Personality and Individual Differences 97 (2016) 249–255

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Assessing resilience in emerging adulthood: The Resilience Scale (RS),

Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), and Scale of Protective
Factors (SPF)
Amy N. Madewell a,⁎, Elisabeth Ponce-Garcia b
a
Southeastern Oklahoma State University, USA
b
Cameron University, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The transition to adulthood, emerging adulthood (EA), is characterized by the reorganization of multiple systems
Received 6 February 2016 and societal scaffolding coming together to uniquely contribute to development. As a developmental turning
Received in revised form 14 March 2016 point, EA has been a recent focus for researchers investigating both resilience and psychopathology. Resilience
Accepted 15 March 2016
scales used in EA samples, within the United States are limited because many have not been validated in EA sam-
Available online 2 April 2016
ples and they often do not assess both social/individual and cognitive/interpersonal determinants of resilience.
Keywords:
The purpose of this study was to investigate the measurement models and reliability of commonly used resilience
Resilience scales in the United States to include the Resilience Scale (RS-25; RS-10), the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale
Protective factors CD-RISC-25; CD-RISC-10), and the Scale of Protective Factors (SPF-24). We used an EA sample of 421 college stu-
Confirmatory Factor Analysis dents reporting significant stress or trauma. The results indicated that the CD-RISC-10, and the SPF-24 are psy-
Emerging adulthood chometrically sound measures of overall resilience in EA. While the CD-RISC-10 has the benefit of clinical
criteria for interpreting scores, the SPF-24 is a more comprehensive measure of resilience due to the representa-
tion of social/interpersonal in addition to cognitive/individual determinants of resilience. Practical and clinical
implications as well as future directions are discussed.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction executive functioning capacity and important brain development (Burt

Arnett (2000) characterized the transition to adulthood, occurring be-
tween the ages of 18 and 25, as a time when cognitive and social reorga-
nization come together to uniquely contribute to development. Since the
conceptualization of emerging adulthood (EA), research investigating the
possibility that EA may constitute a developmental transition with specif-
ic developmental tasks and expected outcomes has followed (Burt &
Paysnick, 2012; Masten et al., 2004). The developmental tasks associated
with EA include academic achievement, developing stable and supportive
peer relationships, maintaining rule directed behavior such as lawfulness,
and advanced cognitive skills such as planfulness and goal orientation
(Masten, Obradović, & Burt, 2006). Researchers examining the factors
that contribute to psychopathology and resilience have identified transi-
tional periods, such as EA, as possible turning points in development
(Burt & Paysnick, 2012; Rutter, 1996; Sampson & Laub, 1993). Emerging
Adulthood has been identified as a developmental turning point partly
because rapid changes in multiple systems occur. For example, changes
in demographic characteristics, such as choosing a vocation, a romantic
partner, and a geographic location, occur in conjunction with greater
⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, Southeastern Oklahoma State
University, 011 Morrison Hall, Durant, OK 74701, USA.
E-mail address: amadewell@se.edu (A.N. Madewell).
& Paysnick, 2012; Masten et al., 2004). Advancements in cognitive and
frontal lobe development, occurring along with advances in indepen-
dence and a changing social environment, result in reorganization unlike
that of other developmental periods (Masten et al., 2006).
Trauma and severe stress during childhood and adolescence are
thought to have an accumulative effect resulting in developmental defi-
cits and mental dysfunctions during EA to include anxiety, depression,
and anger (Van Vugt, Lanctôt, Paquette, Collin-Vézina, & Lemieux,
2014). Supportive and protective factors that buffer the effects of trauma
and stress may have added efficacy during EA (Bachmann, Znoj, &
Haemmerli, 2014). Research suggests that EAs with previous stress or
trauma exposure leading to compromised mental health during adoles-
cence are more able to recover during EA. Findings show that such
youth typically experience a decrease in risk factors as they move away
from environments that may have been contributing to risk (Tanner,
Arnett, & Leis, 2009). Additionally, EAs are aided by continued maturation
of the frontal lobe, which is complete around age 25, resulting in better
executive functioning when compared to adolescence (Tanner et al.,
2009). Moreover, EA has been identified as a time when supporting the
development of protective factors may be especially efficacious in over-
coming the negative mental health effects of sexual abuse (Goldstein,
Faulkner, & Wekerle, 2013). Masten et al. (2004) suggest that at-risk ad-
olescents who positively transition to adulthood may do so by

