life (PILTest-12) and depression and self-efficacy (GHQ-12), in a random sample of 250 subjects, were performed.

TABLE 3. Fit Indexes for Gender and Age MGCFA for the RS-13 Goodness of Fit Indexes x2 df 130 142 143 156 3.277 57.009 13 .045 (.040.049) 3.176 19.830 1 .044 (.039.048) 3.059 19.750 12 .043 (.038.047) .046 .069 .066 3.189 .044 (.039.049) .041 .915 .913 .907 .894 Ddf 416.609 434.359 454.189 511.198 x2/df Dx2 RMSEA (90% CI) SRMR CFI TLI .894 .904 .899 .894

RS-13

Gender measurement invariance

Equal number of factors

Equal factor loadings

Psychometric Properties of Brazilian RS-14

Equal latent variance

Equal measurement residuals

RS-13 381.449 393.463 402.068 778.675 156 4.992 376.607 13 143 2.812 8.605 1 142 2.771 12.014 12 130 2.934 .041 (.036.046) .039 (.035.044) .040 (.035.045) .059 (.055.063) .046 .048 .063 .058 .925 .925 .923 .814 .910 .917 .915 .814

Age measurement invariance

Equal number of factors

Equal factor loadings

Equal latent variance

Equal measurement residuals

Note. RS 5 resilience scale; MGCFA 5 multigroup confirmatory factor analysis; SRMR 5 standardized root mean square residual; RMSEA 5 root mean square error of approximation; CI 5 confidence interval; CFI 5 comparative fit index; TLI 5 Tucker-Lewis index.

139

140

Damsio et al.

TABLE 4. Means, Medians, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Correlation Matrix of Measured Variables 1 1. Resilience 2. Meaning in life 3. Self-efficacy 4. Depression M (possible range) Mdn SD (.83) .55** .46** 2.47** 74.5 (791) 76.0 8.94 (.82) .41** 2.37** 68.9 (784) 71 10.47 (.66) 2.46** 15.7(520) 16.0 4.80 (.80) 16.2 (728) 19.0 2.30 2 3 4

Note. 1 5 Resilience (RS-13); 2 5 Meaning in life (PILTest-12); 3 5 Self-efficacy (GHQ-12); 4 5 Depression (GHQ-12). Values in parenthesis along the diagonal represent internal consistency estimates (Cronbachs alpha). ** p , .001. As expected, the RS-13 correlated positively with meaning in life and self-efficacy and negatively with depression (see Table 4).

Effects of Age and Gender on the RS-13

Performance differences on the RS-13 were compared between two different groups (gender, men and women; and age, youngsters and adults) using Mann-Whitney test with Monte Carlo simulations. No differences between males (Mdn 5 73) and females (Mdn 5 74) were found (U 5 143618.50, z 5 21.458, p . .10). However, the youngsters group presented a lower level of resilience (Mdn 5 72), when compared to the adults group (Mdn 5 76, U 5 121524.00, z 5 24.236, p , .001).

DISCUSSION
Initially, we conducted two different EFAs, with the first half of the sample, in order to evaluate the possibility of different factor solutions for the RS-14. The first EFA, using PCA, was conducted according to the guidelines presented in a previous (Nishi et al., 2010) and original validation study (Wagnild, 2010). The results presented a one-factor solution, with a Cronbachs a 5 .82. All 14 items loaded higher than .30. When a second extraction method (ML with oblimin rotation) was chosen, the RS-14 presented initially a clear two-factor solution (i.e., without cross-loadings). However, parallel analysis presented a single-factor solution as the most reliable. When a single-factor solution was forced, using the ML extraction method, the Item 3 (. . . Take things in stride) did not load significantly. It is important to consider that PCAs does not differentiate the common and unique variance of the items, which tends to increase the component loadings (Fabrigar et al., 1999). Probably because of this, Item 3 loaded significantly in the PCA solution but not on the ML one. Considering that the previous reported studies (Wagnild, 2010; Nishi et al., 2010) used only PCA, we do not know if the nonsignificant loading of Item 3, using a factor analytic method is a peculiarity of our sample or not. Although Item 3

