See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266578914

Psychometric Evaluation of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) in

a Sample of Indian Students

Article  in  Journal of Psychology · November 2009

DOI: 10.1080/09764224.2010.11885442

CITATIONS READS

122 2,952

2 authors:

Kamlesh Singh Nancy Xiaonan Yu

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi City University of Hong Kong
95 PUBLICATIONS   1,199 CITATIONS    62 PUBLICATIONS   1,995 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

family project View project

Eudaimonic and Hedonic Happiness Investigation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kamlesh Singh on 14 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

© Kamla-Raj 2010 J Psychology, 1(1): 23-30 (2010)

Psychometric Evaluation of the Connor-Davidson Resilience

Scale (CD-RISC) in a Sample of Indian Students
Kamlesh Singh* and Xiao-nan Yu**

*Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, India

**School of Public Health, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
KEYWORDS Resilience, Personality, Life Satisfaction, Positive and Negative Affect, Psychological Test Adaptation

ABSTRACT: Resilience refers to an individual’s ability to thrive despite adversity. The current study examined the psycho-
metric properties of the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) in the Indian context. The sample comprised of 256
students (age M =22.75, SD = 1.36 years) who completed questionnaire measures of trait resilience (CD-RISC), Big Five
Inventory (BFI), Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) and life satisfaction (Satisfaction with Life Scale). Origi-
nal five factor solution did not get confirmation and further a four factor solution, through exploratory factor analysis, was
selected as being the most suitable, namely, hardiness, optimism, resourcefulness and purpose. The CD-RISC appeared to be
a reliable (á = 0.89) and valid measure. The concurrent validity results supported hypotheses regarding the relationship of
resilience to personality dimensions and life satisfaction and positive and negative affects. Resilience was negatively associ-
ated with neuroticism, negative affects and positively related to all other variables of the study.

I. INTRODUCTION Yu and Zhang 2005). Among these instruments,

a newly developed scale – Connor-Davidson Re-
Positive psychology is a flourishing field of silience Scale (CD-RISC; Connor and Davidson
psychology, which encompasses the study of 2003) has earned widespread attention from re-
positive personality traits. Resilience, which is searchers for its established psychometric prop-
one of those traits, is defined as the ability to erties. Connor and Davidson’s (2003) scale found
‘rebound’ and regain original shape following reliable and valid instrument in various condi-
trauma or shock (Oxford 1989); and the promo- tions; improvement of patients suffering from
tion of positive adaptation under stress and ad- posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after re-
versity (Wagnild 2003). Tugade and Fredrickson ceiving treatment, (Davidson Baldwin et al.
(2004) stated that psychological resilience refers 2006) and more resilient survivors of violent
to effective coping and adaptation although faced trauma exhibited better health and lower sever-
with loss, hardship, or adversity. Carle and ity of PTSD symptoms than did those who were
Chassin (2004) reported that individuals with less resilient (Connor Davidson and Lee 2003).
high levels of self-reported resilience are par- In the initial report of the scale, factor analy-
ticularly likely to use positive emotions to sis of the 25 items of CD-RISC resulted in 5 fac-
‘‘bounce back’’ from adverse experiences. Em- tors. The first factor was named as personal com-
pirical evidence suggests that resilience is petence, high standards, and tenacity, endorsing
grounded in a diverse array of genetic (Caspi et one’s strong sense of power and adherence to
al. 2003; Tannenbaum and Anisman 2003), bio- one’s goal when facing setback situations. The
logical (Charney 2004; Morgan et al. 2002), psy- second factor was labeled as trust in one’s in-
chological (Campbell-Sills et al. 2006; Tugade stincts, tolerance of negative affect, and strength-
and Fredrickson 2004), and environmental fac- ening effects of stress. This factor focused on
tors (Haskett et al. 2006; King et al. 1998). one’s calmness, decision, and promptness when
Hence, resilience is a multidimensional construct coping with stress. The third factor measured
that varies with context, time, age, and life cir- positive acceptance of change and secure rela-
cumstances (Connor Davidson and Lee 2003; tionships with others. The factor was mainly re-
Garmezy 1993; Masten 1994; Richardson 2002; lated to one’s adaptability. The fourth factor,
Wagnild 2003; Werner 1993). named as control, implied control of achieving
Several resilience measures have contributed one’s own goal and the ability to access assis-
to understanding the concept and helping to find tance from others (social support). The last fac-
ways of intervention to enhance the individual’s tor, named as spiritual influences, assessed one’s
resilience in the real-life environment (Bosworth faith in God or in fate (Connor and Davidson
and Earthman 2002; Rak and Patterson 1996; 2003). This 5-factor structure would have broad
24 KAMLESH SINGH AND XIAO-NAN YU

