Examining the Factor Structure of the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) in a Post-9/11 U.S. Military Veteran Sample

Abstract

The present study examined the structural validity of the 25-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) in a large sample of U.S. veterans with military service since 9/11/2001. Participants (n=1981) completed the 25-item CD-RISC, a structured clinical interview and a self-report questionnaire assessing psychiatric symptoms. The study sample was randomly divided into two sub-samples, an initial sample [Sample 1: n = 990] and a replication sample [Sample 2: n = 991]. Findings derived from exploratory factor analysis (EFA) did not support the five-factor analytic structure as initially suggested in Connor and Davidson’s (2003) instrument validation study. Although Parallel Analyses (PA) indicated a two-factor structural model, we tested one to six factor solutions for best model fit using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Results supported a two-factor model of resilience, comprised of adaptability (8-item) and self-efficacy (6-item) themed items however, only the adaptability themed factor was found to be consistent with our view of resilience —a factor of protection against the development of psychopathology following trauma exposure. The adaptability themed factor may be a useful measure of resilience for post 9/11 U.S. military veterans.

Construct Validity of Scores From the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale in a Sample of Postsecondary Students With Disabilities

“…Initial validation work found support for a five-factor model (Connor & Davidson, 2003). However, subsequent studies have largely failed to support this structure (Fernandez et al, 2015;Green et al, 2014). Indeed, even where a five-factor structure has been supported (Baek, Lee, Joo, Lee, & Choi, 2010;Connor & Davidson, 2003;Yu et al, 2011), factor content seems to differ considerably across solutions (Baek et a., 2010;cf.…”

“…Advances in resilience research, and ultimately the utility of the construct, depend on the availability of measures that yield valid scores (Green et al, 2014). Accordingly, the aim of the present study is to further investigate the validity of CD-RISC data.…”

Resilience among Students from the Majority and Minority Group: The Israeli Case

“…There were three significant differences between the two groups: Israeli Arab students reported a significantly higher level of religiosity, a higher level of exposure to terror/war experiences and a lower level of family income (p<.000). (Green et al, 2014). The short version includes 14 statements about which the subjects indicate the extent to which they agree/disagree, on a 1-7 scale, regarding the last month.…”

Análisis exploratorio de modelos de ecuaciones estructurales sobre la escala de resiliencia de Connor y Davidson (CD-RISC) en Chile y España.

“…Pese a ello, aún hay puntos oscuros que resolver, especialmente el referido a una sorprendente falta de consenso acerca de la estructura interna de la escala. La evidencia empírica ha apoyado el modelo unidimensional (Gucciardi et al, 2011;Burns & Anstey, 2010;Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007;Notario-Pacheco et al, 2011;Sarubin et al, 2015), de dos dimensiones (Fu et al, 2013;Green et al, 2014;Jorgensen and Seedat, 2008), de tres dimensiones (Menezes et al, 2006;Karairmak, 2010;Yu and Zhang, 2007;Serrano-Parra et al, 2011), de cuatro dimensiones (Lamond et al, 2008;Singh and Yu, 2010;Khoshouei, 2009), de cinco dimensiones (Fujikawa et al, 2013;Gillespie et al, 2007) y de segundo orden (Yu et al, 2011). Si aceptamos que la CD-RISC presenta una configuración factorial diferente entre estudios, países o tipos de informante, hemos de aceptar también que, en cada caso, estamos midiendo constructos diferentes.…”

“…Esta aparente violación de la invarianza configural implica serias dificultades para lograr una definición operativa consensuada de la resiliencia, y supone una grave amenaza a la validez de la escala (Wu, Li & Zumbo, 2006). En varios de los modelos multidimensionales citados se han encontrado correlaciones muy elevadas entre factores (e.g., Green et al, 2014), y grandes ratios entre los dos primeros valores propios, en el caso de los estudios que emplearon análisis factorial exploratorio (e.g., Karairmak, 2010). Tales resultados sugieren la existencia de un factor general no modelado, y en consecuencia, que la estructura de la escala tiende a la unidimensionalidad.…”