Psychometric Properties of Brazilian RS-14

141

loaded well in Wagnilds study (factor loading 5 .46), further studies (Brazilians and internationals) considering different extraction methods are encouraged to better clarify this initial finding. For the 13-item model, Cronbachs a 5 .83, whereas the 14-item model presented a Cronbachs alpha of .82. Both PCA and ML single-factor solutions presented a poor amount of explained variance (Peterson, 2000), similar to the results found by Nishi et al. (2010). In order to identify the better fit to the Brazilian RS-14, two different CFAs were conducted, testing the exploratory models. The results presented good indexes for both models, suggesting similar plausibility. However, MGCFA were conducted in the factor analytic model (i.e., the ML 13-item solution) in order to evaluate measurement invariance on age and gender groups. For the gender and age groups, the assumptions of equal number of factors (configural invariance) and equal factor loadings (metric invariance) were totally accepted, suggesting that the structure (number of factors and disposition of the items) and the factor loadings were similar for male and female, as well as for youngsters and adults. The assumption of equal latent variance (structural invariance) presented contradictory findings in both groups. The chi-square difference test (Dx2) indicated significant changes in the model, whereas the CFI difference test (DCFI) attested the contrary. It is known, however, that chi-square difference tests between nested models are sample size dependent (Brown, 2006; Meade, Johnson, & Braddy, 2006) and sensitive for models with several constrained parameters (Marsh, Balla, & McDonald, 1988; Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). In turn, the DCFI metric is considered a robust fit statistic when testing MGCFA models (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002; Meade et al., 2006). So, considering the DCFI results, it is possible to argue that the assumption of equal latent variance was achieved for both groups. Finally, the assumption of equal measurement residuals (strict factorial invariance) could not be achieved neither for the gender nor for the age group. However, it is widely accepted that testing measurement residuals invariance represents an overly restrictive test of the data on psychological research and does not compromise the conclusions about the measurement invariance (Byrne, 2010). Regarding the convergent validity, the Brazilian RS-13 correlated positively with meaning in life (PILTest-12) and self-efficacy (GHQ-12) and negatively with depression (GHQ-12). These results are consistent with previous studies. Nishi et al. (2010), for example, found that the RS-14 was negatively correlated with depression (r 5 2.28) and positively correlated with self-esteem (r 5 .28). As largely discussed, meaning in life, self-efficacy, and self-esteem are positive dispositional aspects that are associated with higher likelihood of resilient responses to a variety of life stressors (Masten & Reed, 2002; Moskowitz, 2010). Depression, in turn, has been considered a vulnerability factor that is generally negatively correlated with resilience (Zautra, Hall, & Murray, 2010). Thus, the Brazilian RS-13 presented a significant convergent validity. Consistent with previous studies using the RS, the levels of resilience increased with age and presented no relation with gender (Lundman, Strandberg, Eisemann, Gustafson, & Brulin, 2007; Nishi et al., 2010; Portzky, Wagnild, De Bacquer, & Audenaert, 2010; Wagnild, 2010). Lundman et al. (2007) argued that resilience is not static and probably is a process developed during the life span. According to these authors, despite the fact that old age has been described as a period of physical, functional, and social losses, other age groups as youngsters and adults might have an increasing resilience levels with age, probably influenced by individual and contextual factors. One important aspect to

142

Damsio et al.

consider, however, is that none of these reported studies, including this one, evaluated the levels of resilience in at-risk populations but only in healthy or general citizens. Moreover, resilience as measured by the RS-14 is conceptualized as a personality trait (Wagnild & Young, 1993), and maybe this specificity of the instrument is influencing the observed results regarding age and resilience levels. So, these results must be cautiously interpreted. Two main limitations of this study are pointed out. First, the sample was not paired by age, and this can be seen as a limitation for group comparisons. Although the groups of youngsters and adults were based on a very clear Brazilian criterion, the range from 14 to 29 (youngsters) and 30 to 59 (adults) is very large and probably specificities on the degree of resilience according to developmental characteristics could not be well accessed. Other important aspect to highlight is the fact that our sample was composed by a general population. To include and to identify groups in at-risk situations is a very important issue for further studies, especially considering the construct that the scale is proposed to measure (resilience).

