A Review of the Resilience Scale by ProQuest

VIEWS: 275 PAGES: 10

More Info
									Journal of Nursing Measurement, Volume 17, Number 2, 2009




           A Review of the Resilience Scale
                                  Gail Wagnild, RN, PhD
                                        Worden, Montana

     The purpose of this article is to review 12 completed studies that have used the Resilience
     Scale (Wagnild &Young, 1993). Completed studies were identified through PubMed and
     CINAHL. Studies that identified Resilience Scale scores, sample descriptions, and tested
     relationships between the Resilience Scale and study variables were selected for inclusion.
     CronbachÊs alpha coefficients ranged from .72 to .94 supporting the internal consistency
     reliability of the Resilience Scale. Hypothesized relationships between the Resilience
     Scale and study variables (e.g., forgiveness, stress, anxiety, health promoting activities)
     were supported strengthening the evidence for construct validity of the Resilience Scale. In
     the studies reported here, the Resilience Scale has been used with a variety of individuals
     of different ages, socioeconomic, and educational backgrounds. The Resilience Scale has
     performed as a reliable and valid tool to measure resilience and has been used with a wide
     range of study populations.


     Keywords: resilience; resilience scale; review; measurement




T
        he study of resilience was relatively new with most research focusing on children
        (Garmezy, 1993; Rutter, 1987, 1993; Werner, 1984) 15 to 20 years ago. Since
        then, knowledge and understanding of resilience has expanded to other popula-
tions of interest. In a brief review of studies cited in PubMed, psychological resilience
was referred to 11 times from 1977 to 1987. In the second and third decades since, it was
referred to 92 and 508 times respectively. From January through April 2007 alone, resil-
ience has been referred to in 50 studies. Clearly, interest in resilience is growing.
   Traditionally, health care interventions have used a model grounded in pathology, which
emphasizes deficits and fixing problems. Focusing on concepts such as resilience redirects
health care to recognize strengths and develop strategies to build on existing capabilities.
Resilience connotes inner strength, competence, optimism, flexibility, and the ability to
cope effectively when faced with adversity. Resilience is associated with numerous desired
outcomes including physical health (Black & Ford-Gilboe, 2004; Humphreys, 2003;
Monteith & Ford-Gilboe, 2002; Wagnild, 2007) and emotional health (Broyles, 2005;
Humphreys, 2003; March, 2004; Nygren et al., 2005; Rew, Taylor-Seehafer, Thomas, &
Yockey, 2001).
   Researchers have measured resilience in a variety of ways. Most have selected multiple
indicators and instruments to measure resilience including self-esteem, morale, life satis-
faction, sense of coherence, and so forth. Others have used instruments designed specifi-
cally to measure resilience of which there are now several.
   The purpose of this article was to review completed studies that have used the Resilience
Scale (Wagnild & Young, 1993) in a va
								
To top