Brief Resilience Scale: testing its factorial structure and invariance in Brazil

Abstract

a b s T r a C T Across two studies we aimed to provide evidences of validity and reliability for the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) in Brazil. In study 1, 171 individuals participated (Age M = 21.9, SD = 6.59) and 232 in Study 2 (Age M = 26.3, SD = 7.06). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported the predicted one-factor solution, with five items and satisfactory internal consistence (α = 0.76). A multi-group CFA revealed partial measurement equivalence between our and the original (USA) versions of the BRS. The BRS correlated significant with positivity and personality traits. The composite reliability was satisfying; the convergent validity, measured with the average variance extracted, was slightly below the recommendations. Overall, the results show that the measure is psychometrically suitable for research in Brazil. Keywords resilience; validation; measures; factorial invariance r e s u M e n Se realizaron dos estudios buscando evidenciar la validez y confiabilidad de la Breve Escala de Resiliencia (BER) en Brasil. En el estúdio 1, 171 personas participaron (Edad M = 21.9, SD = 6.59) y 232 en el Estudio 2 (Edad M = 26.3, SD = 7.06). El análisis factorial confirmatório (AFC) apoya la solución unifactorial, con cinco ítems y fidedignidad satisfactoria (α = 0.76). Una AFC Multigrupo reveló la equivalencia de medición parcial entre la nuestra y la versión original (EUA) de la BER. La BER se correlaciona significativamente con positividad y rasgos de personalidad. La confiabilidad compuesta fue satisfactoria; la validez convergente, utilizando la varianza media extraída, fue ligeramente abajo de las recomendaciones. En general, los resultados muestran que la medida es psicométricamente adecuada para la investigación en Brasil.Palabras clave resiliencia; validación; medidas; invariancia factorial

Psychometric Evidence of the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) and Modeling Distinctiveness of Resilience from Depression and Stress

“…This means that age comparisons in indicator means and covariances should also be made with caution. Similar findings on strong invariance were also reported by De Holanda Coelho et al (2016) for the Brazilian version. Additionally, BRS scores were reported to differ across gender (Smith et al, 2008;Rodríguez-Rey et al, 2016) and…”

“…The two-factor model showed a consistently adequate fit across all CFA, thus it was considered more reliable. Generally, a discrepancy in the proposed factor structures of BRS emerges from existing empirical literature, suggesting both single factor (Amat, et al, 2014;De Holanda Coelho et al, 2016) and two-factor structures for BRS (Rodríguez-Rey et al, 2016;Chmitorz et al, 2018). We did not evaluate a traditional higher-order CFA model because for a two first-order factorial structure, like BRS, evaluating if the secondorder factor improves the model fit when compared to the first-order solution is not possible due to under-identification (Wang & Wang, 2012;Brown, 2015).…”

“…Three EFA Models were tested. MODEL 1 is the original single factor model proposed by Smith et al (2008) and replicated by others (Amat et al, 2014;de Holanda Coelho et al, 2016). MODEL 2 is a two-factor model having items 1, 3, and 5 in Factor 1 and items 2, 4, and 6 in Factor 2 separating non-reversed items (Factor 1) from reversed (Factor 2).…”

“…The validation of BRS in the Brazilian cultural context (De Holanda Coelho et al, 2016) was carried out in two samples of university students. Initially, PCA was performed and one single factor emerged, accounting for 43% of the total variance, after the removal of item 5.…”

“…Summing up BRS factor structure of the versions adapted for different cultures, BRS in a Malaysian sample (Amat et al, 2014) and in a Brazilian sample (de Holanda Coelho et al, 2016) was reported to be unidimensional. The Spanish (Rodríguez-Rey et al, 2016) and German (Chmitorz et al, 2018) version reported having a two-factor structure to account for method effects.…”