applications in psychiatric and psychological with the negative effect (Ong et al. 2006 ; Shira
interventions, and even in educational practices et. al. 2008).
to nurture children with high resilience. The CD- Different studies have revealed a range of dif-
RISC is made up of items reflecting several as- ferent factor structures, therefore, one objective
pects of resilience including a sense of personal of the present study was to evaluate psychomet-
competence, tolerance of negative affect, posi- ric properties of Connor-Davidson Resilience
tive acceptance of change, trust in one’s instincts, Scale in a sample of Indian students. The second
sense of social support, spiritual faith, and an purpose of the study was to investigate the con-
action-oriented approach to problem solving. current validity of the CD-RISC by testing the
Initial work suggests that the CD-RISC is a prom- relationships of CD-RISC with five factors of
ising measure for use with adult psychiatric and personality, life satisfaction and positive affect
normal population (Connor and Davidson 2003; and negative affect measures.
Connor et al. 2003).
The CD-RISC is reliable and valid in the 2. METHOD
West and in the East as well, although its factor
structure has varied according to setting. For in- 2.1 Participants
stance, the original five factors have been sup-
ported in one Australian study of nurses The sample consisted of 256 (167 male and
(Gillespie et al. 2007). However, in a US sample 89 females) volunteer students pursuing their
of community-dwelling older women, a four fac- undergraduate and postgraduate degrees at the
tor solution was observed as factor 1 (9 items), Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi (IITD). Age
which included items related to goal orientation, ranged was from 17 to 27 years; with a mean of
tenacity, and personal control. Factor 2 (10 items) 22.75 (S.D. = 1.36 years). Students were
involved tolerance for negative affect and adapt- approached in their respective hostels for
ability. Factor 3 (4 items) included items on lead- collecting the data. After getting their informed
ership and acting on a hunch; and factor 4 (2 consent, a booklet containing all information
items) involved spiritual orientation, (Lamond were handed over to them, with a request to return
et al. 2008). Additionally, a Chinese study of the completed questionnaires within a week. Out
the CD-RISC failed to verify the original factor of 265, 256 volunteer students’ data were
structure through confirmatory factor analysis submitted with all entries, 9 students were
and reported three factor solution through explor- excluded due to incomplete data entries.
atory factor analysis: Tenacity, Strength, and
Optimism . However, Campbell-Sills and Stein 2.2 Measures
(2007) described four factors on the basis of ex-
planatory factor analysis of two samples viz., A booklet containing a covering page of
hardiness, social support/purpose, faith, and per- demographic questions, and several scales
sistence. including the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale
In addition, the measures of the big five fac- (CD-RISC), Big Five Inventory (BFI),
tor of personality, life-satisfaction and positive Satisfaction with Life Scale and Positive and
and negative affects are also used in the present Negative Affect Scales (PANAS) were prepared.
study as validity indicators. Since there is strong
evidence in the literature showing that of resil- 2.2.1 Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale
ience would be correlated negatively with neu- (CD-RISC; Connor and Davidson 2003)
roticism (Bienvenu and Stein 2003; Brown et al.
1998; Costa and McCrae 1992; Campbell-Sills The CD-RISC is a 25-item scale that measures
et al. 2006), and positively with extraversion, the ability to cope with stress and adversity.
openness , agreeableness and conscientiousness Respondents rate items on a scale from 0 (‘‘not
(Jacelon 1997; Werner 1995; Campbell-Sills et true at all’’) to 4 (‘‘true nearly all the time’’).
al. 2006; Yu and Zhang 2007); positively corre- Range is 0-100 and high score lead to high
lated with the factors life satisfaction (Wagnild resilience. Alpha reliability was observed as for
and Young 1993; Yu and Zhang 2007); and posi- factor 1, α=0.80, factor 2, α= 0.75, factor 3, α =
tive affect ((Bonanno 2004; Luthar et al. 2000; 0.74, factor 4, α=0.69, and overall α=0.89 in the
Tugade and Fredrickson 2004) and negatively present study.
PSYCHOMETRIC EVALUATION OF THE RESILIENCE SCALE 25

