Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cross-sectional study examining psychometric properties of the Slovenian version of the 14-item Resilience Scale (RS-14-SL)

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Resilience has become an important concept in health research, addressing mental health outcomes. The purpose of this study was to translate, adapt, and evaluate psychometric properties of the Slovenian version of the 14-item Resilience Scale (RS-14), using a sample of general population and cancer survivors.

Methods

The original version of the RS-14 was first back-translated and pilot tested. The factor structure was assessed with an exploratory analysis and confirmed with a confirmatory analysis. To assess reliability, internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) and test–retest (ICC, t student test) were determined. Measurement validity was assessed with demographic (age and gender) and psychological characteristics (symptoms of anxiety and depression and health-related quality of life).

Results

An exploratory factor analysis revealed one-factor solution in both samples and the fit indexes showed an acceptable model fit. Internal consistency showed excellent values (0.91–0.96), and test–retest reliability was found to be acceptable (ICC = 0.89). Significant correlations were found between RS-14 and anxiety and depression HADS subscales in Sample 1 (r = − 0.62, − 0.72 for anxiety and depression) and Sample 2 (r = − 0.43, r = − 0.51 for anxiety and depression) and the majority of EQ-5D subscales (usual activities, pain, anxiety/depression).

Conclusion

The study showed that the Slovenian version of the RS-14 test scores is valid and stable.

Trial registration number:

0120–25/2019/6

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

References

  1. Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and psychopathology., 2(4), 425–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Pietrzak, R. H., Tracy, M., Galea, S., Kilpatrick, D. G., Ruggiero, K. J., Hamblen, J. L., Southwick, S. M., & Norris, F. H. (2012). Resilience in the face of disaster: Prevalence and longitudinal course of mental disorders following hurricane Ike. PLoS ONE, 7(6), e38964. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038964.PubMedPMID:22761716;PMCID:PMC3383685

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Ssenyonga, J., Owens, V., & Olema, D. K. (2013). Posttraumatic growth, resilience, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among refugees. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences., 82, 144–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ahn, R. L. (1991). Development and validation of the Washington resilience scale. University of Washington.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The connor-davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18(2), 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.10113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wagnild, G. M., & Young, H. M. (1993). Development and psychometric evaluation of the resilience scale. J Nursing Measurement, 1(2), 165–178.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Wagnild, G. M. (2009). The resilience scale user’s guide for the US English version of the resilience scale and the 14-item resilience scale (RS-14). Worden, MT: The Resilience Center.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Smith-Osborne, A., & Whitehill, B. K. (2013). Assessing resilience: A review of measures across the life course. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 10(2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/15433714.2011.597305

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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(1), 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2010.00841.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Madewell, A. N., Ponce-Garcia, E., & Martin, S. E. (2016). Data replicating the factor structure and reliability of commonly used measures of resilience: The Connor-Davidson resilience scale, resilience scale, and scale of protective factors. Data in Brief, 8, 1387–1390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2016.08.001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Wagnild, G. M. (2009). The Resilience Scale User’s Guide for the US English Version of the Resilience Scale and the 14-Item Reselience Scale (RS-14). The Resilience Center.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nishi, D., Uehara, R., Kondo, M., & Matsuoka, Y. (2010). Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Resilience Scale and its short version. BMC Research Notes, 3, 310. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-3-310

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Abiola, T., & Udofia, O. (2011). Psychometric assessment of the Wagnild and Young’s Resilience Scale in Kano. Nigeria. BMC Res Notes, 4, 509. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-4-509

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Callegari, C., Bertu, L., Lucano, M., Ielmini, M., Braggio, E., & Vender, S. (2016). Reliability and validity of the Italian version of the 14-item Resilience Scale. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 9, 277–284. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S115657

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Pinheiro, M. R., & Matos, A. P. (2013). Exploring the construct validity of the two versions of the Resilience Scale in an Portuguese adolescent sample. The European Journal of Social & Behavioural Sciences, 2(10), 178–189.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Oliveira, A., Matos, A. P., do Rosário Pinheiro, M., & Oliveira, S. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis of the resilience scale short form in a portuguese adolescent sample. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 165, 260–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pritzker, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Losoi, H., Turunen, S., Wäljas, M., Helminen, M., Öhman, J., Julkunen, J., & Rosti-Otajärvi, E. (2013). Psychometric properties of the Finnish version of the Resilience Scale and its short version. Psychology, Community & Health, 2(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Tian, J., & Hong, J. S. (2013). Validation of the Chinese version of the resilience scale and its cutoff score for detecting low resilience in Chinese cancer patients. Supportive Care in Cancer, 21(5), 1497–1502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-012-1699-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Damasio, B. F., Borsa, J. C., & da Silva, J. P. (2011). 14-item resilience scale (RS-14): Psychometric properties of the Brazilian version. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 19(3), 131–145.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kwon, H. J., & Kwon, S. J. (2014). Korean version of the 14-item resilience scale (RS-14) for university students: A validity and reliability study. Journal of Korean Academy of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 23(4), 226–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bhamani, M. A., Khan, M. M., Karim, M. S., & Mir, M. U. (2015). Depression and its association with functional status and physical activity in the elderly in Karachi Pakistan. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 14, 46–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2014.12.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Aiena, B. J., Baczwaski, B. J., Schulenberg, S. E., & Buchanan, E. M. (2015). Measuring resilience with the RS-14: A tale of two samples. Journal of Personality Assessment, 97(3), 291–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2014.951445

