The Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents (RSCA) are three scales for assessing the relative strength of three aspects of personal resiliency as a profile in children and adolescents. This article presents preliminary evidence to support the use of the RSCA in preventive screening. First, this article examines associations between the RSCA Global scale and index scores and psychological symptoms as assessed by the Beck Youth Inventory—II in a normative sample of adolescents. A normative sample was chosen as screening would presumably occur in a nonclinical setting. Findings suggest associations between psychological symptoms and the RSCA scale and index scores. Specifically, positive associations were found between psychological symptoms and the RSCA Vulnerability Index and the Emotional Reactivity scale score. Negative associations were found between psychological symptoms and the RSCA Resource Index, Sense of Mastery, and Sense of Relatedness scale scores. Second, the RSCA is examined as a potential predictor of clinical status differentiating the normative sample from a clinical sample. Results support the use of the RSCA in screening protocols for the identification of vulnerability that does not rely on the presence of an identified disorder or clearly defined psychological symptoms.

This article examines the scale structure of the Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents (RSCA). Confirmatory factor analysis reveals that a three-factor model is a better fit than one-or two-factor models for the normative sample. These findings lend support to the construct validity of the RSCA. The three-factor model is discussed as a framework that is useful in systematically relating critical aspects of resiliency in children and adolescents for the purpose of clinical intervention.Résumé: L'article suivant porte sur la structure des Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents (RSCA). Une analyse factorielle confirmatoire révèle qu'un modèle à trois facteurs constitue une meilleure solution que des modèles à un ou à deux facteurs, chez un échantillon normatif. Ces résultats appuient la validité de concept des RSCA. Le modèle à trois facteurs est abordé dans un contexte utile qui relie systématiquement des aspects cruciaux de la résilience chez les enfants et les adolescents, dans une perspective d'intervention clinique.

No abstract

This study presents a cross-cultural validation of the recently developed Resiliency Scale for Young Adults (RSYA) with a sample of 289 Canadian university students and 259 Italian university students. The RSYA demonstrated good internal consistency across the two samples and acceptable retest reliability for the Canadian sample. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the three-factor, 10-facet structure of the RSYA, and comparison of the two country samples found metric invariance. As expected, positive correlations also emerged between resiliency and trait emotional intelligence in both samples. Finally, correlations with personality variables were explored in both samples. The present findings provide further support for the RSYA as a valid and reliable measure of personal resiliency for both Canadian and Italian young adults, and for the cross-cultural generalizability of the three-factor model of personal resiliency upon which it is based.

Cluster analyses with the three global scores of the Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents™ (RSCA) were used to determine personal resiliency profiles within normative (641) and outpatient clinical (285) samples of youth aged 9 to 18 years. Normative and clinical profiles were compared with each other and the clinical profiles were then compared with profiles previously found for an inpatient psychiatric sample. Three profiles were identified for the normative sample indicating high resiliency (31%), average resiliency (44%), and low resource vulnerability (25%). The four profiles that were found in the predominately outpatient sample matched Kumar et al.’s profiles and represented average resiliency (23%), low resource vulnerability (26%), high vulnerability (31%), and very high vulnerability (20%). Comparison of the normative and outpatient clinical samples indicated differences in resiliency profiles as well as overlap. Implications for preventive screening and treatment of youth are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

This article examines invariance of the three-factor structure of the Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents across age band and gender within normative samples. Confirmatory factor analysis reveals that the three-factor model fits for all groups. In addition, invariance analysis shows no statistical differences in factor structure between males and females. A three-group confirmatory factor analysis across age bands demonstrated partial invariance between age bands.