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.036
0191-8869/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
250 A.N. Madewell, E. Ponce-Garcia / Personality and Individual Differences 97 (2016) 249–255
monopolizing on the developmental tasks presented during EA to acquire
advances in protective factors such as social and cognitive abilities be-
lieved to determine resilience.
The capacity of an individual to maintain normative, or positive,
development in the presence of risk is referred to as resilience (Ahern,
Kiehl, Sole, & Byers, 2006; Beckwith, Dickinson, & Kendall, 2008;
Connor & Davidson, 2003; Dyer & McGuinness, 1996; Friborg,
Hjemdal, Martinussen, & Rosenvinge, 2009; Windle, 2011). Resilience
results from protective factors, also referred to as resilience factors
(Diehl & Hay, 2010), that offset or buffer the effects of risk factors
(Connor & Davidson, 2003; Masten, 2009). Protective factors include so-
cial/interpersonal strengths such as social skills, family cohesion, and
the availability of social resources, as well as, cognitive/individual
strengths such as planning behavior, self-efficacy, goal efficacy, and con-
trol (Gardner, Dishion, & Connell, 2008; Howard & Hughes, 2012; Jain &
Cohen, 2013; Masten et al., 2004; Ponce-Garcia, Madewell, & Kennison,
2015; Wills & Bantum, 2012). The protective factors associated with re-
silience become of particular importance during EA because the likeli-
hood of both positive and negative developmental outcomes is high.
Research shows that EA is when individuals develop cognitive flexibili-
ty, inhibitory control, and executive functioning capacities (Masten
et al., 2004). On the other hand, EA is also associated with the onset of
mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, mood disorders, and substance
use (Hankin & Abramson, 2001; Nelson & McNamara-Barry, 2005).
Resilience researchers have begun to examine EA hoping to deter-
mine what factors account for the variability in outcome associated
with this transitional period of development (Burt & Paysnick, 2012;
Masten et al., 2006). In assessing resilience during EA, researchers
often use indicators of normative or positive development in combina-
tion with indicators of risk or threat to development (Masten et al.,
2006). Indicators of normative or positive development during EA in-
clude initiating higher education, relationship cohesion, and advances
in planning and goal-directed behavior (Masten et al., 2006). Risk to de-
velopment, at any age, includes trauma and significant stress such as
abuse or neglect (Masten et al., 2004, 2006). Common stressors associ-
ated with this developmental period are related to developmental tasks,
as relationship acquisition and educational advancement are often
stressful events (Masten et al., 2006).
The research regarding resilience during EA is limited due partly to
limitations of currently used measures. Resilience measures used in EA
populations are often developed for use in other populations and not
confirmed in EA samples (Burt & Paysnick, 2012). In addition, resilience
measures tend to assess cognitive/individual factors to the exclusion of
the social/interpersonal factors (Burt & Paysnick, 2012; Ponce-Garcia
et al., 2015; Windle, Bennett, & Noyes, 2011). The purpose of the present
study is to address these limitations by using a sample of EA's reporting
significant stress or trauma to test the measurement models and reli-
ability of resilience measures researchers currently use in EA popula-
tions in the United States. Measures examined within the present
study include the Resilience Scale (RS-25; Wagnild & Young, 1993),
the brief Resilience Scale (RS-14; Wagnild & Quinn, 2011), the
Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-25; Connor & Davidson,
2003), the brief CD-RISC (CD-RISC-10; Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007),
and the Scale of Protective Factors (SPF-24; Ponce-Garcia et al., 2015).
2. Review of measures
Wagnild and Young (1993) developed the Resilience Scale (RS) with
the intention of measuring individual levels of resilience. They
interviewed a community sample of elderly women and selected 24
who they identified to have successfully adapted to major life stressors.
Through qualitative analyses, the researchers identified five core
theoretical components of resilience. Following qualitative analyses,
Wagnild and Young (1993) developed a 25-item scale, the RS-25.
Using a sample of 810 community dwelling older adults between the
ages of 55 and 80, they completed exploratory factor analysis that
suggested the 25-item scale accounted for two factors rather than five
theoretical factors: (a) personal competence and (b) acceptance of
self-life. When using the RS-25, researchers and clinicians typically re-
port one overall resilience score instead of two factor scores (Ahern
et al., 2006; Portzky, Wagnild, De Bacquer, & Audenaert, 2010;
Wagnild & Collins, 2009). Wagnild and Young (1993) confirmed the
concurrent validity of the unidimensional RS-25 by reporting moderate
positive correlations with assessments of good mental and physical
health. More recently, Wagnild and Quinn (2011) modified the RS-25
to decrease completion time. They used results of exploratory factor
analysis to reduce the original 25 items to 14 items. The overall
factorability of the RS-14 demonstrated a solid one-factor measure of
resilience, which has been replicated (Aiena, Baczwaski, Schulenberg,
& Buchanan, 2015; Pritzer & Minter, 2014; Yang, Li, & Xia, 2012).
Using past research to develop 25 items, Connor and Davidson
(2003) developed the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-25).
Next, they tested the resultant items on middle-aged adults with or
without a broad range of clinical diagnoses (Connor & Davidson, 2003;
Kobasa, 1979; Rutter, 1985). According to a review by Ahern et al.
(2006), the CD-RISC-25 is psychometrically sound. Additionally, the
CD-RISC-25 may be more useful than the RS-25 because it has clinical
criteria for identifying individuals with lower versus higher overall resil-
ience (Ahern et al., 2006). Research has shown that the CD-RISC-25 is
comprised of one general factor instead of the theoretical five-factor
structure first proposed by Connor and Davidson (Burns & Anstey,
2010; Connor & Davidson, 2003; Gucciardi, Jackson, Coulter, & Mallett,
2011). Further research has validated the unidimensional factor struc-
ture of the CD-RISC-25 (Burns & Anstey, 2010; Connor & Davidson,
2003; Gucciardi et al., 2011; Jung et al., 2012; Karairmak, 2010;
Khoshouei, 2009). More recently, Campbell-Sills and Stein (2007)
used exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to develop the unidi-
mensional brief CD-RISC-10 and validated it in China (Wang, Shi, Zhang,
& Zhang, 2010) and Spain (Notario-Pacheco et al., 2011).
Because the RS and CD-RISC represent only cognitive/individual fac-
tors of resilience (Ahern et al., 2006; Burns & Anstey, 2010; Burt &
Paysnick, 2012; Windle et al., 2011), Ponce-Garcia et al. (2015), devel-
oped the Scale of Protective Factors (SPF-24) with the intention of
assessing both cognitive/individual and social/interpersonal protective
factors which determine resilience. In a manner similar to Connor and
Davidson (2003); Ponce-Garcia et al. (2015) used the extant resilience
literature to guide the development of 35 items. Next, the researchers
used exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to reduce the items
and confirm the factor structure of the SPF-24. The SPF-24 includes
two hierarchic factors. First, the social/interpersonal factor assesses so-
cial support and social skills. Second, the cognitive/individual factor
assesses prioritizing and planning behaviors and goal efficacy. The the-
oretical four-factors model of the SPF-24 was confirmed (Ponce-Garcia
et al., 2015). Ponce-Garcia et al. (2015) then replicated and confirmed
the four-factor structure model of the SPF-24 using an adult population.
Best practices in assessing resilience include assessment of risk
(Masten et al., 2004). Of the resilience scales most commonly used in
EA samples, none of them were developed in conjunction with directly
assessed risk factors. The purpose of the present research was to use a
sample of EA's who have experienced significant stress or trauma to
compare the factor structure and reliability of the RS-25, RS-14, CD-
RISC-25, CD-RISC-10, and SPF-24. To our knowledge, none of the scales,
other than the SPF-24, have been confirmed in an EA sample. We expect
that, of the scales, the SPF-24 will achieve the best model fit in an EA