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bhamani, S. S., Pasha, O., Karmaliani, R., Asad, N., & Azam, I. (2015). Validation of the urdu version of wagnild and young’s long and short resilience scales among 20–40 year-old married women living in urban squatter settlements of Karachi Pakistan. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 23(3), 425–435. https://doi.org/10.1891/1061-3749.23.3.425

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Zadnik, V., Primic Zakelj, M., Lokar, K., Jarm, K., Ivanus, U., & Zagar, T. (2017). Cancer burden in slovenia with the time trends analysis. Radiology and Oncology, 51(1), 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1515/raon-2017-0008

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Bowen, D. J., Morasca, A. A., & Meischke, H. (2003). Measures and correlates of resilience. Women and Health, 38(2), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1300/J013v38n02_05

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rowland, J. H., & Baker, F. (2005). Introduction: Resilience of cancer survivors across the lifespan. Cancer, 104(S11), 2543–2548.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Stewart, D. E., Wong, F., Duff, S., Melancon, C. H., & Cheung, A. M. (2011). “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”: An ovarian cancer survivor survey. Gynecologic oncology., 83(3), 537–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Manne, S. L., Myers-Virtue, S., Kashy, D., Ozga, M., Kissane, D., Heckman, C., Rubin, S. C., & Rosenblum, N. (2015). Resilience, positive coping, and quality of life among women newly diagnosed with gynecological cancers. Cancer Nursing, 38(5), 375–382. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCC.0000000000000215

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Gotay, C. C., Ransom, S., & Pagano, I. S. (2007). Quality of life in survivors of multiple primary cancers compared with cancer survivor controls. Cancer, 110(9), 2101–2109. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kamen, C., Jabson, J. M., Mustian, K. M., & Boehmer, U. (2017). Minority stress, psychosocial resources, and psychological distress among sexual minority breast cancer survivors. Health Psychology, 36(6), 529–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000465

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (second edition). Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Paiva, C. E., Barroso, E. M., Carneseca, E. C., de Padua, S. C., Dos Santos, F. T., Mendoza Lopez, R. V., & Ribeiro Paiva, S. B. (2014). A critical analysis of test-retest reliability in instrument validation studies of cancer patients under palliative care: A systematic review. BMC Medical Research Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Annunziata, M. A., Muzzatti, B., Bidoli, E., Flaiban, C., Bomben, F., Piccinin, M., Gipponi, K. M., Mariutti, G., Busato, S., & Mella, S. (2020). Hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) accuracy in cancer patients. Supportive Care in Cancer, 28(8), 3921–3926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-05244-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Zigmond, A. S., & Snaith, R. P. (1983). The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scand., 67(6), 361–370.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Miklavcic, I. V., Snoj, Z., Mlakar, J., & Pregelj, P. (2008). Validation of the Slovenian version of hospital anxiety and depression scale in female cancer patients. Psychiatria Danubina., 20(2), 148–152.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. EuroQol, G. (1990). EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Turk, E., Rupel, V. P., Tapajner, A., & Isola, A. (2014). Reliability and validity of the audit on diabetes-dependent quality of life (ADDQoL) and EQ-5D in elderly Slovenian diabetes mellitus type 2 patients. Health. https://doi.org/10.4236/health.2014.68091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Bell, M. L., Fairclough, D. L., Fiero, M. H., & Butow, P. N. (2016). Handling missing items in the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS): A simulation study. BMC Research Notes, 9(1), 479. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-016-2284-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Stewart, R. C., Umar, E., Tomenson, B., & Creed, F. (2014). Validation of the multi-dimensional scale of perceived social support (MSPSS) and the relationship between social support, intimate partner violence and antenatal depression in Malawi. BMC Psychiatry, 14, 180. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-14-180

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, P. E., & Savalei, V. (2012). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 354–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029315

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Hashim, C. G., Taib, N. A., Yoon, H. J., Larkin, D., Yip, D., & Lopez, V. (2021). Psychometric assessment of the malay version of the 14-item resilience scale (RS-14) in women with breast cancer. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 29(1), E18–E38. https://doi.org/10.1891/JNM-D-19-00068

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Mirosevic, S., Klemenc-Ketis, Z., & Selic, P. (2019). The 14-item resilience scale as a potential screening tool for depression/anxiety and quality of life assessment: a systematic review of current research. Family Practice, 36(3), 262–268. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmy081

