Resilience measurement in later life: a systematic review and psychometric analysis. Issue 1 (December 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Cosco, T.; Kaushal, A.; Richards, M.; Kuh, D.; Stafford, M.
• Is Part Of: Health and quality of life outcomes. Volume 14:Issue 1(2016)
• Page Start: 1
• Page End: 6
• Publication Date: 2016-12
• Subjects: Outcome assessment (Medical care) -- Periodicals; Quality of life -- Periodicals; 362.1
• DOI: 10.1186/s12955-016-0418-6
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1477-7525

Abstract

Abstract Objectives To systematically review and examine the psychometric properties of established resilience scales in older adults, i.e. ≥60 years. Methods A systematic review of Scopus and Web of Science databases was undertaken using the search strategy "resilience" AND (ageing OR aging)". Independent title/abstract and fulltext screening were undertaken, identifying original peer-reviewed English articles that conducted psychometric validation studies of resilience metrics in samples aged ≥60 years. Data on the reliability/validity of the included metrics were extracted from primary studies. Results Five thousand five hundred nine studies were identified by the database search, 426 used resilience psychometrics, and six psychometric analysis studies were included in the final analysis. These studies conducted analyses of the Connor Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) and its shortened 10-item version (CD-RISC10), the Resilience Scale (RS) and its shortened 5- (RS-5) and 11- (RS-11) item versions, and the Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS). All scales demonstrated acceptable levels of internal consistency, convergent/discriminant validity and theoretical construct validity. Factor structures for the RS, RS-11 and CD-RISC diverged from the structures in the original studies. Conclusion The RS, RS-5, RS-11, CD-RISC, CD-RISC10 and BRCS demonstrate psychometric robustness adequate for continued use in older populations. However, results from the current study and pre-existing theoretical construct validity studies most strongly support the use of the RS, with modest and preliminary support for the CD-RISC and BRCS, respectively. Future studies assessing the validity of these metrics in older populations, particularly with respect to factor structure, would further strengthen the case for the use of these scales.