Articles In Press / Online First
Back to the articles list |
Back to browse issues page
1- Exercise and Sports Science Programme, School of Health Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kelantan, Malaysia.
2- Biostatistics and Research Methodology Unit, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kelantan, Malaysia.
3- Department of Physical and Health Education, Institute of Teacher Education Batu Lintang Campus, Kuching, Malaysia.
4- Exercise and Sports Science Programme, School of Health Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kelantan, Malaysia. , garry@usm.my
2- Biostatistics and Research Methodology Unit, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kelantan, Malaysia.
3- Department of Physical and Health Education, Institute of Teacher Education Batu Lintang Campus, Kuching, Malaysia.
4- Exercise and Sports Science Programme, School of Health Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kelantan, Malaysia. , garry@usm.my
Abstract: (378 Views)
Background. Psychological resilience is the ability to cope with stress and is related to mental health. Assessing the psychological resilience of university students is important for formulating effective health promotion strategies to enhance their well-being and health.
Objectives. This study aimed to validate the Five-by-Five Resilience Scale (5×5RS) in the Chinese context using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
Methods. A cross-sectional study was carried out among 705 university students, with a mean age of 19.73 (SD=1.56) years. The scale was translated into Chinese using standard forward and backward translation procedures. CFA was conducted using Mplus 8.3 software.
Results. The hypothetical five-factor model was supported by the CFA after removing 9 items and adding correction lines to the residuals of the same factor (RMSEA=0.055, CFI=0.926, TLI=0.901, SRMR=0.065). The Cronbach's alpha values and the composite reliability for the subscales ranged from 0.638~0.784 and 0.639~0.786, respectively.
Conclusion. The Chinese version of the 5×5RS was considered valid and reliable to assess the psychological resilience among Chinese university students.
Objectives. This study aimed to validate the Five-by-Five Resilience Scale (5×5RS) in the Chinese context using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
Methods. A cross-sectional study was carried out among 705 university students, with a mean age of 19.73 (SD=1.56) years. The scale was translated into Chinese using standard forward and backward translation procedures. CFA was conducted using Mplus 8.3 software.
Results. The hypothetical five-factor model was supported by the CFA after removing 9 items and adding correction lines to the residuals of the same factor (RMSEA=0.055, CFI=0.926, TLI=0.901, SRMR=0.065). The Cronbach's alpha values and the composite reliability for the subscales ranged from 0.638~0.784 and 0.639~0.786, respectively.
Conclusion. The Chinese version of the 5×5RS was considered valid and reliable to assess the psychological resilience among Chinese university students.
Full-Text [PDF 360 kb]
(75 Downloads)
APPLICABLE REMARKS
APPLICABLE REMARKS
- This study provides evidence that the 5×5RS-C has sufficient reliability and validity to assess the psychological resilience of Chinese university students.
- The 5×5RS-C has five factors (adaptability, emotion regulation, optimism, self-efficacy, social support) and 16 items, it is recommended as a tool to assess psychological resilience.
Type of Study: Original Article |
Subject:
Sport Psychology and its Related Branches
Received: 2023/10/2 | Accepted: 2024/01/7
Received: 2023/10/2 | Accepted: 2024/01/7
References
1. 1. Shi L, Sun J, Wei D, Qiu J. Recover from the adversity: functional connectivity basis of psychological resilience. Neuropsychologia. 2019; 122:20-27. [DOI:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.12.002] [PMID]
2. Giri SP, Maurya AK. A neglected reality of mass media during COVID-19: Effect of pandemic news on individual's positive and negative emotion and psychological resilience. Pers Individ Dif. 2021; 180:110962. [DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2021.110962] [PMID] []
3. Ranjbar S, Akbarnejad A, Alizadeh A, Fadakar A. Is Mental Toughness Related with Motor Learning in Wrestling? Int J Sport Stud Health. 2022;5(2):e133845. [DOI:10.5812/intjssh-133845]
4. Khosla M. Resilience and health: Implications for interventions and policy making. Psychol Stud. 2017; 62(3):233-240. [DOI:10.1007/s12646-017-0415-9]
5. Wagnild GM, Young HM. D Development and psychometric evaluation of the Resilience Scale. J Nurs Meas. 1993; 1(2):165-178.