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. McNeish, D., & Wolf, M. G. (2021). Dynamic fit index cutoffs for confirmatory factor analysis models. Psychological Methods. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000425

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Peugh, J., & Feldon, D. F. (2020). “How Well Does Your Structural Equation Model Fit Your Data?”: Is Marcoulides and Yuan’s Equivalence Test the Answer? CBE—Life Sciences Education. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.20-01-0016

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. van de Schoot, R., Kluytmans, A., Tummers, L., Lugtig, P., Hox, J., & Muthen, B. (2013). Facing off with scylla and charybdis: A comparison of scalar, partial, and the novel possibility of approximate measurement invariance. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 770. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00770

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Cheung, G. W. R. B. R. (2009). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., & de Vet, H. C. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Dancey, C. P., & Reidy, J. (2007). Statistics without maths for psychology. Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Akoglu, H. (2018). User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turk J Emerg Med., 18(3), 91–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociol Methods Res, 44(3), 486–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Ntountoulaki, E., Paika, V., Kotsis, K., Papaioannou, D., Andreoulakis, E., Fountoulakis, K. N., Carvalho, A. F., & Hyphantis, T. (2017). The Greek version of the Resilience Scale (RS-14): Psychometric properties in three samples and associations with mental illness, suicidality, and quality of life. Journal of Psychology and Clinical Psychiatry, 7, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Surzykiewicz, J., Konaszewski, K., & Wagnild, G. (2018). Polish version of the resilience scale (RS-14): A validity and reliability study in three samples. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2762. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02762

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Pascoe, L., Aziz Rahman, M., Edvardsson, K., Jokwiro, Y., McDonald, E., Lood, Q., Edvardsson, D., & Li, X. (2018). Psychometric evaluation of the English version 14-item resilience scale (RS) in an Australian outpatient population of men with prostate cancer. European Journal of Oncology Nursing, 35, 73–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2018.06.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Liu, Q., & Wang, L. (2021). t-Test and ANOVA for data with ceiling and/or floor effects. Behavior Research Methods, 53(1), 264–277. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01407-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Cuoco, S., Carotenuto, I., Cappiello, A., Bisogno, R., Picillo, M., Pellecchia, M. T., Barone, P., & Erro, R. (2021). Reliability and validity of the novel Italian version of the 14-item resilience scale (RS-14) in adults. Neurological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10072-021-05784-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Gao, Y., Yuan, L., Pan, B., & Wang, L. (2019). Resilience and associated factors among Chinese patients diagnosed with oral cancer. BMC Cancer, 19(1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Costanzo, E. S., Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. H. (2009). Psychosocial adjustment among cancer survivors: Findings from a national survey of health and well-being. Health Psychology, 28(2), 147.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Wu, H., & Leung, S. O. (2017). Can Likert scales be treated as interval scales?—a simulation study. Journal of Social Service Research, 4, 527–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Winsett, R. P., Stender, S. R., Gower, G., & Burghen, G. A. (2010). Adolescent self-efficacy and resilience in participants attending a diabetes camp. Pediatric Nursing, 36(6), 293–296.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Thomas, L. J., & Asselin, M. (2018). Promoting resilience among nursing students in clinical education. Nurse Education in Practice, 28, 231–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2017.10.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Rutter, M. (2013). Annual research review: Resilience–clinical implications. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54(4), 474–487. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02615.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the researchers and translators who contributed to the validation process of the Slovenian version of RS-14. We thank Nataša Kejžar, Ph.D. for her valuable guidance regarding our statistical analysis.

Funding

The project was funded by the Slovenian Research Agency ARRS (Programs MR-39262 and P3-0339). Javna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RS, MR-39262, Spela Mirosevic, P3-0339, Polona Selič—Zupančič.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Poljanski Nasip 58, 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Špela Miroševič, Polona Selič–Zupančič & Zalika Klemenc–Ketiš

  2. Department of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia

    Polona Selič–Zupančič

  3. Primary Healthcare Research And Development Institute, Community Health Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Polona Selič–Zupančič & Zalika Klemenc–Ketiš

  4. Department of Medical Psychology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Judith Prins

  5. Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia

    Zalika Klemenc–Ketiš

Authors
  1. Špela Miroševič
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Polona Selič–Zupančič
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Judith Prins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zalika Klemenc–Ketiš
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design and material preparation. Data colletion and analysis were performed by ŠM. The first draft of the manuscript was written by ŠM and PSZ, JP, and ZKK commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Špela Miroševič.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the National Medical Ethics Committee (No. 0120-25/2019/6) and the study was in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki for recommendations guiding physicians in biomedical research involving human subjects.

Consent to participate

Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent to publication

No consent to publish was needed.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 15 kb)

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 19 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Miroševič, Š., Selič–Zupančič, P., Prins, J. et al. Cross-sectional study examining psychometric properties of the Slovenian version of the 14-item Resilience Scale (RS-14-SL). Qual Life Res 32, 1567–1580 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03316-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03316-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation