Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation to Chilean Youth People of Brief Resilience Scale (BRS)
Abstract
The study of resilience as recovery from stress has been extended, and it is necessary to account for the development and psychometric properties of the scales that allow it to be used. The aim was to report on the cross-cultural adaptation process and psychometric properties of the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) in young Chilean population. In 2016, three translators, and 1,237 students between 18 and 24 years old from a university in the Fifth Region of Chile participated. Linguistic and conceptual equivalence was achieved after carried out a double translation, back-translation and cognitive interviews with the target population. Difficulties were observed in item 2. From the Exploratory Factor Analysis, two factors emerged. In the Confirmatory Factorial Analysis, the fit indexes were suitable: χ2 = 9.256(6), p = .160; CFI = .995; TLI = .988; RMSEA = .035 CI 90% [.000, .076]. Total omega was .81. The stability per item was moderate; and high for the total score. Means were generally lower in women than in men but similar among age groups. It has evidence for concurrent and convergent validity. The BRS Chilean version might be useful for measuring resilience in young Chileans.
Downloads
References
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(18), 240–245. doi: 10.5539/ass.v10n18p240
Appelbaum, M., Cooper, H., Kline, R. B., Mayo-Wilson, E., Nezu, A. M., & Rao, S. M. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 3–25. doi: 10.1037/amp0000191
Bauhoff, S. (2014). Self-Report Bias in Estimating Cross-Sectional and Treatment Effects. In Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research (pp. 5798–5800). doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_4046
Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the Process of Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Self-Report Measures. SPINE, 25(24), 3186–3191.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.107.2.238
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258. doi: 10.1177/0049124192021002005
Carver, C. S. (1998). Resilience and Thriving: Issues, Models, and Linkages. Journal of Social Issues, 54(2), 245–266. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.641998064
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2000). Measuring Healthy Days. Recuperado el 13 de marzo de 2017, de https://www.cdc.gov/hrqol/pdfs/mhd.pdf
Chen, F. F., Hayes, A., Carver, C. S., Laurenceau, J.-P., & Zhang, Z. (2012). Modeling General and Specific Variance in Multifaceted Constructs: A Comparison of the Bifactor Model to Other Approaches. Journal of Personality, 80(1), 219–251. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00739.x
Fleiss, J. L. (1986). The Design and Analysis of Clinical Experiments. doi: 10.1002/9781118032923
Green, S. B., & Yang, Y. (2015). Evaluation of Dimensionality in the Assessment of Internal Consistency Reliability: Coefficient Alpha and Omega Coefficients. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 34(4), 14–20. doi: 10.1111/emip.12100
Hidalgo-Rasmussen, C. A., & González-Betanzos, F. (2019). El tratamiento de la Aquiescencia y la Estructura Factorial de la Escala Breve de Resiliencia (BRS) en estudiantes universitarios mexicanos y chilenos. Anales de Psicología, 35(1), 26–32. doi: 10.6018/analesps.35.1.297781
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
Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199–218. doi: 10.1086/376806
Lai, J. C. L., & Yue, X. (2014). Using the Brief Resilience Scale to Assess Chinese People’s Ability to Bounce Back From Stress. SAGE Open, 4(4), 9. doi: 10.1177/2158244014554386
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., … de Vet, H. C. W. (2010). The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(7), 737–745. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006
Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1995). Teoría psicométrica (3ra ed.). México DF: McGraw-Hill.
Perry, R. P., Hall, N. C., & Ruthig, J. C. (2005). Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (J. C. Smart, Ed.). doi: 10.1007/1-4020-3279-X
Raykov, T. (2004). Point and Interval Estimation of Reliability for Multiple-Component Measuring Instruments via Linear Constraint Covariance Structure Modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 342–356. doi: 10.1207/s15328007sem1103_3
Reise, S. P. (2012). The Rediscovery of Bifactor Measurement Models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(5), 667–696. doi: 10.1080/00273171.2012.715555
Rios, J., & Wells, C. (2014). Validity evidence based on internal structure. Psicothema, 26(1), 108–116. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2013.260
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
Saavedra, E., & Villalta, M. (2008). Escala de resiliencia SV-RES, para jóvenes y adultos. Santiago: CEANIM.
Sanders, J., Munford, R., Thimasarn-Anwar, T., Liebenberg, L., & Ungar, M. (2015). The role of positive youth development practices in building resilience and enhancing wellbeing for at-risk youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 42, 40–53. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.02.006
Saxena, S., Carlson, D., & Billington, R. (2001). The WHO quality of life assessment instrument (WHOQOL-Bref): the importance of its items for cross-cultural research. Quality of Life Research, 10(8), 711–721. Recuperado de: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11871592
Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The brief resilience scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15(3), 194–200. doi: 10.1080/10705500802222972
Smith, B. W., Tooley, E. M., Christopher, P. J., & Kay, V. S. (2010). Resilience as the ability to bounce back from stress: A neglected personal resource? The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(3), 194–200. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2010.482186
Valderas, J. M., Ferrer, M., Mendívil, J., Garin, O., Rajmil, L., Herdman, M., & Alonso, J. (2008). Development of EMPRO: A Tool for the Standardized Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. Value Health, 11(4), 700–708. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00309.x
Vanderbilt-Adriance, E., & Shaw, D. S. (2008). Conceptualizing and Re-Evaluating Resilience Across Levels of Risk, Time, and Domains of Competence. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 11(1–2), 30–58. doi: 10.1007/s10567-008-0031-2
Windle, G., Bennett, K. M., & Noyes, J. (2011). A methodological review of resilience measurement scales. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 9(1), 8. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-9-8
Zinbarg, R. E., Revelle, W., Yovel, I., & Li, W. (2005). Cronbach’s α, Revelle’s β, and Mcdonald’s ωH: their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70(1), 123–133. doi: 10.1007/s11336-003-0974-7
Copyright (c) 2021 Servicio de Publicaciones, University of Murcia (Spain)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The works published in this journal are subject to the following terms:
1. The Publications Service of the University of Murcia (the publisher) retains the property rights (copyright) of published works, and encourages and enables the reuse of the same under the license specified in paragraph 2.
© Servicio de Publicaciones, Universidad de Murcia, 2022
2. The works are published in the online edition of the journal under a Creative Commons Reconocimiento-CompartirIgual 4.0 (legal text). You can copy, use, distribute, transmit and publicly display, provided that: i) you cite the author and the original source of publication (journal, editorial and URL of the work), ii) are not used for commercial purposes, iii ) mentions the existence and specifications of this license.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
3. Conditions of self-archiving. Is allowed and encouraged the authors to disseminate electronically pre-print versions (version before being evaluated and sent to the journal) and / or post-print (version reviewed and accepted for publication) of their works before publication, as it encourages its earliest circulation and diffusion and thus a possible increase in its citation and scope between the academic community. RoMEO Color: Green.
