Validity and reliability of the German versions of the CD-RISC-10 and CD-RISC-2

Wollny, Anna; Jacobs, Ingo

doi:10.1007/s12144-021-01670-2

Cited by 25 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, two-item and ten-item CD-RISC abbreviations show identical convergent/divergent validity. Compared to previous reports [ 32 , 33 , 62 , 64 ], larger correlations of CD-RISC-2 and CD-RISC-10 scales with depression, anxiety, and fear of COVID-19 measures were observed in the present study. Prior studies used Pearson and Spearman, instead of polychoric, correlation coefficients in convergent/divergent validity analyses [ 32 , 33 , 64 ], despite the ordinal nature of Likert scales such as the CD-RISC-10/-2, PHQ-8/-9, GAD-7, and FCV-19.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 98%

“…Table 4 ). In concurrence with prior studies [ 31 – 33 ], the CD-RISC-10 had greater internal consistency in our sample than the CD-RISC−2. This could be partially due to how the CD-RISC-2 scale was originated more on subjective than empirical criteria [ 52 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…The mean (± SD) CD-RISC-10 score of 28.46 (7.93) in our sample is comparable to that in the initial validation study [ 23 ], lower than reported for U.S. community samples in previous years [ 95 , 96 ] but identical to findings in populations responding to the COVID-19 pandemic [ 97 ] or similar crises [ 98 ]. Compared to validations in U.S. [ 23 , 52 , 95 ] and other settings [ 31 – 33 ], we observed higher internal consistency for the CD-RISC-10 and CD-RISC-2 (cf. Table 4 ).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 61%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Psychometric validity and reliability of the 10- and 2-item Connor–Davidson resilience scales among a national sample of Americans responding to the Covid-19 pandemic: an item response theory analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Psychometric validity/reliability of 10-item and 2-item abbreviations of the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10; CD-RISC-2) was investigated via item response theory and classic approaches. Methods We sampled 5023 adult American participants in a June/July 2020 survey on the COVID-19 pandemic’s psychological effects. Our questionnaire incorporated the CD-RISC-10 with other validated measures. CD-RISC-10 items were ranked on item-to-scale correlations, loadings on a one-factor confirmatory factor analysis model, and item slope/threshold parameters plus information curves from a unidimensional graded response model. Concurrent validity of the highest ranked item pair was evaluated vis-à-vis the CD-RISC-10 and CD-RISC−2. Internal consistency, based on average variance extracted (AVE) and multiple reliability coefficients, was also compared. Convergent/divergent validity was tested by correlating anxiety, depression, fear of COVID-19, anxiety sensitivity, coping, and personality measures with both scales and the highest ranked item pair. Binary agreement/classification indexes assessed inter-rater reliability. Results Items 2 and 9 from CD-RISC-10 ranked the highest. Reliability coefficients were > 0.93, > 0.72, and > 0.82 for the CD-RISC-10, CD-RISC-2, vs summation of items 2 and 9. AVEs were 0.66, 0.67, and 0.77. CD-RISC abbreviations and the summation of items 2 and 9 correlated negatively with anxiety (> − 0.43), depression (> − 0.42), and fear of COVID-19 (> − 0.34); positively with emotional stability (> 0.53) and conscientiousness (> 0.40). Compared to the CD-RISC-2, summative scores of items 2 and 9 more efficiently classified/discriminated high resilience on the CD-RISC-10. Conclusion We confirmed construct validity/reliability of copyrighted CD-RISC abbreviations. The CD-RISC-10’s items 2 and 9 were psychometrically more salient than the CD-RISC−2. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11136-022-03125-y.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 98%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 61%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Psychometric validity and reliability of the 10- and 2-item Connor–Davidson resilience scales among a national sample of Americans responding to the Covid-19 pandemic: an item response theory analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite the increase in BRS values, H1 is not fully supported, as the observed increase refers only to resilience as the ability to bounce back (Smith et al, 2008). The CD-RISC literature reports that the scale measures trait resilience (e.g., Singh and Yu, 2010;Wollny and Jacobs, 2021), which should not change easily, and the absence of any effect on this scale aligns with this theoretical view. The differences in resilience measures highlight that operationalization of resilience solely via these scales could be problematic.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

The Resilience Journal: Exploring the Potential of Journal Interventions to Promote Resilience in University Students

Lohner

Aprea

2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the prevalence of mental health issues among university students, they must be regarded as a vulnerable population. Resilience interventions offer one potential means of strengthening students’ capacity to overcome academic challenges and external threats. This is all the more urgent in light of the additional difficulties caused by the current COVID-19 pandemic, such as the demands of remote learning. The present study is a first step toward designing and evaluating an appropriate dynamic resilience intervention for students. The design of the Resilience Journal intervention draws on insights from expressive writing and positive writing research and focuses on reflection on daily challenges. In this online intervention, 100 business school students (66% female, Mage = 23.74) at a German university were randomly assigned to two groups and completed two different versions of the Resilience Journal for 5 days. The two versions focused, respectively on broadening attention to challenges and priming attention to mastered challenges. In a pre-post design, two resilience measures and one measure of life satisfaction were used to assess intervention outcomes. Additionally, a newly developed rating scale was used for daily monitoring of dynamic resilience. While both groups showed a significant increase in resilience as measured by the Brief Resilience Scale, that increase could not be attributed directly to the intervention, as there were no group differences, and the design did not include a control group. The other resilience and life satisfaction measures showed no significant change. This first implementation confirms the potential of the Resilience Journal and indicates directions for the development of dynamic resilience interventions and measures in future studies. To further study the potential of such a positive psychology intervention, future research necessitates the inclusion of control groups.

show abstract

“…Few studies describe why the chosen resilience measures were used, but CD-RISC was the most often used scale to assess resilience. Resilience measured via CD-RISC represents trait resilience (e.g., Singh and Yu, 2010;Wollny and Jacobs, 2021), but in the training context resilience is operationalized as a changeable variable; and thus, it is important to use resilience scales that match the theoretical considerations (Linz et al, 2020). With most studies finding positive effects for resilience outcomes and a reduction in stress, resilience training programs seem to be effective and fulfilling their purpose.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resilience Training Programs in Organizational Contexts: A Scoping Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The importance of resilience for employees' well-being and performance at work has grown steadily in recent years. This development has become even more pronounced through the recent COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences, including major changes in occupational settings. Although there is increasing interest in resilience in general and a growing number of publications focusing on the development of resilience in particular, many questions remain about resilience training, especially in organizational contexts. The purpose of this scoping review is to uncover what is known about resilience training in organizational contexts. A systematic search of four databases for articles published through 2021 was conducted. A total of 48 studies focusing on resilience training programs in organizational contexts were included in this review. The review provides relevant insights into resilience training programs by focusing on program characteristics, target group, study design, and outcomes. Based on the results, the main aspects that concern the development of resilience training programs for organizational settings and requirements for the study design for empirical investigation were summarized. The results of the review highlight possible directions for future research and offer useful insights for resilience-enhancing training programs in organizations.

show abstract

Validity and reliability of the German versions of the CD-RISC-10 and CD-RISC-2

Cited by 25 publications

References 56 publications

Psychometric validity and reliability of the 10- and 2-item Connor–Davidson resilience scales among a national sample of Americans responding to the Covid-19 pandemic: an item response theory analysis

Psychometric validity and reliability of the 10- and 2-item Connor–Davidson resilience scales among a national sample of Americans responding to the Covid-19 pandemic: an item response theory analysis

The Resilience Journal: Exploring the Potential of Journal Interventions to Promote Resilience in University Students

Resilience Training Programs in Organizational Contexts: A Scoping Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About