Measurement properties and implications of the Brief Resilience Scale in healthy workers

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this study was to study measurement properties of the Dutch Language Version of the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS‐DLV) in blue and white collar workers employed at multiple companies and to compare the validity and factor structure to other language versions. Methods Workers (n = 1023) were assessed during a cross‐sectional health surveillance. Construct validity was tested with exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA and CFA) and hypothesis testing. Reliability was tested with Cronbach's alpha. Results A two‐factor structure of the BRS‐DLV had good model fit in both EFA and CFA, which could be explained by difficulties of workers with reversed order items. After excluding these inconsistent answering patterns, a one‐factor structure showed good model fit resembling the original BRS (χ 2 = 16.5; CFI & TLI = 0.99; SRMR = 0.02;RMSEA = 0.04). Internal consistency is sufficient (Cronbach's α = 0.78). All five hypotheses were confirmed, suggesting construct validity. Conclusions Reliability of the BRS‐DLV is sufficient and there is evidence of construct validity. Inconsistent answering, however, caused problems in interpretation and factor structure of the BRS‐DLV. This can be easily detected and handled because item 2, 4 and 6 are in reversed order. Other language versions differ in factor structure, most likely because systematic errors are not corrected for. To collect valid data, it is advised to be aware of inconsistent answering of respondents.

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].…”

“…However, many subsequent BRS studies have used CFA to verify the underlying factor structure of the scale, suggesting that it comprises two latent factors, namely the positive items (1, 3 and 5) related to resilience and the negative valence items (2, 4 and 6) related to succumbing [17,20,24]. This phenomenon has been highlighted and justified in the BRS literature based on the effects of the use of reversed items on workers or samples from developing countries [21,22].…”

“…The results indicated a good model fit, with χ 2 (11.787)/6 = 1.96, p = 0.067, SRMR = 0.028, CFI = 0.997, TLI = 0.992 and RMSEA = 0.043. Model 3 tested the 6-item BRS with a two-factor structure, including the positive polarity factor (PPF; BRS1, BRS3 and BRS5) and the negative polarity factor (NPF; BRS2, BRS4 and BRS6) without correlating the error terms [21,22]. The results showed that Model 3 reached all cut-off values for a good fit, with χ 2 (13.681)/8 = 1.71, p = 0.090, SRMR = 0.030, CFI = 0.997, TLI = 0.994 and RMSEA = 0.037 (Figure 1).…”

“…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].…”