Psychological resilience has become a popular concept. Owing to that popularity, the word resilience has taken on myriad and often overlapping meanings. To be a useful framework for psychological research and theory, the authors argue, the study of resilience must explicitly reference each of four constituent temporal elements: (a) baseline or preadversity functioning, (b) the actual aversive circumstances, (c) postadversity resilient outcomes, and (d) predictors of resilient outcomes. Using this framework to review the existing literature, the most complete body of evidence is available on individual psychological resilience in children and adults. By contrast, the research on psychological resilience in families and communities is far more limited and lags well behind the rich theoretical perspective available from those literatures. The vast majority of research on resilience in families and communities has focused primarily on only one temporal element, possible predictors of resilient outcomes. Surprisingly, however, almost no scientific evidence is actually available for community or family resilient outcomes. We close by suggesting that there is room for optimism and that existing methods and measures could be relatively easily adapted to help fill these gaps. To that end, we propose a series of steps to guide future research.

No abstract

Traumatic event checklists typically ask respondents to indicate whether they have experienced particular types of potentially traumatic events (PTEs) and then sum these endorsements to gauge cumulative trauma exposure. However, the sum of these endorsements indicates the variety of PTEs respondents have experienced rather than the count of exposure events. The main objective of the present study was to explore the association between PTE count and variety to examine assumptions regarding the use of traumatic event checklists to measure cumulative trauma exposure. The limited empirical research suggests that count and variety are strongly associated; however, there may be variation in magnitude concerning whether participants' environments confer an increased or decreased risk of exposure. We present Life Event Checklist data from a large sample of Mexican and U.S. participants (n = 1,820), which allowed us to compare reports of count and variety. Count and variety were strongly correlated, Kendall's tau-b = .74, such that count accounted for 54.6% of the variance in variety. A negative binomial regression analysis revealed that this association was moderated by county and municipio homicide rate, used as a proxy for violent crime, but not by natural disaster history. Variety was more strongly associated with scores on the Posttraumatic Stress Checklist for DSM-5, Kendall's tau-b = .26, than was PTE count, Kendall's tau-b = .22, Fisher's z = −8.04, p < .001. Although there are challenges in estimating PTE counts, the present findings suggest that PTE variety is not a good proxy for cumulative trauma exposure.

Background Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has been hailed by some as the emblematic mental disorder of the COVID-19 pandemic, assuming that PTSD’s life-threat criterion was met de facto. More plausible outcomes like adjustment disorder (AD) have been overlooked. Methods An online cross-sectional survey was launched in the initial stage of the pandemic using a convenience sample of 5 913 adults to compare the prevalence of COVID-related probable PTSD versus probable AD. The abridged Impact of Event Scale – Revised (IES-6) assessed the severity of trauma- and stressor-related symptoms over the previous week. Demographic and pandemic-related data (e.g., receiving a formal diagnosis of COVID-19, job loss, loss of loved one, confinement, material hardship) were collected. A Classification and Regression Tree analysis was conducted to uncover the pandemic experiences leading to clinical ‘caseness’. Caseness was defined by a score > 9 on the IES-6 symptom measure and further characterized as PTSD or AD depending on whether the Peritraumatic Distress Inventory’s life-threat item was endorsed or not. Results The participants were predominantly Caucasian (72.8%), women (79.2%), with a university degree (85%), and a mean age of 42.22 (SD = 15.24) years; 3 647 participants (61.7%; 95%CI [60.4, 63.0]) met the threshold for caseness. However, when perceived life-threat was accounted for, only 6.7% (95%CI [6.1, 7.4]) were classified as PTSD cases, and 55% (95%CI [53.7, 56.2]) as AD cases. Among the AD cases, three distinct profiles emerged marked by the following: (i) a worst personal pandemic experience eliciting intense fear, helplessness or horror (in the absence, however, of any life-threat), (ii) a pandemic experience eliciting sadness/grief, and (iii) worrying intensely about the safety of significant others. Conclusions Studies considering the life-threat criterion as met de facto during the pandemic are confusing PTSD for AD on most counts. This misconception is obscuring the various AD-related idioms of distress that have emerged during the pandemic and the actual treatment needs.

Family childcare (FCC) providers provide childcare for many low‐income families in the United States, and the literature suggests they take on several other support roles as well. The current study consisted of focus groups and interviews in which FCC providers (N = 22) shared successes and challenges in their profession. Using grounded theory we identified four primary FCC roles: teacher, caregiver, social worker and business owner. Conflict within and between roles was related to considerable stress. Because roles varied across a spectrum from entangled to rigid professional relationship boundaries, many FCC providers struggled with the limits of their daily work. Suggestions are made to limit role conflict, re‐establish boundaries and promote FCC providers’ well‐being.