CONCLUSIONS
The objective of this study was to present the factor structure and the psychometric properties of the RS-14 in the Brazilian context. EFAs and CFAs presented a reliable and plausible one-factor solution. The one-factor solution using PCA presented a similar structure as reported in previous studies. However, using a true factor analysis extraction method (ML), Item 3 did not load significantly. MGCFA with the ML one-factor solution presented satisfactory results, testifying that the factor structure (number of factors and items) and some measurement parameters (i.e., factor loadings and latent variance) were invariant across gender and age groups. These results suggest that the Brazilian RS-13 seems to be a reliable measure to be used in the Brazilian general population. Convergent validity was also satisfactory evaluated. The RS-13 correlated negatively with depression and positively with meaning in life and self-efficacy. Mann-Whitneys test replicated previous findings, suggesting that resilience, as measured by the RS-13, increases with age. However, studies with different subjects (e.g., at-risk populations, different socioeconomic status) are necessary to better understand these results. The fact that the level of resilience increased with age is not a contradictory finding related to the measurement invariance of the instrument, once the scores and means of the items were not evaluated by the MGCFA. Finally, it is suggested that further investigations should be conducted in other regions of the country, considering also sociodemographic, economics, familiar, and other contextual aspects, in order to replicate or not these findings.

REFERENCES
Ahern, N. R., Kiehl, E. M., Sole, M. L., & Byers, J. (2006). A review of instruments measuring resilience. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 29(2), 103125. Aquino, T. A. A. (2009). Atitudes e intenes de cometer suicdio: seus correlatos existenciais e normativos. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Federal University of Paraba, Joo Pessoa, Brazil.

Psychometric Properties of Brazilian RS-14

143

Aquino, T. A. A., Correia, A. P. M., Marques, A. L. C., Souza, C. G., Freitas, H. C. A., Arajo, I. F., et al. (2009). Atitude religiosa e sentido de vida: Um estudo correlacional [Religious attitude and the meaning of life: A correlational study]. Psicologia: Cincia e Profisso, 29(2), 228243. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford Press. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis. Campbell-Sills, L., & Stein, M. B. (2007). Psychometric analysis and refinement of the ConnorDavidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): Validation of a 10-item measure of resilience. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20(6), 10191028. Charney, D. S. (2004). Psychobiological mechanisms of resilience and vulnerability: Implications for successful adaptation to extreme stress. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 161(2), 195216. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233255. Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The ConnorDavidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18(2), 7682. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 19. Crumbaugh, J. C., & Maholick, L. T. (1964). An experimental study in existentialism: The psychometric approach to Frankls concept of noognic neurosis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 20(1), 200207. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272299. Field, A. P. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Friborg, O., Barlaug, D., Martinussen, M., Rosenvinge, J. H., & Hjemdal, O. (2005). Resilience in relation to personality and intelligence. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 14(1), 2942. Goldberg, D. P. (1972). The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire: A technique for the identification and assessment of non-psychotic psychiatric illness. London: Oxford University Press. Gouveia, V. V., Barbosa, G. A., Andrade, E. O., & Carneiro, M. B. (2010). Factorial validity and reliability of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) in the Brazilian physician population. Cadernos de Sade Pblica, 26(7), 14391445. Hair, J. F., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2), 191205. Heilemann, M. V., Lee, K., & Kury, F. S. (2003). Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Resilience Scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 11(1), 6172. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 155. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatstica. (1999). Sntese de Indicadores Sociais [Synthesis of social indicators]. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatstica. Lattin, J. M., Carroll, D. J., & Green, P. E. (2003). Analyzing multivariate data (pp. 114116). Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press. Lei, M., & Lomax, R. G. (2005). The effect of varying degrees of nonnormality in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 12(1), 127. Lundman, B., Strandberg, G., Eisemann, M., Gustafson, Y., & Brulin, C. (2007). Psychometric properties of the Swedish version of the Resilience Scale. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 21(2), 229237. Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543562. Markowski, C. A., & Markowski, E. P. (1990). Conditions for the effectiveness of a preliminary test of variance. The American Statistician, 44(4), 322326.

144

Damsio et al.

Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 391410. Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. The American Psychologist, 56(3), 227238. Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2(4), 425444. Masten, A. S., & Reed, M. J. (2002). Resilience in development. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 7488). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Masten, A. S., & Wright, M. O. (2010). Resilience over the lifespan: Developmental perspectives on resistance, recovery, and transformation. In J. W. Reich, A. J. Zautra, & J. S. Hall (Eds.), Handbook of adult resilience (pp. 213237). New York: The Guilford Press. Meade, A. W., Johnson, E. C., & Braddy, P. W. (2006, August). The utility of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Paper presented at the annual Academy of Management conference, Atlanta, GA. Moskowitz, J. T. (2010). Positive affect at the onset of chronic illness: Planting the seeds of resilience. In J. W. Reich, A. J. Zautra, & J. S. Hall (Eds.), Handbook of Adult Resilience (pp. 465483). New York: The Guilford Press. Nishi, D., Uehara, R., Kondo, M., & Matsuoka, Y. (2010). Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Resilience Scale and its short version. BMC Research Notes, 3(1), 310. Nygren, B., Randstrm, K. B., Lejonklou, A. K., & Lundman, B. (2004). Reliability and validity of a Swedish language version of the Resilience Scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 12(3), 169178. Olsson, U. H., Foss, T., Troye, S. V., & Howell, R. D. (2000). The performance of ML, GLS, and WLS estimation in structural equation modeling under conditions of misspecification and nonnormality. Structural Equation Modeling, 7(4), 557595. Oshio, A., Kaneko, H., Nagamine, S., & Nakaya, M. (2003). Construct validity of the Adolescent Resilience Scale. Psychological Reports, 93(3 Pt. 2), 12171222. Pesce, R. P., Assis, S. G., Avanci, J. Q., Santos, C. N., Malaquias, J. V., & Carvalhaes, R. (2005). Adaptao transcultural, confiabilidade e validade da escala de resilincia [Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the resilience scale]. Cadernos de Sade Pblica, 21(2), 436448. Peterson, R. A. (2000). A meta-analysis of variance accounted for and factor loadings in exploratory factor analysis. Marketing Letters, 11(3), 261275. Portzky, M., Wagnild, G., De Bacquer, D., & Audenaert, K. (2010). Psychometric evaluation of the Dutch Resilience Scale RS-nl on 3265 healthy participants: A confirmation of the association between age and resilience found with the Swedish version. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 24(Suppl. 1), 8692. Rodrguez, M., Pereyra, M. G., Gil, E., Jofr, M., De Bortoli, M., & Labiano, L. M. (2009). Propiedades psicomtricas de la escala de resiliencia versin argentina. Evaluar, 9(1), 7282. Ryan, L., & Caltabiano, M. L. (2009). Development of a new resilience scale: The Resilience in Midlife Scale (RIM Scale). Asian Social Science, 5(11), 3951. Sarriera, J. C., Schwarcz, C., & Cmara, S. G. (1996). Bem-estar psicolgico: Anlise fatorial da escala de Goldberg (GHQ-12) numa amostra de jovens. Psicologia: Reflexo e Crtica, 9(2), 293306. Sinclair, V. G., & Wallston, K. A. (2004). The development and psychometric evaluation of the Brief Resilient Coping Scale. Assessment, 11(1), 94101. Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The brief resilience scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15(3), 194200. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 470. von Soest, T., Mossige, S., Stefansen, K., & Hjemdal, O. (2010). A validation study of the Resilience Scale for Adolescents (READ). Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 32(2), 215225.

Psychometric Properties of Brazilian RS-14

145

Wagnild, G. (2009). A review of the Resilience Scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 17(2), 105113. Wagnild, G. M. (2010). The Resilience Scale users guide for the US English version of the Resilience Scale and the 14-Item Resilience Scale (RS-14). Worden, MT: The Resilience Center. Wagnild, G. M., & Young, H. M. (1990). Resilience among older women. Image: The Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 22(4), 252255. Wagnild, G. M., & Young, H. M. (1993). Development and psychometric evaluation of the Resilience Scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 1(2), 165178. West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts. issues, and applications (pp. 5675). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zautra, A. J., Hall, J. S., & Murray, K. E. (2010). Resilience: A new definition of health for people and communities. In J. W. Reich, A. J. Zautra, & J. S. Hall (Eds.), Handbook of adult resilience (pp. 334). New York: The Guilford Press. Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to Bruno Figueiredo Damsio, MPsy, PhDc, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Ramiro Barcelos Street, 2600/104, Porto Alegre, RS 90035-003. E-mail: brunofd.psi@gmail.com

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.