sample.
3. Method
3.1. Participants
The total emerging adulthood (EA) sample included 451 college stu-
dents from three southwestern universities within the United States.
 A.N. Madewell, E. Ponce-Garcia / Personality and Individual Differences 97 (2016) 249–255
There were 384 college students from a large rural university and 67
college students from two regional universities. University Institutional
Review Boards approved each study protocol. We used a maximum
likelihood approach to data imputation, as all missing data must be
accounted for prior to completing Confirmatory Factor Analysis
(Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999).
Of the 384 college students from a large rural southwestern univer-
sity, there were 293 (76.3%) women and 91 (23.7%) men. All of the par-
ticipants were 18 years of age or older, ranging from 18 to 25, and the
mean age was 19.16 (SD = 1.38). Participants received course credit
in exchange for participation. The sample was 77.5% White, 6.8%
Asian–Asian Pacific Islander, 4.2% Black, 2.9% Latino–Hispanic, and
2.1% Native American. Approximately 8.6% of the sample reported
mixed ethnicity or did not report.
Of the 67 participants from two regional universities, 43 were in-
cluded from a southeastern regional university and 24 were from a
southwestern regional university. There were 48 (71.6%) women and
19 (28.4%) men. All of the participants were 18 years of age or older,
ranging from 18 to 25, and the mean age was 19.01 (SD = 1.45). The
sample was 67.2% White, 13.4% Black, 10.4% Native American, 1.5%
Asian–Asian Pacific Islander, and 7.5% mixed ethnicity. A Pearson Chi-
square indicated that demographic characteristics for both samples
were roughly equivalent, X2 = .68, df = 2, p = .71, Cramer's V = .039.
3.2. Procedure
Two methods of recruitment were used. The participants either
volunteered through SONA Systems, the University's online recruitment
website or, researchers gave them a paper survey in class. All Partici-
pants received course credit of less than 5% of the overall grade for
participation. Participants completed a survey consisting of 25 items
representing both the RS-25 and the RS-14, 25 items representing
both the CD-RISC-25 and the CD-RISC-10, the SPF-24, and the Life
Stressor Checklist Revised (LSC-R; 29 items) followed by demographic
questions. Of the total sample, 412 participants reporting significant
stress or trauma on the LSC-R were retained for data analysis. Significant
stress or trauma included a history of emotional and/or physical abuse,
witnessing physical violence between family members (e.g., hitting,
kicking, slapping, punching), or sexual abuse in the form of touching
or (i.e., oral, vaginal, or anal). We used these risk factors for validation
of the resilience measures. The final sample included 318 women and
94 men with a mean age of 19.14 (SD = 1.39). The sample was 74.3%
White, 6.1% Asian–Asian Pacific Islander, 5.3% Black, 3.2% Native
American, 2.4% Latino–Hispanic, and 8.8% mixed ethnicity or did not re-
port ethnicity.
3.3. Materials
Resilience Scale-25 (RS-25; Wagnild & Young, 1993). The RS consists
of 25-items assessing overall resilience using a 7-point Likert scale rang-
ing from ‘1 — disagree’ to ‘7 — agree.’ Higher scores are indicative of re-
silience. The internal consistency reliability of the unidimensional RS-25
within the present study was .93. For brief items see Table 2.
Resilience Scale-14 (RS-14; Wagnild & Quinn, 2011). Wagnild and
Quinn (2011) published a brief version of the RS containing 14-items
retained from the original 25 items. The RS-14 uses a seven-point Likert
scale ranging from ‘1 — disagree’ to ‘7 — agree.’ Higher scores are indic-
ative of resilience. The internal consistency of the unidimensional RS-
14 was .90. Within the present study, the RS-25 and the RS-14 were sig-
nificantly positively correlated at .97, p b .001.
Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale-25 (CD-RISC-25; Connor &
Davidson, 2003). The CD-RISC consists of 25-items assessing overall re-
silience using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘0 — not true at all’ to ‘4
— true nearly all of the time.’ Scores range from 0 to 100, with higher
scores being indicative of resilience. The internal consistency reliability
251
of the CD-RISC within the present study was .90. For brief items see
Table 3.
Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale-10 (CD-RISC-10; Campbell-Sills
& Stein, 2007). Campbell-Sills and Stein (2007) published a brief version
of the CD-RISC consisting of 10-items assessing overall resilience using a
5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘0 — not true at all’ to ‘4 — true nearly all
of the time.’ Scores range from 0 to 40, with higher scores being indica-
tive of resilience. The internal consistency reliability of the CD-RISC-10
within the present study was .88. Within the present study, the CD-
RISC-25 and the CD-RISC-10 were significantly positively correlated at
.93, p b .001.
Scale of Protective Factors-24 (SPF-24; Ponce-Garcia et al., 2015).
The SPF consists of 24-items assessing four protective factors that are
determinates of resilience, with 6-items measuring each of the protec-
tive factors: social support, social skills, planning and prioritizing behav-
ior, and goal efficacy. Participant responses indicate level of agreement
with each item using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from ‘1 — disagree
completely’ to ‘7 — completely agree.’ In the present study, internal con-
sistency reliability for the SPF-24 was .93. The internal consistency reli-
abilities for the subscales of the SPF-24 within the present study were:
social support .91, social skills .88, prioritizing/planning .86, and goal ef-
ficacy .87. For brief items see Table 4.
Life Stressor Checklist Revised (LSC-R; Wolfe & Kimerling, 1997). We
used the LSC-R to assess the prevalence of stressful and traumatic
events. The LSC-R consists of 29 items assessing the occurrence of trau-
matic or stressful life events, such as physical or sexual abuse. For each
item, the participant responds either yes or no indicating whether he
or she has experienced the event in his or her lifetime. For the endorsed
items, the participant then provides a score indicating the degree to
which the event has affected his or her daily life in the past year using
a Likert scale ranging from ‘1 — not at all’ to ‘5 — extremely.’
4. Results
When comparing the RS-25, RS-14, CD-RISC-25, CD-RISC-10 and the
SPF-24, we found that all measures were significantly (p b .001) posi-
tively correlated. Additionally, we found that the sub-scales of the
SPF-24 were significantly (p b .001) positively correlated with each of
the other resilience scales, refer to Table 1.
4.1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
We used CFA, a type of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), to
compare model fit. We used Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS)
software 23.0 to determine model fit between five competing measure-
ment models in order to identify possible differences between the RS-
25, RS-14, CD-RISC-25, CD-RISC-10, and SPF-24. We performed oblique
rotation on all five measurement models due to the intercorrelated
nature of the items (Gorsuch, 1983). We used maximum likelihood
estimation because the data were normally distributed. We diagnosed
outliers in the dataset and measured the distance between each
data point and the mean in order to evaluate the spread of the data
points using Box plots and Mahalanobis distance (Page, Braver, &
MacKinnon, 2003). We identified no multivariate outliers.
For Model 1, we allowed each of the original RS-25 items to load on a
one-factor model. Table 5 shows the X2, Normative Fit Index (NFI), Com-
parative Fit Index (CFI), Relative Fit Index (RFI), Incremental Fit Index
(IFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), Root Mean Square Error of Approxima-
tion (RMSEA), and Hoelter's critical N used to evaluate the model.
Model 1 showed that the NFI, RFI, CFI, IFI, and TLI were less than .82,
which suggested inadequate fit (Hu & Bentler, 1995). The RMSEA of
.08 with a 90% confidence interval of .075 to .085 indicated a fair, but
not ideal, fit (Byrne, 2001). RMSEA values less than .05 are indicative
of good fit to data, with values ranging between .06 to .08 indicating
fair fit and values greater than .10 indicating poor fit (Browne &
Cudeck, 1993; Byrne, 2001). Hoelter's critical N suggested poor
252 A.N. Madewell, E. Ponce-Garcia / Personality and Individual Differences 97 (2016) 249–255

Table 1
Intercorrelations between Resilience Measures.*

Factor/variable M SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

(1) RS-25 138.85 20.12 1

(2) RS-14 79.69 11.95 .97⁎⁎ 1
(3) CD-RISC-25 74.71 12.81 .72⁎⁎ .72⁎⁎ 1
(4) CD-RISC-10 2.91 .59 .68⁎⁎ .66⁎⁎ .93⁎⁎ 1
(5) SPF 4.02 .60 .56⁎⁎ .59⁎⁎ .70⁎⁎ .59⁎⁎ 1
(6) Social support 3.95 .87 .34⁎⁎ .38⁎⁎ .47⁎⁎ .39⁎⁎ .76⁎⁎ 1
(7) Social skills 3.90 .87 .33⁎⁎ .34⁎⁎ .44⁎⁎ .34⁎⁎ .72⁎⁎ .39⁎⁎ 1
(8) Planning/prioritizing 3.97 .79 .43⁎⁎ .44⁎⁎ .51⁎⁎ .42⁎⁎ .74⁎⁎ .34⁎⁎ .34⁎⁎ 1
(9) Goal efficacy 4.27 .64 .64⁎⁎ .66⁎⁎ .77⁎⁎ .69⁎⁎ .81⁎⁎ .54⁎⁎ .39⁎⁎ .60⁎⁎ 1

Note. M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation, RS = Resilience Scale, CD-RISC = Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale, SPF = Scale of Protective Factors.
⁎ p b .05.
⁎⁎ p b .001 for N = 412.

sampling adequacy (Byrne, 2001). Wagnild and Young (1993) original-
ly suggested a five factor theoretical model. However, factor analytic
techniques within this present study and previous research show that
the RS has the best model fit when all 25-items load on one overall re-
silience factor (Ahern et al., 2006; Wagnild & Quinn, 2011). After
assessing modification indices, there were eight items with high covari-
ances (N 20). In addition, two items failed to load an appropriate amount
of covariance (.40) indicating possible omission from the measure.
Wagnild and Quinn (2011) found similar findings, which prompted
them to reduce the original 25-item measure to a brief 14 item
measure (RS-14). Our findings replicate these suggestions, refer to
Table 2.
For Model 2, we allowed each of the 14 items from the RS-14 to load
on a one-factor model as detailed by Wagnild and Quinn (2011). Table 5
shows model fit indices. Model 2 showed a significantly improved
model fit when compared to Model 1. In Model 2, the CFI and IFI were
.90, which suggested adequate model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1995). The
RMSEA of .09 with a 90% confidence interval of .077 to .095 indicated
a fair to poor fit (Byrne, 2001). Furthermore, Hoelter's critical N sug-
gested poor sampling adequacy (Byrne, 2001). Based on this model fit
analysis, we can confirm that this model achieves adequate fit and rep-
licates findings from Wagnild and Quinn (2011) and Damasio, Borsa,
and da Silva (2011), refer to Table 5. We next used a Chi-square differ-
ence test, ΔX2, to compare the fit indices between the RS-25 and RS-14,
ΔX2 = 665.88, df = 175, p b .001 (Garson, 2015). The Chi-square differ-
ence test showed that the models were significantly different. This anal-
ysis suggests that the model fit for the RS-14 was a significant
improvement in model fit when compared to the RS-25.
For Model 3, we allowed each of the CD-RISC-25 items to load on a
one-factor model. Model 3 showed that the NFI, RFI, CFI, IFI, and TLI
were less than .85 which suggested an inadequate fit (Hu & Bentler,
1995). The RMSEA of .07 with a 90% confidence interval of .067 to
.077 indicated poor fit (Byrne, 2001). Hoelter's critical N suggested
poor sampling adequacy (Byrne, 2001). When evaluating modification
indices, there were 13 covariances with a coefficient larger than 20 sug-
gesting moderate overlap between items. For example, the error term
for item 24, ‘I work to attain my goals,’ and the error term for item 25,
‘I have pride in my achievements,’ covaried with a value of 47.37. To cor-
rect this high covariance, one could allow the two error terms to covary,
delete one of these two items, or reword the items to have more distin-
guishable attributes. The findings from this model analysis replicate the
findings presented in Burns and Anstey (2010), see Tables 3 and 5.
For Model 4, we allowed each of the 10-items from the CD-RISC-10
to load on a one-factor model as hypothesized by Campbell-Sills and

Table 2
Items and factor loadings on the Resilience Scale-25 and Resilience Scale-14.