2.2 .2 Big Five Inventory (BFI) tion; descriptive statistics to measure of variable
dispersion across the sample; principal compo-
The inventory having big five factors of nent analysis (PCA) to assess the construct va-
personality developed by John et al. (1991); John lidity of the scale; Cronbach’s α to determine
and Srivastava (1999). The inventory contains scale dimensionality and correlation with vari-
44 items that are rated on the 5-point scale ables of interest, were analyzed. It is hypoth-
ranging from not agree at all (1) to absolutely esized that resilience would show positive cor-
agree (5). The items are the basis for scoring five relation with extraversion, agreeableness, con-
BFI scales: extraversion, agreeableness, scientiousness, openness, life satisfaction and
conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness. positive affect and negatively with neuroticism
Alpha reliability in present study was observed and negative affect.
as for extraversion α=0. 67; agreeableness α=0.
64; conscientiousness α=0. 52, Emotional Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Stability/neuroticism α=0. 54, and openness α=0.
54. To examine the goodness of fitness of the
original 5-factor solution in American samples,
2.2.3 Satisfaction with Life Scale CFA was applied to the data. Goodness of fitness
was assessed by using several indices and found
To measure satisfaction with life, the that χ2 (265) =932.03, p=0.000; RMSEA=0.10,
Satisfaction with Life Scale developed by Diener GFI=0.77, AGFI=0.72, CFI=0.91. Results
et al. (1985) was used .It consists five items on a suggested that the data failed to replicate the 5-
7-point rating scale (from 1 = strongly disagree factor model obtained among American samples.
to 7 = strongly agree). Alpha reliability in the Mean range of each item score in the present
present study was α= 0. 77. study is 2.18-2.73 with SD range 0.81 -1.10 on 5
point scale. Item-total correlations ranged from
2.2.4 PANAS 0.29 to 0.65, with almost all of the correlation
coefficients exceeding 0.33 except one item, (see
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule Table 1).
(PANAS), constructed by Watson et al. (1988),
which treats both variables, Positive affect scale 3.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis
(PAS; 10 items) and Negative affect scale (NAS;
10 items), as separate dimensions rather than The factor analysis yielded 6 factors with an
bipolar ends of the same scale. Participants used eigenvalue greater than 1.00. Both the 5 and 6
a 5-point scale (1 = very slightly or not at all, factor solutions contained factors with no more
5 = extremely) to indicate the extent of generally than 2 or 3 items or several items which exhibited
feeling the respective mood state. In the present split loadings. We accordingly chose to eliminate
study, Alpha reliability was reported as for PAS the 5 and 6 factor solutions in favor of either a 3
α=0. 81and for NAS α=0. 80, or 4 factor solutions. Inspection of the factor
content revels that the 4 factor solution is easier
3. RESULTS to interpret, while the 3 factor solution contains
similar factors; each one is contaminated with
Data were analysed by using LISRLL 8.8 and other items that fit less well. Hence, 4 factor
SPSS Version 15.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, solutions (see Table 2) was firmed up with factor
USA). CFA with Linear Structural Relationships 1 corresponding more clearly to features of
using correlation matrix (LISREL version 8.80) hardiness-toughness, and factor 4 corresponding
(Jöreskog and Sörbom 2006) was applied to the to goal-directedness, achievement, purpose, all
data, to examine the goodness of fitness of the of which might be equated to autonomy and
original 5-factor among Indians students. Good- purpose in the well-being schema of Ryff and
ness of model fit was assessed by using several Singer (1996). Factor 2 contains elements of
indices; RMSEA close to 0.06 and GFI, AGFI optimism/view of a benevolent world, (items 12,
and CFI close to 0.95 or above are regarded ac- 20, 6, 10), as well as adaptability (item 8), mental
ceptable (von Eye and Schuster 2000). toughness/active coping (item 15), cognitive
CFA for confirming the original factor solu- focus/control (item 14). Identification of a single
26 KAMLESH SINGH AND XIAO-NAN YU

Table 1: Descriptive statistics [Means and standard deviations (SD)] and Item-total correlation for the CD-
RISC items in the current study
Item no. Abbreviated item Mean* SD Item-
total
correlation

1 Able to adapt to change 2.38 0.89 0.65

2 Close and secure relationships 2.26 1.08 0.42
3 Sometimes fate and God can help 2.25 1.09 0.37
4 Can deal with whatever comes 2.32 0.88 0.60
5 Past success gives confidence for new challenge 2.63 0.96 0.59
6 See the humorous side of things 2.30 1.03 0.43
7 Coping with stress make stronger 2.31 0.93 0.63
8 Tend to bounce back after illness, injury or hardship 2.32 0.90 0.54
9 Things happen for a reason 2.70 0.99 0.52
10 Best effort no matter what 2.50 0.97 0.47
11 One can achieve one’s goals 2.64 0.99 0.63
12 When things look hopeless, I don’t give up 2.43 0.93 0.49
13 Know where to get help 2.20 0.98 0.29
14 Under pressure, focus and think clearly 2.24 0.86 0.43
15 Prefer to take the lead in problem solving 2.41 0.95 0.54
16 Not easily discouraged by failure 2.22 0.88 0.52
17 Think of self as strong person 2.50 0.81 0.58
18 Make unpopular or difficult decisions 2.18 1.10 0.37
19 Can handle unpleasant feelings 2.35 0.86 0.34
20 Have to act on a hunch, without knowing why 2.34 0.85 0.33
21 Strong sense of purpose in life 2.50 0.90 0.38
22 In control of my life 2.54 0.83 0.38
23 I like challenge 2.52 0.90 0.38
24 One works to attain one’s goals 2.47 0.83 0.50
25 Pride in my achievements 2.73 0.86 0.44

Table 2: Exploratory factor analysis of CD-RISC in Indian students’ sample

Component*
Item Abbreviated item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3- Factor 4
no. hardiness optimism resource- purpose
fulness
19 Can handle unpleasant feelings .74
4 Can deal with whatever comes .64
16 Not easily discouraged by failure .59
7 Coping with stress strengthens .58
11 One can achieve one’s goals .52
18 Make unpopular or difficult decisions .51
17 Think of self as strong person .50
12 When things look hopeless, I don’t give up .65
14 Under pressure, focus and think clearly .64
20 Have to act on a hunch, without knowing why .58
8 Tend to bounce back after illness, injury or hardship .57
6 See the humorous side of things .53
10 Best effort no matter what the outcome may be .52
15 Prefer to take the lead in problem solving .42
3 Sometimes fate and God can help .67
9 Things happen for a reason .65
2 Close and secure relationships .60
5 Past success gives confidence for new challenge .53
1 Able to adapt to change .48** .52
13 During times of stress know where to get help .49
21 Strong sense of purpose in life .70
24 One works to attain one’s goals .62
22 In control of my life .61
23 I like challenge .59
25 Pride in my achievements .52
Eigen Value 7.30 1.57 1.55 1.43
Variance Explained 29.20 6.28 6.20 5.70
PSYCHOMETRIC EVALUATION OF THE RESILIENCE SCALE 27

Table 3: Internal consistencies and inter-factor correlation among resilience factors

