Dataset Information

Population-based validation of a German version of the Brief Resilience Scale.

ABSTRACT: Smith and colleagues developed the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) to assess the individual ability to recover from stress despite significant adversity. This study aimed to validate the German version of the BRS. We used data from a population-based (sample 1: n = 1.481) and a representative (sample 2: n = 1.128) sample of participants from the German general population (age ? 18) to assess reliability and validity. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted to compare one- and two-factorial models from previous studies with a method-factor model which especially accounts for the wording of the items. Reliability was analyzed. Convergent validity was measured by correlating BRS scores with mental health measures, coping, social support, and optimism. Reliability was good (? = .85, ? = .85 for both samples). The method-factor model showed excellent model fit (sample 1: ?2/df = 7.544; RMSEA = .07; CFI = .99; SRMR = .02; sample 2: ?2/df = 1.166; RMSEA = .01; CFI = 1.00; SRMR = .01) which was significantly better than the one-factor model (??2(4) = 172.71, p < .001) or the two-factor model (??2(3) = 31.16, p < .001). The BRS was positively correlated with well-being, social support, optimism, and the coping strategies active coping, positive reframing, acceptance, and humor. It was negatively correlated with somatic symptoms, anxiety and insomnia, social dysfunction, depression, and the coping strategies religion, denial, venting, substance use, and self-blame. To conclude, our results provide evidence for the reliability and validity of the German adaptation of the BRS as well as the unidimensional structure of the scale once method effects are accounted for.

SUBMITTER: Chmitorz A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5811014 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Population-based validation of a German version of the Brief Resilience Scale.

Chmitorz Andrea A Wenzel Mario M Stieglitz Rolf-Dieter RD Kunzler Angela A Bagusat Christiana C Helmreich Isabella I Gerlicher Anna A Kampa Miriam M Kubiak Thomas T Kalisch Raffael R Lieb Klaus K Tüscher Oliver O

PloS one 20180213 2

Smith and colleagues developed the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) to assess the individual ability to recover from stress despite significant adversity. This study aimed to validate the German version of the BRS. We used data from a population-based (sample 1: n = 1.481) and a representative (sample 2: n = 1.128) sample of participants from the German general population (age ≥ 18) to assess reliability and validity. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted to compare one- and two-factoria ...[more]

PMID: 29438435

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWe conducted three studies to validate the Polish version of the BRS. Our objectives are as follows: first, to explore the dimensional structure of the scale and to determine the internal consistency (study 1: n = 1022); second, to determine the congruent and divergent validity of the BRS (study 2: n = 242); and third, to examine sensitivity of the BRS scale to detect high-risk population (study 3: n = 602).MethodsTo explore the dimensional structure of the scale, we tested a two-factor model with one factor for positively worded items and one factor for negatively worded items. To determine the congruent and divergent validity of the BRS, we analysed correlations among BRS and resilience, positive mental health, and with positive and negative religious coping. We used Student's t-test to examine sensitivity of the BRS scale to detect a high-risk population.ResultsBased on the CFA, a bivariate model was confirmed for items positively and negatively formulated with a higher order factor, which indicates the homogeneity of the scale, similar to the analyses carried out for their language versions confirming this type of homogeneity of the scale. The internal compatibility assessment based on Cronbach's Alpha and McDonald's Omega is good (0.88). Our analyses intended to test convergent and divergent validity, and showed that the BRS results are significantly related to a questionnaire measuring similar constructions. Our validation studies also provided important diagnoses regarding BRS "sensitivity", indicating that groups with higher stress levels achieved lower BRS resilience results.ConclusionThe results of our research indicate that the Polish version of the BRS should be considered to be a reliable and valid research tool. The Polish version of BRS is a reliable and accurate way of measuring resilience as the ability to bounce back from adversity and overcome various challenges or stressors. This scale may be used for both research and intervention purposes.

Project description:BackgroundTraditionally, cerebellar disorders including ataxias have been associated with deficits in motor control and motor learning. Since the 1980's growing evidence has emerged that cerebellar diseases also impede cognitive and affective processes such as executive and linguistic functions, visuospatial abilities and regulation of emotion and affect. This combination of non-motor symptoms has been named Cerebellar Cognitive Affective/ Schmahmann Syndrome (CCAS). To date, diagnosis relies on non-standardized bedside cognitive examination and, if available, detailed neuropsychological test batteries. Recently, a short and easy applicable bedside test (CCAS Scale) has been developed to screen for CCAS. It has been validated in an US-American cohort of adults with cerebellar disorders and healthy controls. As yet, the CCAS Scale has only been available in American English. We present a German version of the scale and the study protocol of its ongoing validation in a German-speaking patient cohort.MethodsA preliminary German version has been created from the original CCAS Scale using a standardized translation procedure. This version has been pre-tested in cerebellar patients and healthy controls including medical experts and laypersons to ensure that instructions are well understandable, and that no information has been lost or added during translation. This preliminary German version will be validated in a minimum of 65 patients with cerebellar disease and 65 matched healthy controls. We test whether selectivity and sensitivity of the German CCAS Scale is comparable to the original CCAS Scale using the same cut-off values for each of the test items, and the same pass/ fail criteria to determine the presence of CCAS. Furthermore, internal consistency, test-retest and interrater reliability will be evaluated. In addition, construct validity will be tested in a subset of patients and controls in whom detailed neuropsychological testing will be available. Secondary aims will be examination of possible correlations between clinical features (e.g. disease duration, clinical ataxia scores) and CCAS scores.PerspectiveThe overall aim is to deliver a validated bedside test to screen for CCAS in German-speaking patients which can also be used in future natural history and therapeutic trials.Study registrationThe study is registered at the German Clinical Study Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00016854).

Dataset Information

Population-based validation of a German version of the Brief Resilience Scale.

Publications

Population-based validation of a German version of the Brief Resilience Scale.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets