Construct Validity and Population-Based Norms of the German Brief Resilience Scale (BRS)

Abstract

Abstract. The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) measures the ability to recover from stress. To provide further evidence for construct validity of the German BRS and to determine population-based norms, a large sample (N = 1,128) representative of the German adult population completed a survey including the BRS and instruments measuring perceived stress and the resilience factors optimism, self-efficacy, and locus of control. Confirmatory factor analyses showed best model fit for a five-factor model differentiating the ability to recover from stress from the three resilience factors. On the basis of latent and manifest correlations, convergent and discriminant validity of the BRS were fair to good. Female sex, older age, lower weekly working time, higher perceived stress, lower optimism, and self-efficacy as well as higher external locus of control predicted lower BRS scores, that is, lower ability to recover from stress.

Validity of the Brief Resilience Scale and Brief Resilient Coping Scale in a Chinese Sample

“…The BRS had a good internal consistency, with a coefficient alpha of 0.71. This result is consistent with the alpha values (ranging from 0.71 to 0.85) reported in other BRS validation studies of workers, university students and patients with cancer or heart conditions in Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and the United States [1,[18][19][20][21][22]. In contrast, the results for the BRCS indicated a poor Cronbach's alpha value (0.59).…”

“…As a result, the sampling method and sample size for this study were the same as those in the original study. The results of this study also replicated the results of previous BRS studies (e.g., the structure with two latent factors and Cronbach's alpha ranging from 0.71 to 0.85), including those with samples from clinical settings [17][18][19][20][21][22]24].…”

“…Another limitation is related to the use of resilience-related constructs when evaluating the criterion validity of the resilience scales. The BRS and BRCS literature has adopted various scales to analyse the criterion validity of these scales, namely the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale [1,20], the Brief COP [1,19], the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [1,20] and the Optimism/Pessimism Scale [18,19]. To avoid using a long questionnaire in a validated Chinese version, this study used the following renowned resilience-related constructs, also used in the BRS and BRCS literature: the SWLS [3,24], the WHO-5 [19], the LOT-R [1,3], the GSE [3,18], the PANAS [1,3] and the GHQ-12 [19,21].…”

“…Criterion-related validity was evaluated using other resilience-related constructs reported in the literature. Recent studies have shown that resilience measures are positively linked to mental health measures, optimism, coping strategies, self-esteem, self-efficacy, well-being and life satisfaction [17][18][19]25]. Therefore, this study used several well-established scales to evaluate the criterion validity of the BRS and the BRCS, including the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) [34][35][36][37], the WHO (Five) Well-being Index (WHO-5) [38][39][40], the Revised Life Orientation Test (LOT-R) [41][42][43], the General Self-efficacy Scale (GSE) [44][45][46], the Rosenberg Self-esteem (RSE) Scale [47,48], the Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS) [49][50][51] and positive affect in the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) [52][53][54].…”

“…Both scales have been translated into different languages and adapted for different study samples. In recent years, BRS validation studies have been carried out in Brazil on middle-class young adults (α = 0.76) [17], the general adult population in Germany (α = 0.85) [18,19], Spanish adults with various medical conditions (α = 0.83) [20], blue-and white-collar workers in the Netherlands (α = 0.78) [21] and Mexican and Chilean university students (α = 0.71 to 0.77) [22]. The BRS has been used in research populations such as cancer patients [23] and vocational rehabilitation service recipients [24].…”