Comparison of One-, Two-, and Three-Factor Models of Personal Resiliency Using the Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents

Abstract

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.

Assessing Personal Resiliency in School Settings: The Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents

“…The Index scores may also be unfolded to provide more detailed information at the global and subscale levels. The internal validity of the Index scores is based on the fact that they were derived from empirical analyses of RSCA Scale score profiles, factor analytic studies and validity studies (Prince-Embury, 2006a, 2007Prince-Embury & Courville, 2008a, 2008b. Within primary prevention or Tier 1 of a three-tiered school-wide prevention program, the Vulnerability Index is the best first line predictor to identify students for Tier 2 selected services in resiliency promotion (Prince-Embury, 2007, 2008.…”

People with pets: Understanding the influence of human-companion animal attachment on empathy and resilient coping in adulthood.

“…Early research into the construct of resilience presumed it to be a one-dimensional process, accessible to everyone in varying degrees (Masten, 2007;Prince-Embury & Courville, 2008;Rutter, 1990;Zimmerman & Arunkumar, 1994). Conversely, the strength of an individual's protective mechanisms could be weighed against vulnerabilities and risks to form a two-factor model (Prince-Embury & Courville, 2008).…”

“…Conversely, the strength of an individual's protective mechanisms could be weighed against vulnerabilities and risks to form a two-factor model (Prince-Embury & Courville, 2008). An inherent implication of the two-factor model of resilience is the recognition of two components; varying degrees of protective mechanisms that support or fail to support successful development in the context of adversity, and the varying elements of risk, including internal vulnerabilities, and environmental risks (Masten, 2001;Masten et al, 1999;Shannon, Beauchaine, Brenner, Neuhaus, & Gatzke-Kopp, 2007).…”

“…Sense of mastery (White, 1959) and sense of relatedness are built on positive, protective attributes, while emotional reactivity considers personal vulnerabilities and risk factors. The sense of mastery construct considers an individual's level of optimism (Seligman, 1995), self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977), and adaptability to needs for personal change (Prince-Embury & Courville, 2008). Sense of relatedness includes trust based on security (Erikson, 1963), access to support from others (Werner & Smith, 2001), social comfort (Prince-Embury & Courville, 2008), and tolerance of differences with others (Bowen, 1985).…”

“…The sense of mastery construct considers an individual's level of optimism (Seligman, 1995), self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977), and adaptability to needs for personal change (Prince-Embury & Courville, 2008). Sense of relatedness includes trust based on security (Erikson, 1963), access to support from others (Werner & Smith, 2001), social comfort (Prince-Embury & Courville, 2008), and tolerance of differences with others (Bowen, 1985). The personal vulnerability variables used in the emotional reactivity construct include sensitivity to perceived and sensed information (Derryberry & Rothbart, 1988), recovery from emotional challenges (Davidson, 2000), and functional impairment due to extreme emotional arousal (Bowen, 1985).…”