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Alpha
Hardiness Optimism Resource fulness Purpose Reliability
F1 1 .80
F2 .57** 1 .75
F3 .58** .55** 1 .74
F4 .51** .47** .40** 1 .69
RISC Total .85** .82** .80** .70** .89
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level

characterization of this factor is more chall- resilience and its factors were positively cor-
enging, but the predominant, though not excl- related with life-satisfaction, extroversion, open-
usive nature of the items is most compatible with ness, agreeableness, consciousness, and positive
optimism/meaning. Factor 3 consists of 6 items affects. But a negative correlation with neurot-
which reflect resourcefulness (items 13, 2, 1), icism factor and negative affects. The correlation
trust/purpose (items 3, 9) and self-efficacy (item pattern confirms the hypotheses of the present
5). Item no. 1 “Able to adapt to change” has study, and therefore provides convincing
secondary loading on factor1, (Hardiness) also. evidence for the validity of the CDRISC among
Similar to factor 2, no single characteristic Indian students.
emerges, but the greatest numbers of items
suggest resourcefulness. The 4 factor solution 4. DISCUSSIONS
accounts for 47% of the total variance.
The current study evaluated psychometric
3.2 Internal Consistencies and Inter-factor properties of CD-RISC among Indian students
Correlation and also supported the hypothesized relationships
between resilience and certain personality traits,
The reliability coefficient in the Indian context life satisfaction and positive and negative affects.
of the CD-RISC was 0.89, The internal consis- There have now been several reports of the psy-
tency alpha values of the 4 factors were: chometric properties of the CD-RISC from a
α= 0.80 for factor 1, α= 0.75 for factor 2, α=0.74 variety of countries, including China, (Yu and
for factor 3 and α=0.69 for factor 4. The relia- Zhang 2007) South Africa, (Jorgensen and
bility coefficient of factor 4 was not as high as Seedat 2008), Iran, USA, Australia and Brazil,
first three factors, but it was acceptable in terms in populations which include university students,
of the number of items. It had only five items, youth and senior citizens( Campbell-Sills and
which may explain this. Furthermore, all factors Stein 2007), the general population and specific
are significantly highly correlated (see table 3) professional groups, such as surgical nurses or
with each other and with total resilience score. caregivers (Gillespie et al. 2007, Connor and
Davidson 2003). Consisting with the present
3.3 Concurrent Validity study, all studies have found strong psychomet-
ric properties for the instrument, but the factor
Table 4 listed the correlation matrix formed structure has varied considerably. Given the
between the factors as well as total score of the marked differences in age, sampling (general
CD-RISC one side and the variables of, life population vs. patients vs. healthy controls),
satisfaction, and 5 personality subscales, positive culture, ethnicity and country, this is hardly sur-
affect and negative affect on the other side. It is prising. A potentially important observation on
evident from the table that the total score of the role of culture is given by Yu and Zhang

Table 4: Correlation of resilience with the big five, positive and negative affect and life satisfaction
Construct LS E A C N O PA NA
RISC Total .23** .19** .35** .20** -.16** .39** .67** -.26**
Abbreviations: LS- life satisfaction, E- extroversion, A- agreeableness, C- consciousness, N- neuroticism, O -openness,
PA- positive affects, - NA negative affects
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
28 KAMLESH SINGH AND XIAO-NAN YU

