The Reliability and Validity of the Resilience Scale for Adults-Turkish Version

Turkish Journal of Psychiatry 2011

Th e Reliability and Validity of the Resilience Scale for Adults-Turkish Version • H. Nejat BASIM1, Fatih ÇETİN2

SUMMARY Objective: Resilience is as a dynamic process related to an individual’s capacity to cope with difficult or stressful experiences and the ability to psy- chologically overcome adversity. The aim of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of the Resilience Scale for Adults-Turkish Version. Method: The Resilience Scale for Adults was first translated into Turkish, and was then back translated. Subsequently, the questionnaire was administered to 350 students and 262 employees. The internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the scale were determined, and criterion-dependent validity and confirmative factor analysis were conducted using Amos v.16.0. Results: Factor analysis of the scale confirmed the fit of the original’s 6-dimensions: perception of self, perception of future, structured style, social competence, family cohesion, and social resources (2 = 1104, df = 480, 2/df = 2.3; RMSEA = 0.055; TLI = 0.90; CFI = 0.91). The 6-dimensions structure explained 53.5% of the total variance. The Social Comparison Scale and Locus of Control Scale were used to determine the criterion- dependent validity of the scale. Alpha coefficients for the sub-dimensions of the scale ranged from 0.66 to 0.81 and the test-retest reliability of the factors ranged from 0.68 to 0.81. Conclusion: The present findings show that the Resilience Scale for Adults-Turkish Version exhibited acceptable levels of reliability and validity in the study samples. Key Words: Resilience Scale for Adults, Reliability, Validity

INTRODUCTION Resilience generally represents an adaptation or achievement process (Hunter 2001). It is an individual’s adaptation to sig- The death of a loved one, loss of employment, significant nificant stress factors, such as a trauma, a threat, a tragedy, health problems, terrorist attacks, and similarly traumatic a family or inter-personal adversity, significant health prob- events are very difficult life experiences. Many people can ex- lems, and employment or financial difficulties (Tusaie and perience a flood of emotions and exhibit different behaviors Dyer 2004). In addition, resilience is the ability to bounce in reaction to such events. While initially experiencing nega- back when faced with difficult life experiences (Garmezy tive emotions, people generally can accept such stressful and 1991) and the ability to successfully cope with change or mis- life-changing experiences over the course of time. The main fortune (Wagnild and Young 1993). factor involved in such adaptation is resilience, which is an ongoing process characterized by certain steps and requiring Some definitions that focus on personality describe resilience effort and time (Garmezy 1991; Luthar 1991; Werner 1995; as a factor that supports adaptation to and reducing the nega- Luthar et al. 2000; Masten 2001). tive effects of stress (Jacelon 1997). Additionally, some studies

Received: 29.03.2010 - Accepted: 18.10.2010 1Assoc. Prof., Baskent University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ankara, 2PhD, Turkish Military Academy, Defense Sciences Institute, Ankara. H. Nejat Basım, PhD., e-mail: [email protected]

1 suggest that resilience is related to genetic factors and that whereas others are based on the processes and mechanisms in- some people are born resilient (Block and Block 1980). On volved in resilience (Wolin and Wolin, 1993), In general, re- the other hand, some studies report that resilience is a learn- silience refers to specific situations associated with significant able personality trait (Beardslee and Podorefsky 1998). In this risk of psychological distress. Nevertheless, it also describes a regard, resilience becomes a feature consisting of a learned positive outcome (Luthar et al. 2000). In this respect, resil- and perceived developmental process with coming up against ience can be considered the protective factors, processes, and the facts (Masten et al. 1990). mechanisms that contribute to positive outcomes (Masten and Reed 2002). Although many studies have examined the concept of resilience from different points of view, most are not theoretically Some studies have identified a number of factors associated founded and rely on empirical findings (Nancy et al. 2006). with resilience (Haase 2004). These factors constitute 3 high- Some definitions of resilience are based on personal (Rutter er order categories: (a) individual dispositional attributes, (b) 1993) or family characteristics (Hawley and DeHaan 1996), family support and cohesion, and (c) external support sys-

TABLE 1. Resilience scale studies in the literature. Bruth Protective Factors Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale For Adolescent Resil- Brief-Resilient Cop- Resilience Scale (RS) Scale Inventory (BRFI) Resilience Scale Adults (RSA) ience Scale (ARS) ing Scale (BRCS) (CD-RISC) Authors Baruth and Carroll Connor and David- Friborg et al. 2003 Oshio et al. 2003 Sinclair and Wallston Wagnild and Young 2002 son 2003 2004 1993 Number of items 16 25 37 31 4 25 Reliability Internal consistency Internal consistency Internal consist- Internal consistency Internal consist- Reliability coefficient of the total scale is 0.83 of the total scale is ency of the subscales of all the scale’s fac- ency is computed for was 0.91 in a previ- and of the subscales 0.89. Test-retest reli- ranges from 0.67 to tors range between group 1 as 0.64 and ous study. is as follows: adaptive ability is 0.87. 0.90. 0.72 and 0.75. 0.68 for group 2. personality: Test-retest cor- Test-retest reliability 0.76; supportive relations range from for group 1 is 0.71. environment: 0.98; 0.69 to 0.84. fewer stressors: 0.55; compensating experiences: 0.83. Validity Content validity and Convergent validity Construct valid- Construct validity Content validity and Content validity and construct validity were was established, but ity was established. was established. predictive validity concurrent validity established not discriminant Different scales in- was established. were established. validity. dicated discriminant validity. Number of 3 55312 factors Theoretical basis Research supports Stress, coping, and Adjustment and Research of resil- Polk’s theory of Research support 4 protective factors: adaptation. coherence. ience. resilience. of the construct of adaptive personality, resilience. supportive environment, fewer stressors, and compensating experiences. Instrument The scale can be use- Tested in the general Good construct and Results support Easy to use and has Tested in different advantages ful for educators and population and in discriminant the construct of ado- sufficient internal sample groups, and counselors. Presence of clinical samples. validity. lescent resilience. consistency values. obtained good reli- reverse scored items Good internal con- Presence of reverse ability sistency. scored items. and validity values. Instrument Other factors that can Assesses character- Findings need to be Findings need to be Low reliabil- Further piloting disadvantages affect resilience are not istics of resilience, confirmed in differ- confirmed in differ- ity values. Lack of of item wording is measured. Reliability but not the resiliency ent sample groups. ent sample groups. descriptions of the needed for differ- and validity need fur- process. administration ent cultures. Lack ther investigation. Lack of descriptions procedure of descriptions of of the administration and detailed scoring the administration procedure procedure. procedure and detailed scoring and detailed procedure. scoring procedure

2 tems. Individual characteristics include psychic robustness, cational and development programs, and in the selection of sociability, intelligence, communication skills, and such per- personnel that will undertake difficult jobs, by identifying sonal attributes as self-efficacy and talent (Olsson et al. 2003). those with the ability to tolerate stress and negative emotions Research on family characteristics shows that at least one par- in an organizational context. ent or parental substitute is crucial in this process (Fonagy et The concept of resilience is used in various ways and there al. 1994; Hawley and DeHaan 1996). External support sys- isn’t a consensus on the term’s translation in the Turkish lit- tems include peers, teachers, neighbors, and others that facili- erature. In addition, there are an insufficient number of stud- tate an individual’s attempts to overcome adversity (Garmezy ies, and adaptation and scale development studies are psy- 1993; Werner 1993; Brooks 1994). In addition, it is critical chometrically inadequate or include only limited age groups to have someone outside the family that is available during (Öğülmüş 2001; Özcan 2005; Gizir and Aydın 2006; Gürgan times of trouble, and to have hobbies that require social inter- action and cooperation (Smith and Prior 1994). 2006; Karaırmak 2006; Taşğın and Çetin 2006; Terzi 2006; Gizir 2007; Karaırmak and Siviş 2009a, 2009b). The aim of Several researchers have generated theories and developed the present study was to rename the resilience term with a frameworks for measuring the complex structure of resilience. common perception, and to determine the reliability and va- Table 1 lists studies that measured resilience directly or in- lidity of the Resilience Scale for Adults-Turkish Version. directly, from different points of view (Nancy et al. 2006). As shown in Table 1, the Baruth Protective Factors Inventory measures the construct of resilience by assessing 4 protective METHOD factors: adaptable personality, supportive environments, fewer a. Translation study stressors, and compensating experiences (Baruth and Carroll 2002). The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale assesses suc- The term resilience is translated in the Turkish literature as cessful stress coping ability, ignoring the resilience process yılmazlık (Öğülmüş 2001; Özcan 2005; Gürgan 2006), and focusing on stress, coping, and adaptation (Connor and kendini toparlama gücü (Terzi 2006), psikolojik sağlamlık Davidson 2003). The Resilience Scale for Adults measures the (Gizir and Aydın 2006; Karaırmak 2006; Gizir 2007), and protective resources that promote resilience, and identifies dayanıklılık (Taşğın and Çetin 2006). A pre-study was con- the main protective factors involved in regaining and main- ducted that aimed to reduce the variety of these terms and taining mental health (Friborg et al. 2003). The Adolescent arrive at a more accurate translation by consulting university Resilience Scale assesses the psychological characteristics of psychiatry and psychology faculty members. A survey was resilient youths and is comprised of 3 factors: novelty seeking, prepared and sent to faculty members via e-mail, and in- emotional regulation, and positive future orientation (Oshio cluded a summarization of the term’s definitions and some et al. 2003). The Brief-Resilient Coping Scale measures the theories, based on the literature. The survey contained the tendency to successfully adapt to and cope with stress. The following Turkish translations of the term based on the results purpose of this scale is identifying strong coping behaviors of translation and development studies: kendini toparlama (Sinclair and Wallston 2004). The Resilience Scale considers gücü, toparlanma, güçlülük, psikolojik güçlülük, dirençlilik, resilience a positive personality trait that facilitates personal yılmazlık, sağlamlık, psikolojik dayanıklılık, dayanıklılık, and adaptation (Wagnild and Young 1993). Table 1 summarizes psikolojik sağlamlık. Participants assessed the term’s transla- the psychometric properties of the scales, such as scaling, va- tions on a 7-point Likert-type scale. The participants includ- lidity, and reliability, and other data. ed 23 faculty professors and associate professors from several It can be seen that resilience, regarding one of the miracles as universities. The results showed that the best Turkish transla- creativity or belief instinct of human nature, has a multi-di- tion of resilience is psikolojik dayanıklılık (this term received mensional and dynamic nature, which includes interpersonal 121 of the potential 161 points); therefore, the Turkish trans- relationships within such social contexts as family, friends, lation psikolojik dayanıklılık was used for this study. school, organization, and the community (Coutu 2002). The Translation of the Resilience Scale for Adults was conducted models proposed for explaining the construct of resilience using Brislin et al.’s (1973) method. This translation method are also environmentally oriented. It is necessary to consider includes 5 steps: a first translation, assessment of the first trans- environmental factors to understand personal experience and lation, back translation, assessment of the back translation, and development, because development occurs within an envi- expert view. Firstly, 2 English Language and Literature faculty ronment. members, whose native language is Turkish, translated the scale Measuring all aspects of resilience in consideration of envi- into Turkish. Then, 6 experts examined the Turkish scale, in ronmental factors is important for two reasons. First, it may terms of understandability, word structure, and cultural ap- show which factors are most critical for regaining and main- propriateness. Next, 2 English Language and Literature faculty taining mental health and, secondly, it may be useful for edu- members, whose native language is Turkish, back translated the

