4.4 Article

Development of a multi-dimensional measure of resilience in adolescents: the Adolescent Resilience Questionnaire

Journal

BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Volume 11, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-134

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Murdoch and Childrens Research Institute at the Centre for Adolescent Health
  2. Bluey Day Victoria
  3. MRC [MC_U130059812] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Chief Scientist Office [SPHSU1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. Medical Research Council [MC_U130059812] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The concept of resilience has captured the imagination of researchers and policy makers over the past two decades. However, despite the ever growing body of resilience research, there is a paucity of relevant, comprehensive measurement tools. In this article, the development of a theoretically based, comprehensive multi-dimensional measure of resilience in adolescents is described. Methods: Extensive literature review and focus groups with young people living with chronic illness informed the conceptual development of scales and items. Two sequential rounds of factor and scale analyses were undertaken to revise the conceptually developed scales using data collected from young people living with a chronic illness and a general population sample. Results: The revised Adolescent Resilience Questionnaire comprises 93 items and 12 scales measuring resilience factors in the domains of self, family, peer, school and community. All scales have acceptable alpha coefficients. Revised scales closely reflect conceptually developed scales. Conclusions: It is proposed that, with further psychometric testing, this new measure of resilience will provide researchers and clinicians with a comprehensive and developmentally appropriate instrument to measure a young person's capacity to achieve positive outcomes despite life stressors.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available