(2007) who note that Chinese people are much rebound subjectively and physiologically from
less religious than those in many other societ- stressful experiences (Tugade and Fredrickson
ies and, as a result, the CD-RISC items reflect- 2004). Fredrickson (2001) hypothesizes that
ing spirituality/faith in God failed to load as a positive emotions contribute to resilience
separate factor. They also opine that less em- because they broaden the ‘‘thought action
phasis is placed on changing the external envi- repertoires’’ that are available to individuals
ronment than on accommodating internally to under stress, having more flexible thinking and
the world around them. As a result, constructs expanded behavioral options as a result of
such as autonomy/control/self-efficacy may need positive affect may increase the personal
to interpret differently. Perhaps more emphasis resources of extraverted individuals during times
needs to place on harmony as a component of of adversity. Furthermore, the tendency of
resiliency, or successful adaptation to adversity. extraverted individuals to build strong networks
However, spirituality does not observe indepen- of social support may allow them access to this
dent factor in this study like original trend but important protective factor during stressful
item no. 3, “Sometimes fate and God can help” situations (Rutter 1985; Campbell-Sills et al.
item no 9 “Things happen for a reason” have 2006; Yu and Zhang 2007).
highest loading on factor three, showed that sig- Correlation of conscientious and resilience
nificant for resilience but unique trend in Indian varies in degree with different groups of people.
culture. For example, among American students, this
Two clear factors (1 and 4) did emerge, which correlation was found to be 0.59 for the ethnic
correspond to hardiness (mental toughness) and minority group, while it was 0.29 for the Cauca-
achievement/self-efficacy/goal directedness. sian group (Campbell-Sills et al. 2006); 0.64 in
They do bear some similarity to factors in the Chinese group (Yu and Zhang 2007) and 0.20 in
reports of Gillespie et al. (2007) and Lamond et the present study. Dimensions of personality traits
al. (2008). It was interesting that items 21-25 (e.g. C) may ostensibly make people of different
coalesced as one factor in all (i.e. 3, 4, 5 and 6) cultures resilient to trauma and difficulties at dif-
the possible factor solutions, and would seem to ferent levels and the hard-working style of con-
be relatively robust. scientious individuals may contribute to resil-
The reliability coefficient in the Indian con- ience (Bonanno et al. 2004). Furthermore, sig-
text of the CD-RISC was 0.89, consistent with nificant correlation of openness (0.39) and agree-
Connor and Davidson’s study (á=0.89), and also ableness (0.35) with resilience is supported by a
Lamond et al. (2008), who observed á= 0.92. Chinese study getting same trend as openness
Consistent with the study hypotheses, CD-RISC (0.27) and agreeableness (0.36) correlated with
scores manifested statistically significant and resilience (Yu and Zhang 2007). Correlation of
salient relationships with the five factor model life satisfaction with resilience has also aligned
personality constructs. These correlations with different findings (Wagnild and Young 1993;
indicate that resilience demonstrates a strong Yu and Zhang 2007).
inverse relationship with neuroticism, a construct The present study has provided more evidence
that encompasses proneness to negative of the need for cross-cultural comparison of an
emotions, poor coping, and difficulty controlling imported construct and its measurement from the
impulses (Costa and McCrea 1992; Campbell- West to the East, by showing that the resilience
Sills et al. 2006; Jacelon 1997; Werner, 1995; construct, defined by the CD-RISC (Connor and
Yu and Zhang 2007) and strong positive Davidson 2003), may be understood differently
relationships with other big five factors. Being in western and eastern cultures.
highly correlated with neuroticism, negative The current study has several limitations that
affect has obviously negative correlation with are worth noting. First, the sample for this study
resilience. Consisted with present research was comprised entirely of college students, which
findings correlation of overall resilience with limits the variation of age and education level.
extraversion and positive affect reflects the Results may not generalize to adults in middle
benefits of positive affective style, capacity for or older age, or to individuals who have lower or
interpersonal closeness, and high levels of social higher educational achievement. On the other
interaction and activity. In particular, positive hand, the CD-RISC had not previously been ex-
affect has been shown to help individuals amined in college students in India, so the cur-
PSYCHOMETRIC EVALUATION OF THE RESILIENCE SCALE 29

rent study adds to the literature on this measure Davidson J, Baldwin D, Stein DJ, Kuper E, Benattia I,
by examining its validity in another demographic Ahmed S, Pedersen R Musgnung J 2006. Treatment of
Post-traumatic Stress Disorder with Venlafaxine
group. To date, since it is first study in Indian Extended Release. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 63: 1158-
context with this scale, it would contribute nota- 1165.
bly about resilience. Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S 1985. The
Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 49: 71–75.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Fredrickson BL 2001. The Role of Positive Emotions in
Positive Psychology: The Broaden-and-Build Theory
of Positive Emotions. American Psychologist, 56: 218–
The authors wish to thank Jonathan Davidson 226.
for their comments on an earlier draft of this Garmezy N 1993. Children in Poverty: Resilience Despite
manuscript. We also thank Anurag Srivastava, Risk. Psychiatry, 56: 127–136.
Gillespie BM, Chaboyer Wendy, Walli M 2007. The Infl-
Atul Aggarwal, Neelanshu Gupta and Tripti Aw- uence of Personal Characteristics on the Resili-ence of
asthi for coordinating data collection and ma- Operating Room Nurses: A Predictor Study. Inter-
nagement. national Journal of Nursing Studies, doi: 10.1016/
j.ijnurstu.2007.08.006.
Haskett E, Nears K, Ward S, McPherson AV 2006. Diver-
REFERENCES sity in Adjustment of Maltreated Children: Factors
Associated with Resilient Functioning. Clinical Psy-
Bienvenu OJ, Stein MB 2003. Personality and Anxiety chology Review, 26: 796– 812.
Disorders: A Review. Journal of Personality Disord- Jacelon CS 1997. The Trait and Process of Resilience.
ers, 17: 139–151. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25: 123-129.
Bonanno GA, 2004. Loss, Trauma, and Human Resilience. John OP, Donahue EM, Kentle RL 1991. The Big Five
American Psychologist, 59: 20–28. Inventory-Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA:
Bosworth K, Earthman E 2002. From Theory to Practice: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of
School Leaders’ Perspectives on Resiliency. Journal Personality and Social Research.
of Clinical Psychology, 58: 299-306. John OP , Srivastava S 1999. The Big Five Trait Taxonomy:
Brown TA, Chorpita DF, Barlow DH 1998. Structural History, Measurement, and Theoretical Perspectives.
In: A Pervin A, OP John (Eds.): Handbook of
Relationships among Dimensions of the DSM-IV Personality: Theory and Research. 2nd Edition. New
Anxiety and Mood Disorders and Dimensions of York: Guilford, pp. 102–138.
Negative Affect, Positive Affect, and Autonomic Jorgensen IE, Seedat S 2008. Factor Structure of the
Arousal. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107: 179– Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale in South African
192. Adolescents. International Journal of Adolescent Med.
Campbell-Sills L, Stein MB 2007. Psychometric Analysis Health, 20: 23-32.
and Refinement of the Connor–Davidson Resilience Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D 2006. LISREL 8.8 for Windows
Scale (CD-RISC): Validation of a 10-Item Measure of [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific
Resilience. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20: 1019–1028 Software International, Inc.
Campbell-Sills L, Cohan SL, Stein MB 2006. Relationship King LA, King DW, Fairbank JA, Keane TM, Adams GA
of Resilience to Personality, Coping, and Psychiatric 1998. Resilience-recovery Factors in Post-traumatic
Symptoms in Young Adults. Behaviour Research and Stress Disorder among Female and Male Vietnam
Therapy, 44: 585- 599. Veterans: Hardiness, Postwar Social Support, and
Carle AC, Chassin L 2004. Resilience in a Community Additional Stressful Life Events. Journal of Personality
Sample of Children of Alcoholics: Its Prevalence and and Social Psychology, 74: 420–434.
Relation to Internalising Symptomatology and Positive Lamond AJ, Depp CA, Allison M, Langer R ,Reichstadt
Affect. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, J, Moore DJ, Golshan S, Ganiats TG, Jeste DV 2008.
25: 577–596. Measurement and Predictors of Resilience among
Caspi A, Sugden K, Moffitt TE, Taylor A, Craig I W, Community-dwelling Older Women.doi:10.1016/
Harrington H et al. 2003. Influence of Life Stress on j.jpsychires.2008.03.007.
Depression: Moderation by a Polymorphism in the 5- Luthar SS, Cicchetti D , Becker B 2000. The construct of
HTT Gene. Science, 301: 386–389. resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future
Charney DS 2004. Psychobiological Mechanisms of work. Child Development , 71: 543–562.
Resilience and Vulnerability: Implications for Masten A 1994. Resilience in Individual Development:
Adaptation to Extreme Stress. American Journal of Successful Adaptation despite Risk and Adversity. In:
Psychiatry, 161: 195–216. M Wang, E Gordon (Eds.): Educational Resilience in
Connor KM, Davidson JRT 2003. Development of a New Inner City America: Challenges and prospects.
Resilience Scale: The Connor–Davidson Resilience Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 3-25.
Scale (CDRISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18: 76–82. Morgan CA, Rasmusson AM, Wang S, Hoyt G, Hauger
Connor K M, Davidson J R T, Lee L-C 2003. Spirituality, RL, Hazlett G 2002. Neuropeptide-Y, Cortisol, and
Resilience, and Anger in Survivors of Violent Trauma: Subjective Distress in Humans Exposed to Acute Stress:
A Community Survey. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 16: Replication and Extension of Previous Report.
487–494. Biological Psychiatry, 52: 136–142.
Costa PT , McCrae RR 1992. Revised NEO Personality Ong AD, Bergeman CS, Bisconti TL , Wallace KA 2006.
Inventory and NEO Five Factor Inventory Profess- Psychological Resilience, Positive Emotions and
ional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assess-ment Successful Adaptation to Stress in Later Life. Journal
Resources. of Personality and Social Psychology, 91: 730-749.
 30 KAMLESH SINGH AND XIAO-NAN YU

