The Treatment of Acquiescence and the Factorial Structure of the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) in Mexican and Chilean University Students

  • Carlos Alejandro Hidalgo-Rasmussen Unversidad de Guadalajara, México; Universidad de Playa Ancha, Chile
  • Fabiola González-Betanzos Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo
Keywords: Resiliency, Acquiescence, Confirmatory factor analysis, Cross-validation, University students


The aim of this study was to evaluate the factorial structure of the Spanish version of Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) considering the acquiescence bias (tendency to respond for one side of the scale) in a large sample of Mexican university students (N=1572) and a cross-validation of the same models with Chilean university students (N=1345). Six models are compared using Factorial Confirmatory Analysis, in three of them different method factors are used to treat acquiescence. The results show that in Mexican students a better fit is observed in these models especially in the model of a general factor called Resilience that has two factors of method (c2 =32.22, gl=7, p < .001, NFI= .98, GFI = .99, RMSEA = .048), while in the Chilean students the models that do not use factors to deal with acquiescence are the ones of better fit, specifically the models of two correlated factors and also the model to which a factor of second order is added (c2 =34.66, gl=8, p < .001, NFI= .98, GFI = .99, RMSEA = .05). The acquiescence affects each of the samples used differently, so it is important to analyze the presence of response styles associated with acquiescence.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Carlos Alejandro Hidalgo-Rasmussen, Unversidad de Guadalajara, México; Universidad de Playa Ancha, Chile
Profesor Investigador 

Responsable del Centro de Investigación en Riesgos y Calidad de Vida (CIRCAV)


Miembro del Sistema Nacional de Investigadores

Profesor Investigador

Departamento de Promoción, Preservación y Desarrollo de la Salud

División de Ciencias de la Salud

Centro Universitario del Sur

Universidad de Guadalajara

Tel of 52-341-5752222 ext 46114


Risk and Quality of Life Research Center Responsable

Fabiola González-Betanzos, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo

Facultad de Psicología

Profesor Investigador 


Abad, F. J., Sorrel, M. A., Garcia, L. F., & Aluja, A. (2016). Modeling General, Specific, and Method Variance in Personality Measures Results for ZKA-PQ and NEO-PI-R. Assessment. doi:10.1177/1073191116667547.

Anderson, D. R., Burnham, K. P., & White, G. C. (1998). Comparison of Akaike information criterion and consistent Akaike information criterion for model selection and statistical inference from capture-recapture studies. Journal of Applied Statistics, 25(2), 263-282.

Amat, S., Subhan, M., Jaafar, W.M.W., Mahmud, Z., & Johari, K.S.K. (2014). Evaluation and Psychometric Status of the Brief Resilience Scale in a Sample of Malaysian International Students. Asian Social Science, 10, 240-245. doi: 10.5539/ass.v10n18p240

Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238

Benson, J., & Hocevar, D. (1985). The impact of item phrasing on the validity of attitude scales for elementary school children. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22(3), 231-240. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1985.tb01061.x

Biderman, M. D., Nguyen, N. T., Cunningham, C. J., & Ghorbani, N. (2011). The ubiquity of common method variance: The case of the Big Five. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(5), 417-429.

Billiet, J. B., & McClendon, M. J. (2000). Modeling acquiescence in measurement models for two balanced sets of items. Structural equation modeling: A multidisciplinary Journal, 7(4), 608-628. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0704_5

Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.

Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage publications.

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural equation modeling, 9(2), 233-255. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

Condon, L., Ferrando, P. J., & Demestre, J. (2006). A note on some item characteristics related to acquiescent responding. Personality and individual differences, 40(3), 403-407.

Danner, D., Aichholzer, J., & Rammstedt, B. (2015). Acquiescence in personality questionnaires: Relevance, domain specificity, and stability. Journal of Research in Personality, 57, 119-130. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2015.05.004

Ferrando, P. J., & Lorenzo‐Seva, U. (2010). Acquiescence as a source of bias and model and person misfit: A theoretical and empirical analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63(2), 427-448. doi: 10.1348/000711009X470740

Hu, L. & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118

Leontjevas, R., de Beek, W. O., Lataster, J. & Jacobs, N. (2014). Resilience to affective disorders: A comparative validation of two resilience scales. Journal of affective Disorders, 168, 262-268. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2014.07.010

Meade, A. W., Johnson, E. C., & Braddy, P. W. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of applied psychology, 93(3), 568. Retrieved from:

Rodríguez-Rey, R; Alonso-Tapia, J; Hernansaiz-Garrido, H. (2016). Reliability and validity of the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) Spanish Version. Psychological Assessment, 28, 5, e101-e110. doi: 10.1037/pas0000191

Savalei, V., & Falk, C. F. (2014). Recovering substantive factor loadings in the presence of acquiescence bias: A comparison of three approaches. Multivariate behavioral research, 49(5), 407-424. doi: 10.1080/00273171.2014.931800

Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggings, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The brief resilience scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15, 194-200. doi: 10.1080/10705500802222972

Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980, May). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. In annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA (Vol. 758, pp. 424-453).

Tomás, J. M., Galiana, L., Hontangas, P., Oliver, A., & Sancho, P. (2013). Evidencia acumulada sobre los efectos de método asociado a ítems invertidos. [Evidence accumulated on the effects of method associated with inverted items. Psicológica, 34, 365-381. Recuperado de:

Vautier, S., & Pohl, S. (2009). Do balanced scales assess bipolar constructs? The case of the STAI scales. Psychological Assessment, 21(2), 187. doi: 10.1037/a0015312

Weijters, B., Geuens, M., & Schillewaert, N. (2010a). The stability of individual response styles. Psychological methods, 15(1), 96. doi: 10.1037/a0018721

Weijters, B., Geuens, M., & Schillewaert, N. (2010b). The individual consistency of acquiescence and extreme response style in self-report questionnaires. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34(2), 105-121. doi: 10.1177/0146621609338593

Windle, G. Bennett, K.M., & Noyes, J. (2011). A methodological review of resilience measurement scales. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 9, 8. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-9-8

How to Cite
Hidalgo-Rasmussen, C. A., & González-Betanzos, F. (2018). The Treatment of Acquiescence and the Factorial Structure of the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) in Mexican and Chilean University Students. Anales De Psicología / Annals of Psychology, 35(1), 26-32.
Clinical and Health Psychology