The dynamics of appraisal: a review of 20 years of research using the Fortitude Questionnaire

Abstract

Fortitude refers to the psychological strength to manage adversity and stay well. It is derived from adaptive cognitive appraisals of self, family, and social supports and has consistently been identified as a protective factor in psychological well-being. This study undertakes a scoping review of empirical research on the Fortitude Questionnaire, which was developed to assess levels of fortitude. The aims of the study were to categorize and catalogue studies that have used the Fortitude Questionnaire, identify the variables that have been linked to the scale, and determine the extent to which prior research has replicated the Fortitude Questionnaire’s psychometric properties. Arksey and O’Malley’s five-stage framework for scoping reviews was followed to review studies published between January 1999 and March 2020. A total of 51 studies met the inclusion criteria. The scoping review found that the Fortitude Questionnaire has been used in different contexts and among various sample groups across the lifespan, including vulnerable and high-risk populations. The scale has demonstrated sound reliability and studies have confirmed its factor structure. The scale has also been used as an independent, dependent, and intervening variable. Fortitude has been linked to positive and negative indicators of well-being, and intervention studies have indicated that fortitude is amenable to change. The findings of this scoping review provide a foundation for the development of appraisal restructuring programmes and interventions.

Caring does not always cost: The role of fortitude in the association between personal trauma exposure and professional quality of life among lay trauma counselors.

“…The scale measures three domains, namely self-appraisals, family appraisals, and support-appraisals, and the sum of the three domains is seen as representing the individual’s level of fortitude. Pretorius (1998) in a validation study reported coefficient alpha values of between .74 and .82 for the subscales and a coefficient of .85 for the full scale. Other South African studies have reported reliability coefficients between .77 and .88 (Heyns, Venter, Esterhuyse, Bam, & Odendaal, 2003; Wissing, Wissing, Du Toit, & Temane, 2006).…”

“…Participants completed three self-report questionnaires: namely, the Life Events Checklist (LEC-5; Weathers et al, 2013), the Professional Quality of Life Scale (PROQOL; Stamm, 2005), and the Fortitude Questionnaire (FORQ; Pretorius, 1998). The LEC-5 comprises 16-items inquiring about the respondent’s experience of 16 different types of potentially traumatic events (PTEs) that are associated with PTSD.…”

“…Other South African studies have reported reliability coefficients between .77 and .88 (Heyns, Venter, Esterhuyse, Bam, & Odendaal, 2003; Wissing, Wissing, Du Toit, & Temane, 2006). In addition, the FORQ also correlated with measures of psychological distress as well as with measures of self-appraisal (i.e., self-esteem), social support, and family environment (Pretorius, 1998). In the current study, the Cronbach’s alpha for the FORQ was .89 and subscale alphas were .71 for self-appraisals, .81 for support-appraisals, and .89 for family appraisals.…”

The role of fortitude, loneliness, and depression in the association between risk perception of contracting COVID-19 and life satisfaction: serial mediation analysis

“…This scale has been used in more than 50 studies. A review of these studies (Pretorius & Padmanabhanunni, 2020) has indicated that this scale has been used in various contexts, with different samples across lifespan, and that generally this scale has satisfactory reliability (α = .75-.80). The FORQ has also demonstrated satisfactory reliability in Canadian (α = .89; Beattie et al, 2016) and Indonesian (α = .76-.90; Yuwanto & Atmadji, 2019) samples.…”

From fear and vulnerability to fortitude: sustaining psychological well-being in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic

“…In South Africa, there is significant inequity in access to resources, and socioeconomic deprivation is prevalent in the form of food insecurity, unemployment, poverty, and low household income, all of which are associated with adverse outcomes ( Haag et al, 2022 ). Studies conducted during the pandemic have highlighted the role of perceived risk of infection and pre-existing mental and physical health conditions in enhancing the risk of COVID-19-related psychological distress ( Kim et al, 2022 ; Pretorius & Padmanabhanunni, 2021b ).…”