2017
DOI: 10.1111/scs.12444
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Validation of the Resilience Scale for Adolescents in Norwegian adolescents 13–18 years

Abstract: The psychometric properties of the READ need to be further evaluated in adolescents; however, the results indicate that a modified 20-item version of READ is adequate for assessing resilience in the present sample of Norwegian adolescents.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

4
34
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 46 publications
4
34
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The present study confirms findings from previous validation studies of the READ reporting poor model fit for the originally proposed factor solution using CFA (Moksnes & Haugan, 2017;Ruvalcaba-Romero et al, 2014;Von Soest et al, 2010). These studies also concluded that modifications of the scale were necessary to achieve acceptable fit (Moksnes & Haugan, 2017;Ruvalcaba-Romero et al, 2014;Stratta et al, 2012;Von Soest et al, 2010).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…The present study confirms findings from previous validation studies of the READ reporting poor model fit for the originally proposed factor solution using CFA (Moksnes & Haugan, 2017;Ruvalcaba-Romero et al, 2014;Von Soest et al, 2010). These studies also concluded that modifications of the scale were necessary to achieve acceptable fit (Moksnes & Haugan, 2017;Ruvalcaba-Romero et al, 2014;Stratta et al, 2012;Von Soest et al, 2010).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Thus, all items do not fit together conceptually, questioning the content validity of this factor. Though the previous 9 PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE RESILIENCE SCALE FOR ADOLESCENTS modifications have resulted in different solutions, all have included changes in this factor (Moksnes & Haugan, 2017;Ruvalcaba-Romero et al, 2014;Stratta et al, 2012;Von Soest et al, 2010).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations