Construct Validity and Population-Based Norms of the German Brief Resilience Scale (BRS).

IF 1.3 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL European Journal of Health Psychology Pub Date : 2018-01-01 Epub Date: 2018-12-07 DOI:10.1027/2512-8442/a000016
Angela M Kunzler, Andrea Chmitorz, Christiana Bagusat, Antonia J Kaluza, Isabell Hoffmann, Markus Schäfer, Oliver Quiring, Thomas Rigotti, Raffael Kalisch, Oliver Tüscher, Andreas G Franke, Rolf van Dick, Klaus Lieb
{"title":"Construct Validity and Population-Based Norms of the German Brief Resilience Scale (BRS).","authors":"Angela M Kunzler,&nbsp;Andrea Chmitorz,&nbsp;Christiana Bagusat,&nbsp;Antonia J Kaluza,&nbsp;Isabell Hoffmann,&nbsp;Markus Schäfer,&nbsp;Oliver Quiring,&nbsp;Thomas Rigotti,&nbsp;Raffael Kalisch,&nbsp;Oliver Tüscher,&nbsp;Andreas G Franke,&nbsp;Rolf van Dick,&nbsp;Klaus Lieb","doi":"10.1027/2512-8442/a000016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b></b> The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) measures the ability to recover from stress. To provide further evidence for construct validity of the German BRS and to determine population-based norms, a large sample (<i>N</i> = 1,128) representative of the German adult population completed a survey including the BRS and instruments measuring perceived stress and the resilience factors optimism, self-efficacy, and locus of control. Confirmatory factor analyses showed best model fit for a five-factor model differentiating the ability to recover from stress from the three resilience factors. On the basis of latent and manifest correlations, convergent and discriminant validity of the BRS were fair to good. Female sex, older age, lower weekly working time, higher perceived stress, lower optimism, and self-efficacy as well as higher external locus of control predicted lower BRS scores, that is, lower ability to recover from stress.</p>","PeriodicalId":51983,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Health Psychology","volume":"25 3","pages":"107-117"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7357822/pdf/","citationCount":"49","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Health Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/2512-8442/a000016","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/12/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 49

Abstract

The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) measures the ability to recover from stress. To provide further evidence for construct validity of the German BRS and to determine population-based norms, a large sample (N = 1,128) representative of the German adult population completed a survey including the BRS and instruments measuring perceived stress and the resilience factors optimism, self-efficacy, and locus of control. Confirmatory factor analyses showed best model fit for a five-factor model differentiating the ability to recover from stress from the three resilience factors. On the basis of latent and manifest correlations, convergent and discriminant validity of the BRS were fair to good. Female sex, older age, lower weekly working time, higher perceived stress, lower optimism, and self-efficacy as well as higher external locus of control predicted lower BRS scores, that is, lower ability to recover from stress.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
构建德国简短弹性量表(BRS)的效度和基于人群的规范。
简短恢复力量表(BRS)衡量从压力中恢复的能力。为了进一步为德国心理压力量表的结构效度提供证据,并确定基于人群的规范,一项具有代表性的大样本(N = 1128)德国成年人完成了一项调查,包括心理压力量表和测量感知压力的工具,以及乐观、自我效能和控制点因素。验证性因子分析表明,最佳模型适合于从三个弹性因素中区分从压力中恢复能力的五因素模型。在潜在和显着相关的基础上,BRS的收敛效度和判别效度为一般到良好。女性、年龄较大、每周工作时间较短、压力感知较高、乐观情绪较低、自我效能感较低以及外部控制源较高均可预测较低的BRS得分,即较低的压力恢复能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: Die "Zeitschrift für Gesundheitspsychologie" wurde gegründet, um dem raschen Anwachsen gesundheitspsychologischer Forschung sowie deren Relevanz für verschiedene Anwendungsfelder gerecht zu werden. Gesundheitspsychologie versteht sich als wissenschaftlicher Beitrag der Psychologie zur Förderung und Erhaltung von Gesundheit, zur Verhütung und Behandlung von Krankheiten, zur Bestimmung von Risikoverhaltensweisen, zur Diagnose und Ursachenbestimmung von gesundheitlichen Störungen sowie zur Verbessung des Systems gesundheitlicher Vorsorge.
期刊最新文献
Ambivalence Toward the Implementation of Preventive Measures in (Un-)Vaccinated German Citizens Personality Factors and Health Beliefs Related to Attitudes Toward Wearing Face Masks During the COVID-19 Pandemic Meeting Calendar List of Reviewers 2023 How Communicating Vaccine Benefits and Harms in Fact Boxes Affects Risk Perceptions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1