Oxford Dictionary 1989. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ive Emotional Experiences. Journal of Personality and
Rak CF, Patterson LE 1996. Promoting Resilience in At- Social Psychology, 86: 320–333.
risk Children. Journal of Counseling and Develop- Wagnild GM 2003. Resilience and Successful Aging among
ment, 74: 368-373. Low and High Income Older Adults. Journal of Ger-
Richardson GE 2002. The Metatheory of Resilience and ontological Nursing, 29: 42-49.
Resiliency. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58: 307– Wagnild GM, Young HM 1993. Development and Psy-
321. chometric Evaluation of the Resilience Scale. Jou-rnal
Rutter M 1985. Resilience in the Face of Adversity: of Nursing Measurement, 1: 165-178.
Protective Factors and Resistance to Psychiatric Dis- Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A 1988. Development and
orders. British Journal of Psychiatry, 147: 598–611. validation of brief measures of positive and negative
Ryff CD, Singer B 1996. Psychological Well- being: Mean- affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and
ing, Measurement and Implications for Psychoth-erapy Social Psychology, 54: 1063–1070.
Research. Psychotherapy and Psychometrics, 65: 14- Werner EE 1995. Resilience in Development. Current Dire-
23. ctions in Psychological Science, 4: 81-85.
Shira M, Diane TM, Alan PL, Theresa DL, Howard GN, Werner EE 1993. Risk and Resilience in Individuals with
Richard MJ, Brett LT 2008. Description of Risk and Learning Disabilities: Lessons Learned from the Ka-
Resilience Factors among Military Medical Pers-onnel uai Longitudinal Study. Learning Disabilities Rese-
before Deployment to Iraq. Military Medicine, 173: 1- arch and Practice, 8: 28–34.
9. Yu X, Zhang J 2005. Resilience: The Psychological
Tannenbaum B, Anisman H 2003. Impact of Chronic Inter- Mechanism for Recovery and Growth During Stress.
mittent Challenges in Stressor-Susceptible and Resil- Advances in Psychological Science, 13: 658-665.
ient Strains of Mice. Biological Psychiatry, 53: 292– Yu X, Zhang J 2007. Factor Analysis and Psychometric
303. Evaluation of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale
Tugade MM, Fredrickson BL 2004. Resilient Individuals (CD RISC) with Chinese People. Social Behavior and
Use Positive Emotions to Bounce Back From Negat- Personality, 35: 19-30.

View publication stats