Evaluation of the Factor Structure Underlying Two Measures of Hardiness

Abstract

This study critically evaluated the factor stnictnre underlying two ineasures of hardiness. Hardiness was conceptualized by Kobasa as consisting of three factors: commitment, control, and challenge. Over time, however, one-to four-factor solutions have been identified, depending on the measures used and the population studied. A sample of 183 adult university employees completed the Personal Views Survey (PVS) and the Revised Hardiness Scale (RHS). Neither principal axis factor analyses nor confirmatory factor analyses supported Kobasa's conceptualization of hardiness. The findings of this study highlight the importance of reevaluating how hardiness is conceptualized and revising its measures before continuing to investigate each factor's effect on physical and psychological wellness.

A structural model of parental alcoholism, family functioning, and psychological health: The mediating effects of hardiness and personal growth orientation.

“…This measure is a revision of Kobasa's (1979) original measure of hardiness, which had been criticized for failure to exhibit the expected three-factor structure, awkward wording, and an exclusive use of negatively worded items (cf. Benishek, 1996; Funk & Houston, 1987; Hull, Van Treuren, & Virnelli, 1987). The 45 items are answered on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 ( not at all true ) to 3 ( completely true ).…”

Evaluation of Psychometric Properties of Hardiness Scales: A Systematic Review

“…One study was a doctoral thesis ( Ferrara, 2019 ) and the 32 other articles were original and were published in journals. The majority of them were conducted in the United States ( n = 12) ( Funk and Houston, 1987 ; Pollock and Duffy, 1990 ; Bartone, 1991 ; Benishek, 1996 ; Velasco-Whetsell and Pollock, 1999 ; Wang, 1999 ; Benishek and Lopez, 2001 ; Benishek et al, 2005 ; Maddi et al, 2006 ; Madrigal et al, 2016 ; Weigold et al, 2016 ) after that Iran ( n = 4) ( Mohsenabadi and Fathi-Ashtiani, 2021 ; Soheili et al, 2021a , b ; Hosseini et al, 2022 ), Canada ( n = 2) ( McNeil et al, 1986 ; Lang et al, 2003 ), Brazil ( n = 1) ( Solano et al, 2016 ), China ( n = 1) ( Wong et al, 2014 ), Netherlands ( n = 2) ( Gebhardt et al, 2001 ; Dymecka et al, 2020 ), Greece ( n = 1) ( Kamtsios and Karagiannopoulou, 2013 ), Croatia ( n = 1) ( Kardum et al, 2012 ), Italia ( n = 1) ( Picardi et al, 2012 ), Spain ( n = 2) ( Moreno-Jiménez et al, 2014 ; Luceño-Moreno et al, 2020 ), Australia ( n = 1) ( Creed et al, 2013 ), Sweden ( n = 1) ( Persson et al, 2016 ), Taiwan ( n = 1) ( Cheng et al, 2019 ), Japan ( n = 1) ( Yamaguchi et al, 2020 ), South Korea ( n = 1) ( Ko et al, 2018 ), and Norway ( n = 1) ( Hystad et al, 2010 ). Only one study was published in the Persian language ( Mohsenabadi and Fathi-Ashtiani, 2021 ).…”

“…The main quality criteria that show this feature are formulating specific hypotheses and at least 75% of the results are in accordance with these hypotheses. Nine studies did not report about construct validity and were scored as “poor” ( Bartone, 1991 ; Benishek, 1996 ; Velasco-Whetsell and Pollock, 1999 ; Wang, 1999 ; Hystad et al, 2010 ; Picardi et al, 2012 ; Kamtsios and Karagiannopoulou, 2013 ; Ferrara, 2019 ; Hosseini et al, 2022 ), six studies did not report enough results and were evaluated as “good” ( Pollock and Duffy, 1990 ; Gebhardt et al, 2001 ; Ko et al, 2018 ; Luceño-Moreno et al, 2020 ; Mohsenabadi and Fathi-Ashtiani, 2021 ; Soheili et al, 2021a ) and the 18 remaining studies reported construct validity with complete details and were scored as “excellent.”…”