Assessing resilience in emerging adulthood: The Resilience Scale (RS), Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), and Scale of Protective Factors (SPF)

Highlights

• The CD-RISC-10 and the SPF-24 achieved good model fit in an emerging adult sample.

• The CD-RISC-10 has clinical criteria for indicating high versus low resilience.

• The CD-RISC-10 measures a cognitive/individual factor representing resilience.

• The SPF-24 measures both social/interpersonal and cognitive/individual resilience.

• The SPF-24 enables clinicians/researchers to identify strengths and deficits.

Abstract

The transition to adulthood, emerging adulthood (EA), is characterized by the reorganization of multiple systems and societal scaffolding coming together to uniquely contribute to development. As a developmental turning point, EA has been a recent focus for researchers investigating both resilience and psychopathology. Resilience scales used in EA samples, within the United States are limited because many have not been validated in EA samples and they often do not assess both social/individual and cognitive/interpersonal determinants of resilience. The purpose of this study was to investigate the measurement models and reliability of commonly used resilience scales in the United States to include the Resilience Scale (RS-25; RS-10), the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale CD-RISC-25; CD-RISC-10), and the Scale of Protective Factors (SPF-24). We used an EA sample of 421 college students reporting significant stress or trauma. The results indicated that the CD-RISC-10, and the SPF-24 are psychometrically sound measures of overall resilience in EA. While the CD-RISC-10 has the benefit of clinical criteria for interpreting scores, the SPF-24 is a more comprehensive measure of resilience due to the representation of social/interpersonal in addition to cognitive/individual determinants of resilience. Practical and clinical implications as well as future directions are discussed.

Introduction

Arnett (2000) characterized the transition to adulthood, occurring between the ages of 18 and 25, as a time when cognitive and social reorganization come together to uniquely contribute to development. Since the conceptualization of emerging adulthood (EA), research investigating the possibility that EA may constitute a developmental transition with specific developmental tasks and expected outcomes has followed (Burt and Paysnick, 2012, Masten et al., 2004). The developmental tasks associated with EA include academic achievement, developing stable and supportive peer relationships, maintaining rule directed behavior such as lawfulness, and advanced cognitive skills such as planfulness and goal orientation (Masten, Obradović, & Burt, 2006). Researchers examining the factors that contribute to psychopathology and resilience have identified transitional periods, such as EA, as possible turning points in development (Burt and Paysnick, 2012, Rutter, 1996, Sampson and Laub, 1993). Emerging Adulthood has been identified as a developmental turning point partly because rapid changes in multiple systems occur. For example, changes in demographic characteristics, such as choosing a vocation, a romantic partner, and a geographic location, occur in conjunction with greater executive functioning capacity and important brain development (Burt and Paysnick, 2012, Masten et al., 2004). Advancements in cognitive and frontal lobe development, occurring along with advances in independence and a changing social environment, result in reorganization unlike that of other developmental periods (Masten et al., 2006).

Trauma and severe stress during childhood and adolescence are thought to have an accumulative effect resulting in developmental deficits and mental dysfunctions during EA to include anxiety, depression, and anger (Van Vugt, Lanctôt, Paquette, Collin-Vézina, & Lemieux, 2014). Supportive and protective factors that buffer the effects of trauma and stress may have added efficacy during EA (Bachmann, Znoj, & Haemmerli, 2014). Research suggests that EAs with previous stress or trauma exposure leading to compromised mental health during adolescence are more able to recover during EA. Findings show that such youth typically experience a decrease in risk factors as they move away from environments that may have been contributing to risk (Tanner, Arnett, & Leis, 2009). Additionally, EAs are aided by continued maturation of the frontal lobe, which is complete around age 25, resulting in better executive functioning when compared to adolescence (Tanner et al., 2009). Moreover, EA has been identified as a time when supporting the development of protective factors may be especially efficacious in overcoming the negative mental health effects of sexual abuse (Goldstein, Faulkner, & Wekerle, 2013). Masten et al. (2004) suggest that at-risk adolescents who positively transition to adulthood may do so by monopolizing on the developmental tasks presented during EA to acquire advances in protective factors such as social and cognitive abilities believed to determine resilience.

The capacity of an individual to maintain normative, or positive, development in the presence of risk is referred to as resilience (Ahern et al., 2006, Beckwith et al., 2008, Connor and Davidson, 2003, Dyer and McGuinness, 1996, Friborg et al., 2009, Windle, 2011). Resilience results from protective factors, also referred to as resilience factors (Diehl & Hay, 2010), that offset or buffer the effects of risk factors (Connor and Davidson, 2003, Masten, 2009). Protective factors include social/interpersonal strengths such as social skills, family cohesion, and the availability of social resources, as well as, cognitive/individual strengths such as planning behavior, self-efficacy, goal efficacy, and control (Gardner et al., 2008, Howard and Hughes, 2012, Jain and Cohen, 2013, Masten et al., 2004, Ponce-Garcia et al., 2015, Wills and Bantum, 2012). The protective factors associated with resilience become of particular importance during EA because the likelihood of both positive and negative developmental outcomes is high. Research shows that EA is when individuals develop cognitive flexibility, inhibitory control, and executive functioning capacities (Masten et al., 2004). On the other hand, EA is also associated with the onset of mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, mood disorders, and substance use (Hankin and Abramson, 2001, Nelson and McNamara-Barry, 2005).

Resilience researchers have begun to examine EA hoping to determine what factors account for the variability in outcome associated with this transitional period of development (Burt and Paysnick, 2012, Masten et al., 2006). In assessing resilience during EA, researchers often use indicators of normative or positive development in combination with indicators of risk or threat to development (Masten et al., 2006). Indicators of normative or positive development during EA include initiating higher education, relationship cohesion, and advances in planning and goal-directed behavior (Masten et al., 2006). Risk to development, at any age, includes trauma and significant stress such as abuse or neglect (Masten et al., 2004, Masten et al., 2006). Common stressors associated with this developmental period are related to developmental tasks, as relationship acquisition and educational advancement are often stressful events (Masten et al., 2006).

The research regarding resilience during EA is limited due partly to limitations of currently used measures. Resilience measures used in EA populations are often developed for use in other populations and not confirmed in EA samples (Burt & Paysnick, 2012). In addition, resilience measures tend to assess cognitive/individual factors to the exclusion of the social/interpersonal factors (Burt and Paysnick, 2012, Ponce-Garcia et al., 2015, Windle et al., 2011). The purpose of the present study is to address these limitations by using a sample of EA's reporting significant stress or trauma to test the measurement models and reliability of resilience measures researchers currently use in EA populations in the United States. Measures examined within the present study include the Resilience Scale (RS-25; Wagnild & Young, 1993), the brief Resilience Scale (RS-14; Wagnild & Quinn, 2011), the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-25; Connor & Davidson, 2003), the brief CD-RISC (CD-RISC-10; Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007), and the Scale of Protective Factors (SPF-24; Ponce-Garcia et al., 2015).