RS items CFA factor loadings RS-25 CFA factor loadings RS-14 Item
Model 1 Model 2

α .93 .90
RS1 .58 Follow through with plans
RS2 .67 .63 Manage one way or another
RS3 .54 Depend on myself more than anyone else
RS4 .60 Keeping interested in things
RS5 .57 Can be on my own
RS6 .70 .73 Have accomplished things in my life
RS7 .66 .66 Take things in stride
RS8 .60 .62 Friends with myself
RS9 .59 .58 Can handle many things at a time
RS10 .71 .72 Am determined
RS11 .37 Seldom wonder what the point of it all is
RS12 .41 Take things one day at a time
RS13 .54 .52 Get through difficult times because I′ve experienced them before
RS14 .64 .64 Have self-discipline
RS15 .70 .69 Keep interested in things
RS16 .60 .61 Find something to laugh about
RS17 .69 .70 Belief in myself gets me through hard times
RS18 .66 .67 Someone people can generally rely on
RS19 .57 Usually look at a situation in a number of ways
RS20 .61 Make myself do things whether I want to or not
RS21 .66 .69 Life has meaning
RS22 .43 Do not dwell on things that I can't do anything about
RS23 .72 .69 Can usually find my way out of difficult situation
RS24 .61 Enough energy to do what I have to do
RS25 .50 There are people who don't like me

Note. N = 412, RS = Resilience Scale, α = Cronbach's alpha is the internal consistency for each measure. Abbreviated items are presented in this table, for complete items refer to
www.resiliencescale.com.
 A.N. Madewell, E. Ponce-Garcia / Personality and Individual Differences 97 (2016) 249–255 253

Table 3
Items and factor loadings on the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC).

CD-RISC items CFA factor loadings 1-factor CD-RISC 25 CFA factor loadings 1-factor CD-RISC 10 Items
Model 3 Model 4

Cronbach's α .90 .88

CD1 .58 .64 Able to adapt to change
CD2 .41 Close and secure relationships
CD3 .34 Sometimes fate or God can help
CD4 .66 .70 Can deal with whatever comes
CD5 .69 Past success gives confidence for new challenge
CD6 .40 .43 See the humorous side of things
CD7 .55 .63 Coping with stress strengthens
CD8 .64 .68 Tend to bounce back after illness or hardship
CD9 .42 Things happen for a reason
CD10 .58 Best effort no matter what
CD11 .68 .55 Can achieve your goals
CD12 .74 When things look hopeless, I don't give up
CD13 .53 Know where to turn for help
CD14 .64 .66 Under pressure focus and think clearly
CD15 .57 Prefer to take the lead in problem solving
CD16 .65 .71 Not easily discouraged by failure
CD17 .66 .62 Think of myself as a strong person
CD18 .41 Make unpopular or difficult decisions
CD19 .57 .62 Can handle unpleasant feelings
CD20 .31 Have to act on a hunch
CD21 .66 Strong sense of purpose
CD22 .63 In control of your life
CD23 .66 Like challenges
CD24 .60 Work to attain your goals
CD25 .52 Pride in achievements

Note. N = 412, CD denotes Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale and α = Cronbach’'s alpha. Please contact Dr. Jonathan Davidson for the complete CD-RISC items at jonathan.davidson@
duke.edu.

Stein (2007). Model 4 showed that the NFI, CFI, IFI, and TLI were greater
than .91, which suggested adequate fit (Hu & Bentler, 1995). The RMSEA
of .075 with a 90% confidence interval of .060 to .090 indicated im-
proved fit. The Hoelter's critical N suggested sampling adequacy
(Byrne, 2001). Thus far, the CD-RISC-10 presents the best model fit as
a unidimensional measure of resilience. Based on the items omitted
from the CD-RISC-25, the theoretical implications of the remaining 10
items primarily represent one's ability to be self-reliant and adapt to
5. Discussion
The present study sought to examine the model fit and reliability of
five measures of resilience using a sample of emerging adults (EA)
Table 4
Items and factor loadings on the Scale of Protective Factors (SPF-24).

