Measuring Resilience in Long-term Sick-listed Individuals: Validation of the Resilience Scale for Adults.
Martin Inge Standal, Odin Hjemdal, Vegard Stolsmo Foldal and 4 others
PMID 36971989WHAT IT FOUND
The Resilience Scale for Adults works in long-term sick-listed workers, but only if one item is moved to the family cohesion subscale.
Scores cannot be directly compared to students because sick-listed individuals interpret some items differently.
Key findings
01The original six-factor structure did not reach acceptable fit, but moving item 23 from social resources to family cohesion improved model fit to acceptable levels.
02Full scalar invariance was not supported, meaning direct comparisons of mean subscale scores between long-term sick-listed individuals and other samples may be biased.
03Resilience scores were negatively correlated with anxiety and depression, and showed incremental validity in predicting depressive symptoms beyond anxiety alone.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study is cross-sectional, so it cannot show if resilience actually predicts return-to-work outcomes. The student sample was recruited via convenience sampling, which may not represent the general population well. Only 15% of eligible sick-listed individuals participated, raising concerns about selection bias. The adjusted factor structure may not generalize to other populations because it was derived using modification indices specific to these samples.
Declared interests
Funded by the Research Council of Norway and NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology. No other conflicts of interest reported.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret a low resilience score in a sick-listed patient as an absolute deficit compared to a healthy person. The lack of scalar invariance means the starting point for scoring differs between groups, so scores are only meaningful when compared within the sick-listed population or against appropriate norms.