6. Connor KM, Davidson JR. Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor‐Davidson resilience scale (CD‐RISC). Depress Anxiety. 2003; 18(2):76-82. [DOI:10.1002/da.10113] [PMID]
7. Friborg O, Hjemdal O, Rosenvinge JH, Martinussen M. A new rating scale for adult resilience: what are the central protective resources behind healthy adjustment? Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2003; 12(2), 65-76. [DOI:10.1002/mpr.143] [PMID] []
8. Smith BW, Dalen J, Wiggins KS, Tooley E, Christopher P, Bernard J. The brief resilience scale: assessing the ability to bounce back. Int J Behav Med. 2008; 15(3):194-200. [DOI:10.1080/10705500802222972] [PMID]
9. Klohnen EC. Conceptual analysis and measurement of the construct of ego-resiliency. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996; 70(5): 1067-1079. [DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.1067] [PMID]
10. Karatsoreos IN, McEwen BS. Annual research review: The neurobiology and physiology of resilience and adaptation across the life course. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2013; 54(4):337-347. [DOI:10.1111/jcpp.12054] [PMID]
11. Sagone E, De Caroli ME, Falanga R, Indiana ML. Resilience and perceived self-efficacy in life skills from early to late adolescence. Int J Adolesc Youth. 2020; 25(1):882-890. [DOI:10.1080/02673843.2020.1771599]
12. Tugade MM, Fredrickson BL. Regulation of positive emotions: Emotion regulation strategies that promote resilience. J Happiness Stud. 2007; 8(3):311-333. [DOI:10.1007/s10902-006-9015-4]
13. Windle G, Bennett KM, Noyes J. A methodological review of resilience measurement scales. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011; 9(8):1-18. [DOI:10.1186/1477-7525-9-8] [PMID] []
14. DeSimone JA, Harms PD, Vanhove AJ, Herian MN. Development and validation of the five-by-five resilience scale. Assessment. 2016; 24(6):778-797. [DOI:10.1177/1073191115625803] [PMID]
15. Brislin RW. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J Cross Cult Psychol. 1970; 1(3):185-216. [DOI:10.1177/135910457000100301]
16. DeVon HA, Block ME, Moyle-Wright P, Ernst DM, Hayden SJ, Lazzara DJ, Savoy SM, Kostas-Polston E. A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2007;39(2):155-64. [DOI:10.1111/j.1547-5069.2007.00161.x] [PMID]
17. Hair J, Black W, Babin B. Anderson. RE. Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2010.
18. Taber KS. The use of Cronbach's alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Res Sci Educ. 2018; 48(6):1273-1296. [DOI:10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2]
19. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981; 18(1):39-50.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312 [DOI:10.1177/002224378101800104]
20. Kline RB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling. New York: Guilford Publications. NY. 2015.
21. Mason J, Classen S, Wersal J, Sisiopiku V. Construct validity and test-retest reliability of the automated vehicle user perception survey. Front Psychol. 2021; 12:626791. [DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.626791] [PMID] []
22. Jackson DL, Gillaspy Jr JA, Purc-Stephenson R. Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: an overview and some recommendations. Psychol Methods. 2009; 14(1):6-23. [DOI:10.1037/a0014694] [PMID]
23. Bollen KA. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley. NY. 1989. [DOI:10.1002/9781118619179] []
24. Sabo A, Kueh YC, Kuan G. Psychometric properties of the Malay version of the self-efficacy for exercise scale. PloS One. 2019; 14(5):e0215698. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0215698] [PMID] []
25. Chai S, Kueh YC, Yaacob NM, Kuan, G. Psychometric properties of the Malay version of the Behavioural Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire (BREQ-3). PLoS ONE. 2022; 17(6): e0269099. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0269099] [PMID] []
26. Kuan G, Kueh YC, Abdullah N, Tai ELM. Psychometric properties of the health-promoting lifestyle profile II: cross-cultural validation of the Malay language version. BMC Public Health. 2019; 19:751-760. [DOI:10.1186/s12889-019-7109-2] [PMID] []
27. Kueh YC, Sabo A, Kim YH, Kuan G. (2021). Cross-cultural validation of the decisional balance scale in exercise across countries. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(9): e0257511. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0257511] [PMID] []
28. Raykov T. Coefficient alpha and composite reliability with interrelated nonhomogeneous items. Appl Psychol Meas. 1998; 22(4):375-385. [DOI:10.1177/014662169802200407]
29. Koch T, Schultze M, Eid M, Geiser C. A longitudinal multilevel CFA-MTMM model for interchangeable and structurally different methods. Front Psychol. 2014; 5:311. [DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00311] [PMID] []
30. Gao SQ, Ding YL, Tian DL. Research on the Gender Differences in Higher Education Opportunities in China. Education and Examinations. 2019; (06):80-84.
31. Brewer M, van Kessel G, Sanderson B, Carter, A. Enhancing student resilience by targeting staff resilience, attitudes and practices. High Educ Res Dev. 2022; 41(4):1013-1027. [DOI:10.1080/07294360.2021.1877622]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
