Das Original seit 2013
Über 25.000 glückliche Familien
60 Tage Geld-Zurück-Garantie

The mark for the notice try the need for an era-appropriate measurement off strength right for kids and you can teenagers

Posted on

The mark for the notice try the need for an era-appropriate measurement off strength right for kids and you can teenagers

Brief Variation RS-fourteen

When shopping for a helpful and you may good tool, just needed for various other populations also in which the recommended grounds structure will likely be confirmed, one or two major wants was indeed during the attention. “The RS-14 demonstrates brand new brevity, readability, and you may easier scoring which have been identified as essential functions whenever choosing devices for usage with teenagers” (Pritzker and you may Minter, 2014, p. 332). This new RS-fourteen “will additionally render specifics of the latest pattern and you can profile from strength using a widely accessible measure of strength which have a tendency to permit evaluations which have previous and you will upcoming lookup,” hence “offers support evidence it is good psychometrically voice size to assess individual strength inside the age groups out-of kids and teenagers” (Wagnild, 2009a; Pritzker and Minter, 2014).

Additionally, Yang ainsi que al

In search of significantly more economic type of the Resilience Level, decreasing completion date, and you will design even more specifically for fool around with that have young people, Wagnild (2009a) changed the fresh RS-twenty five to14 activities. The brand new short-term “RS-14 measure contains fourteen care about-statement products measured collectively a 7-section score measure between ‘1-firmly disagree’ to ‘7-highly consent.’ Higher score is an indication regarding strength top. According to experts, score try determined by a summary regarding impulse thinking for each item, hence providing ratings to help you vary from fourteen so you’re able to 98.” Ratings less than 65 imply reduced strength; ranging from 65 and you may 81 inform you reasonable strength; over 81 would be translated once the high amounts 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 chatroulette ne demek 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).