change. The improved model fit of the CD-RISC-10 indicates that the SPF items CFA factor loadings 4-factor SPF-24 Item
measure assesses a cognitive determinant of resilience, refer to Model 1
Tables 3 and 5. We used a Chi-square difference test, ΔX2, to compare α .92
the fit indices between the CD-RISC-25 and the CD-RISC-10. The models SPF1 .68 Keep me up to speed on
were significantly different, ΔX2 = 924.47, df = 217, p b .001 (Garson, important events
SPF2 .68 See things the same way
2015). When evaluated together, the model fit indices ad reported in
SPF3 .84 Are seen as united
Table 5, the Chi Square Difference Test, and the reliability coefficients, SPF4 .81 Are supportive of one another
suggest the use of the CD-RISC-10. SPF5 .73 Are optimistic
For Model 5, we investigated the SPF-24. We allowed each of the 24- SPF6 .75 Spend free time together
items to load on a two factor hierarchic structure, which focused on the SPF7 .90 Socializing with new people
SPF8 .86 Interacting with others
social/interpersonal and cognitive/individual components that makeup SPF9 .84 Making new friendships
resilience (Ponce-Garcia et al., 2015; Reich, Zautra, & Hall, 2010). We in- SPF10 .75 Being with other people
cluded the items for the following four sub-scales: (a) social support, SPF11 .57 Working with others as part
(b) social skills, (c) planning and prioritizing behavior, and (d) goal ef- of a team
SPF12 .80 Starting new conversations
ficacy. We allowed the four factors to correlate. Model 5 showed that
SPF13 .82 Ability to achieve goals
the CFI, IFI, and TLI were greater than .92, which suggested good SPF14 .72 Ability to think out and plan
model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1995). The RMSEA of .065 with a 90% confi- SPF15 .69 Ability to make good
dence interval of .059 to .071 indicated a good to fair fit (Byrne, 2001). decisions/choices
Hoelter's critical N indicated sampling adequacy (Byrne, 2001). Togeth- SPF16 .61 Ability to think on my feet
SPF17 .80 Ability to succeed
er these indices were indicative of good model fit between Model 5 and
SPF18 .76 Ability to solve problems
observed responses. All of the factor loadings were relatively high, in the SPF19 .70 Can see the order in which to
expected direction, and significant (p b .05). When interpreted together, do things
all analyses suggest that Model 5 of the SPF-24 achieved both theoreti- SPF20 .89 Plan things out
SPF21 .69 Organize my time well
cal and statistical model fit. Our findings replicated the original theoret-
SPF22 .78 Set priorities before I start
ical factor structure that included two social/interpersonal protective SPF23 .64 Do better if I set a goal
factors, social skills and social support, and two cognitive/individual SPF24 .72 Make a list of things to do in
protective factors, planning and prioritizing behavior and goal efficacy order of importance
(Ponce-Garcia et al., 2015). All model statistics are presented in Note. N = 412, SPF = Scale of Protective Factors and α = Cronbach’'s alpha. Abbreviated
Tables 4 and 5. items are presented in this table, for complete items refer to Ponce-Garcia et al. (2015).
254 A.N. Madewell, E. Ponce-Garcia / Personality and Individual Differences 97 (2016) 249–255

Table 5
Measures of Comparative Fit Indices.

Measures of fit 1 factor RS-25 1 factor RS-14 1 factor CD-RISC-25 1 factor CD-RISC-10 4 factor SPF-24

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

Discrepancy X2 1014.59 348.71 1040.56 116.09 669.75

df 252 77 252 35 246
p-value b.001 b.001 b.001 b.001 b.001
Discrepancy/df 4.026 4.529 4.129 3.317 2.723
NFI .780 .866 .742 .915 .887
RFI .759 .842 .717 .891 .873
CFI .824 .892 .790 .939 .925
IFI .825 .892 .791 .939 .925
TLI .808 .872 .770 .921 .919
RMSEA .086 .093 .087 .075 .065
Hoelter .05 118 117 115 177 175
Hoelter .01 125 129 122 204 185

Note. N = 412. Resilience Scale (RS), Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), Scale of Protective Factors (SPF), Degrees of Freedom (df), Normative of Fit Index (NFI), Relative Fit
Index (RFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and Hoelter's critical N.

reporting significant stress or trauma. The measures included two ver-
sions of the Resilience Scale (RS-25; RS-10), two versions of the
Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-25; CD-RISC-10), and the
Scale of Protective Factors (SPF-24). We expected that, of the scales,
the SPF-24 would achieve the best model fit in an EA sample. The results
supported this expectation.
The RS-25 did not achieve good model fit. The RS-14 achieved ade-
quate, but not good, model fit, which was an improvement over the
RS-25. Results indicate the use of the RS-14 over the use of the RS-25
in EA samples. The CD-RISC-25 did not achieve good model fit. The
CD-RISC-10 achieved good model fit. The results indicate the use of
the CD-RISC-10 over the use of the CD-RISC-25. The CD-RISC-10 has
clinical criteria for determining low to high resilience, while the other
scales in the present study do not. This may make the CD-RISC-10
more suited for use in some research and clinical settings. The results in-
dicated that the SPF-24 achieved good model fit including both social/
interpersonal and cognitive/individual hierarchic factors.
The internal consistency of the SPF-24 and each of the four subscales,
two social/interpersonal and two cognitive/individual hierarchic fac-
tors, were high and in the predicted direction. The results confirm past
research asserting that the RS and CD-RISC appear to assess only cogni-
tive/individual determinants of resilience to the exclusion of the social/
interpersonal determinants of resilience (Burt & Paysnick, 2012). The
social/interpersonal subscales of the SPF were statistically significantly
related to the RS-25, RS-14, CD-RISC-25, and CD-RISC-10, indicating
that the social/interpersonal subscales contribute to assessing overall
resilience. Items within the RS-14 and the CD-RISC-10 focus on self-
reliance and perseverance, which are important cognitive determinants
of resilience, as indicated in previous research (Reich et al., 2010). This
suggests that the SPF-24 is a more comprehensive measure of resilience
in EA than the RS-14 or the CD-RISC-10.
It could be argued that social and cognitive protective factors of resil-
ience may have a deleterious effect on one another as social demands
may interfere with cognitive tasks and vice-versa. However, it is more
likely that they complement one another. For example, planning behav-
ior reduces cognitive demands and aids in work/life balance, social sup-
port from peers and family is likely to aid in goal attainment, having
confidence in one's ability to attain goals is socially ingratiating, and so-
cial skills aid in one's ability to attain goals through networking (for re-
view see, Reich et al., 2010). The social subscales of the SPF-24 appear to
assess quality of social support and confidence in social skills and do not
measure quantity of friends or frequency with which an individual may
employ social skills. Similarly, the subscales of the SPF-24 measure the
level of confidence one has in attaining goals rather than ambition to-
ward achieving a high level of goals. Moreover, the SPF-24 subscales
measure whether one is able to prioritize tasks rather than the quantity
of tasks in which one chooses to engage. In these ways, the SPF-24
appears to assess mutual determinants of resilience. Ponce-Garcia
et al. (2015) found moderate inter-correlations between the subscales
in the SPF-24, which is consistent with resilience theory suggesting
that these protective factors contribute to overall resilience and are
valid in assessing resilience (Reich et al., 2010).
Research on EA is increasing in importance as more cultures are be-
ginning to recognize and support the transition to adulthood (Arnett,
2000). Because EA is a turning point in development and is fraught
with many life choices (Masten et al., 2004), the consequences of
which may persist throughout the remainder of the life span (Hankin
& Abramson, 2001), better understanding regarding how to assess and
support resilience in EA is imperative (Burt & Paysnick, 2012). The re-
sults of the present study go beyond assessment of overall resilience
during EA to aid researchers and clinicians in identifying specific deter-
minants of resilience. By utilizing the SPF-24, researchers and clinicians
are able to identify strengths and deficits that may exist in the determi-
nants of resilience. For example, an individual may achieve scores indi-
cating overall moderate resilience on any of the resilience scales that are
typically used in EA populations. An overall moderate score on a resil-
ience scale does not reveal very much, if anything, about possible
ways of increasing resilience. The SPF-24 allows individuals to identify
areas of improvement and enable the development of treatment or in-
tervention plans. Perhaps an individual has a lack of social support.
This information could be used to help the young person build social co-
hesion and improve social support in his or her daily life.
Limitations of the present study include the fact that our participants
were predominantly college students. While this is a limitation, it is im-
portant to acknowledge that one of the developmental milestones asso-
ciated with EA is educational attainment (Masten et al., 2006). This
characteristic could be viewed as an indication of positive development
given the stress and trauma exposure in our sample. Future research
using a community sample of EAs is planned. Another limitation of the
current study is that we did not obtain longitudinal data. If such data
were available, we could better validate each of the scales examined
in the present study by tracking positive and negative advancement to
adulthood. A future study is planned to examine the validity of these
scales in predicting resilient transitions to adulthood.
In summary, the results indicate that the CD-RISC-10 and the SPF-24
achieved good model fit in a sample of EA's reporting significant stress
or trauma. While the CD-RISC-10 has the benefit of clinical criteria for
indicating high versus low resilience and measures one cognitive/indi-
vidual factor, the SPF-24 measures both social/interpersonal and cogni-
tive/individual determinants of resilience. The SPF-24 may enable
clinicians and researchers to identify strengths and deficits and to
develop treatment or intervention plans designed to improve resilience.
Future research investigating resilient transition to adulthood is
planned.
 A.N. Madewell, E. Ponce-Garcia / Personality and Individual Differences 97 (2016) 249–255
References
Ahern, N. R., Kiehl, E. M., Sole, M. L., & Byers, J. (2006). A review of instruments measuring
resilience. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 29(2), 103–125. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/01460860600677643.
Aiena, B. J., Baczwaski, B. J., Schulenberg, S. E., & Buchanan, E. M. (2015). Measuring resil-
ience with the RS–14: A tale of two samples. Journal of Personality Assessment, 3,
291–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2014.951445.
Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). AMOS 4.0 users guide. Chicago, IL: Smallwaters.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens
through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1037//0003-066X.55.5.469.
Bachmann, M. S., Znoj, H., & Haemmerli, K. (2014). A longitudinal study of mental health
in emerging adults: Is there a causal relationship between mental health and the abil-
ity to satisfy one's basic needs? Swiss Journal of Psychology/Schweizerische Zeitschrift
Für Psychologie/Revue Suisse De Psychologie, 73(3), 135–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1024/1421-0185/a000132
Beckwith, S., Dickinson, A., & Kendall, S. (2008). The ‘con’ of concept analysis: A discussion
paper which explores and critiques the ontological focus, reliability and antecedents
of concept analysis frameworks. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45(18),
31–41.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A.
Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Burns, R. A., & Anstey, K. J. (2010). The Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): Test-
ing the invariance of a uni-dimensional resilience measure that is independent of
positive and negative effect. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(5), 527–531.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.026.
Burt, K. B., & Paysnick, A. A. (2012). Resilience in the transition to adulthood. Development
and Psychopathology, 24, 493–505. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S095457941000119.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications,
and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Campbell-Sills, L., & Stein, M. B. (2007). Psychometric analysis and refinement of the
Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): Validation of a 10-item measure of re-
silience. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20(6), 1019–1028. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jts.
20271.
Connor, M. K., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The
Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18, 76–82.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/da.10113.
Damasio, B. F., Borsa, J. C., & da Silva, J. P. (2011). 14-item resilience scale (RS-14): Psycho-
metric properties of the Brazilian version. Journal of Nursing Management, 19,
131–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/1061-3749.19.3.131.
Diehl, M., & Hay, E. (2010). Risk and resilience in coping with daily stress in adulthood:
The role of age, self-concept incoherence, and personal control. Developmental
Psychology, 46(5), 1132–1146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/A0019937.
Dyer, J. G., & McGuinness, T. M. (1996). Resilience: Analysis of the concept. Archives of
Psychiatric Nursing, 10(5), 276–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0883-7417(96)80036-7.
Friborg, O., Hjemdal, O., Martinussen, M., & Rosenvinge, J. (2009). Empirical support for
resilience as more than the counterpart and absence of vulnerability and symptoms
of mental disorder. Journal of Individual Differences, 30(3), 138–151. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1027/1614-0001.30.3.138.
Gardner, T. W., Dishion, T. J., & Connell, A. M. (2008). Adolescent self-regulation as resil-
ience: Resistance to antisocial behavior within the deviant peer context. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 36(2), 273–284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-007-
9176-6.
Garson, G. D. (2015). Structural equation modeling. Asheboro, NC: Statistical Associates
Publishing.
Goldstein, A. L., Faulkner, B., & Wekerle, C. (2013). The relationship among internal
resilience, smoking, alcohol use, and depression symptoms in emerging adults
transitioning out of child welfare. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37(1), 22–32. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.08.007
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Gucciardi, D. F., Jackson, B., Coulter, T. J., & Mallett, C. J. (2011). The Connor–Davidson
Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): Dimensionality and age-related measurement in-
variance with Australian cricketers. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(4), 423–433.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.02.005.
Hankin, B. L., & Abramson, L. Y. (2001). Development of gender differences in depression:
An elaborated cognitive vulnerability–transactional stress theory. Psychological
Bulletin, 127(6), 773–796. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.127.6.773.
Howard, S., & Hughes, B. M. (2012). Benefit of social support for resilience-building is con-
tingent on social context: Examining cardiovascular adaptation to recurrent stress in
women. Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An International Journal, 25(4), 411–423. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2011.640933.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation
modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Jain, S., & Cohen, A. (2013). Behavioral adaptation among youth exposed to community
violence: A longitudinal multidisciplinary study of family, peer and neighborhood-
level protective factors. Prevention Science. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11121-012-
0344-8.
Jung, Y., Min, J., Shin, A., Han, S., Lee, K., Kim, T., Park, J., Choi, S., Lee, S., Choi, S., Park, Y.,
Woo, J., Bhang, S., Kang, E., Kim, W., Yu, J., & Chae, J. (2012). The Korean Version of
the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale: An extended validation. Stress And Health:
255
Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 28(4), 319–326.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smi.1436.
Karairmak, O. (2010). Establishing the psychometric qualities of the Connor–Davidson
Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis in a
trauma survivor sample. Psychiatry Research, 179(3), 350–356. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.psychres.2009.09.012.
Khoshouei, M. (2009). Psychometric evaluation of the Connor–Davidson Resilience
Scale (CD-RISC) using Iranian students. International Journal of Testing, 9(1), 60–66.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15305050902733471.
Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiry into hardi-
ness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1–11.
Masten, A. S. (2009). Ordinary magic: Lessons from research on resilience in human de-
velopment. Education Canada, 49(3), 28–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.
56.3.227.
Masten, A. S., Burt, K. B., Roisman, G. I., Obradovic, J., Long, J. D., & Tellegen, A. (2004). Re-
sources and resilience in the transition to adulthood: Continuity and change.
Development and Psychopathology, 16, 1071–1094.
Masten, A. S., Obradović, J., & Burt, K. B. (2006). Resilience in emerging adulthood: Devel-
opmental perspectives on continuity and transformation. Emerging adults in America:
Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 173–190). Washington, DC.: American Psycho-
logical Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11381-007
Nelson, L. J., & McNamara-Barry, C. (2005). Distinguishing features of emerging adult-
hood: The role of self-classification as an adult. Journal of Adolescent Research,
20(2), 242–262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1199/0743558404273074.
Notario-Pacheco, B., Solera-Martinez, M., Serrano-Parra, M. D., Bartolome-Guttierez, R.,
Garcia-Campayo, J., & Martinez-Vizcaino, V. (2011). Reliability and validity of the
Spanish version of the 10-item Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (10-item CD-
RISC) in young adults. Health Quality of Life Outcomes, 9, 63. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1186/1477-7525-9-63.
Page, M. P., Braver, S. L., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2003). Levine's guide to SPSS for analysis of
variance (2nd ed.). Mahwah: New Jersey. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ponce-Garcia, E., Madewell, A. N., & Kennison, S. (2015). The development of the Scale of
Protective Factors (SPF): Resilience in a violent trauma sample. Violence and Victims
Journal, 31(4), 1–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-14-00163.
Portzky, M., Wagnild, G., De Bacquer, D., & Audenaert, K. (2010). Psychometric evaluation
of the Dutch resilience scale RS-nl on 3265 healthy participants: A confirmation of
the association between age and resilience found with the Swedish version.
Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 24(Suppl. 1), 86–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1111/j.1471-6712.2010.00841.x.
Pritzer, S., & Minter, A. (2014). Measuring adolescent resilience: An examination of the
cross-ethnic validity of the RS-14. Children and Youth Services Review, 44, 328–333.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.06.022.
Reich, J. W., Zautra, A. J., & Hall, J. (2010). Handbook of adult resilience. New York, NY US:
Guilford Press.
Rutter, M. (1985). Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective factors and resistance to
psychiatric disorders. British Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 598–611.
Rutter, M. (1996). Transitions and turning points in developmental psychopathology: As
applied to the age span between childhood and mid-adulthood. International Journal
of Behavioral Development, 19(3), 603–626.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points
through life. Cambridge, MS.: Harvard University Press.
Tanner, J. L., Arnett, J. J., & Leis, J. A. (2009). Emerging adulthood: Learning and develop-
ment during the first stage of adulthood, Chapter 2. In M. C. Smith, & N. DeFrates-
Densch (Eds.), Handbook of research on adult development and learning (pp. 34–67).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Van Vugt, E., Lanctôt, N., Paquette, G., Collin-Vézina, D., & Lemieux, A. (2014). Girls in res-
idential care: From child maltreatment to trauma-related symptoms in emerging
adulthood. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38(1), 114–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
chiabu.2013.10.015
Wagnild, G. M., & Collins, J. A. (2009). Assessing resilience. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing
and Mental Health Services, 47(12), 28–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/02793695-
20091103-01.
Wagnild, G. M., & Quinn, P. (2011). The Resilience Scale user's guide for the US English ver-
sion of the Resilience Scale and the 14-item Resilience Scale, 128.
Wagnild, G. M., & Young, H. M. (1993). Development and psychometric evaluation of the
Resiliency Scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 1(2), 165–178.
Wang, L., Shi, Z., Zhang, Y., & Zhang, Z. (2010). Psychometric properties of the 10-item
Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale in Chinese earthquake victims. Psychiatry and
Clinical Neurosciences, 64, 499–504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1819.2010.
02130.x.
Wills, T. A., & Bantum, E. (2012). Social support, self-regulation, and resilience in two pop-
ulations: General-population adolescents and adult cancer survivors. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 31(6), 568–592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2012.31.6.568.
Windle, G. (2011). What is resilience? A review and concept analysis. Review in Clinical
Gerontology, 21(2), 152–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0959259810000420.
Windle, G., Bennett, K. M., & Noyes, J. (2011). A methodological review of resilience mea-
surement scales. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 9(8), 1–18.
Wolfe, J., & Kimerling, R. (1997). Gender issues in the assessment of posttraumatic stress dis-
order. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press, xiv (577 pp.).
Yang, Y., Li, M., & Xia, Y. (2012). Measurement invariance of the Resilience Scale. The
International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 11(2), 1–19.