3 scale into English. The back-translated English scale was com- Locus of Control Scale pared to the original and was presented to 2 experts after some This scale was created by Rotter (1966) and translated into corrections were made. Following the experts’ assessment, that Turkish by Dağ (1991). It was used to test the criterion-de- final version of the scale was used for this study. pendent validity of the Resilience Scale for Adults-Turkish Version. It measures the state of the internality or external- b. Main study ity of generalized control expectations. Higher scores indicate Sample stronger belief in an external locus of control. The Cronbach’s Two different samples were used for the adaptation study of alpha coefficients for the scale were 0.75 and 0.74 in some the Resilience Scale for Adults-Turkish Version. Student and studies (Basım and Şeşen 2006, Şahin et al. 2009). The employee samples were included in the study for the purpose Cronbach’s alpha coefficient in the present study was 0.74. of confirming the findings of one another, and enhancing the generalizability of the findings. The student sample included Social Comparison Scale 350 university students (167 female, 183 male) studying at This scale was created by Gilbert et al. (1991) and translated 3 different universities in Ankara. The employee sample in- into Turkish by Şahin and Şahin (1992). It measures the per- cluded 262 employees (126 female, 136 male) performing the ceptions of self when comparing him or her to the others. It same job at private banks in İstanbul. The student sample was was also used to test the criterion-dependent validity of the aged between 18 and 25 years (mean: 21.84 years; SD: 1.75 Resilience Scale for Adults-Turkish Version. Higher scores in- years), and the employee sample was aged between 21 and 37 dicate more positive perceptions of self. The Cronbach’s alpha years (mean: 29.63 years; SD: 1.82 years). coefficient for the scale was reported as 0.83 (Şahin et al. 2009). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient in the present study was 0.81. Instruments Resilience Scale for Adults Statistical Analysis Friborg et al. (2003) developed this scale that includes 5 sub- The data were analyzed using SPSS for Windows v.16.0 and dimensions personal strength, structural style, social compe- Amos v.16.0. Pearson’s correlations were calculated to meas- tence, family cohesion, and social resources. Their subsequent ure the test-retest reliability of the scale within a 3-week pe- study (Friborg et al. 2005) showed that the structure of 6-sub- riod. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated for the dimensions explain the resilience model much better than 5 internal consistency of the scale. Confirmative factor analy- sub-dimensions. The personal strength dimension was split sis was conducted for the structure validity of the scale. The into to perception of self and perception of future sub-dimen- Social Comparison Scale and the Locus of Control Scale were sions, resulting in a 6 sub-dimensions structure. The structural used to determine the criterion validity of the scale. style (3,9,15,21) and perception of future (2,8,14,20) sub- dimensions were measured by 4 items each, the family cohesion (5,11,17,23,26,32), perception of self (1,7,13,19,28,31,), RESULTS and social competence (4,10,16,22,25,29) sub-dimensions were measured by 6 items each, and the social resources Explanatory findings (6,12,18,24,27,30,33) sub-dimension was measured by 7 items. The scale uses a 5-point semantic differential scale for- The mean Resilience Scale for Adults-Turkish Version sub- mat, in which each item has 2 opposite attributes at each end of dimension scores in the employee sample was higher than the scale continuum. The positive and negative attributes were those in the student sample (Table 2). Our analysis shows distributed to both sides, so as to reduce acquiescence bias. that the employees were more resilient than the students and the difference between 5 of the scale’s 6 sub-dimensions (not Confirmative factor analysis was conducted to determine the the structural style dimension) was significant (P < 0.05). validity of the scale, which showed that the 6 sub-dimensions structure explained 57% of the total variance. The Personality Reliability Findings Scale (Engvik 1993) and Social Intelligence Scale (Silvera et a. Test-retest reliability al. 2001) were used to determine the convergent and discriminant validity of the scale. The internal consistency of the The 350 students were used to determine the test-retest re- structural equation model of the scale’s reliability was 0.80 for liability of the scale. The scale was administered 2 times to the perception of self, 0.75 for the perception of future, 0.76 the same sample within 23 days. Pearson’s correlations for the for the structural style, 0.82 for the social competence, 0.86 sub-dimensions were as follows: 0.72 (P < 0.01) for the per- for the family cohesion, and 0.84 for the social resources sub- ception of self, 0.75 (P < 0.01) for the perception of future, dimensions (Friborg et al. 2005). 0.68 (P < 0.01) for the structural style, 0.78 (P < 0.01) for the

4 TABLE 2. Explanatory statistics for the samples. Students Employees t test n M SD n M SD t P Perception of Self 350 3.84 0.70 262 3.97 0.56 3.095 0.02 Perception of Future 350 3.85 0.77 262 3.93 0.64 1.961 0.05 Structural Style 350 3.59 0.99 262 3.67 0.89 0.879 0.38 Social Competence 350 3.78 0.83 262 3.92 0.69 3.068 0.02 Family Cohesion 350 3.98 0.83 262 4.14 0.63 3.205 0.02 Social Resources 350 4.03 0.65 262 4.10 0.56 1.957 0.05

social competence, 0.81 (P < 0.01) for the family cohesion, item-total coefficients ranged from 0.20 to 0.52 in the both and 0.77 (P < 0.01) for the social resources sub-dimensions. samples (Table 3). Cronbach’s alpha for the sub-dimensions ranged from 0.66 to 0.81 for the student sample and 0.68 to b. Internal consistency 0.79 for the employee sample. In addition, Cronbach’s alpha of the total scale was 0.86 for both samples. The item-total coefficients and the Cronbach’s alpha for the scale and sub-dimensions were calculated to determine the internal consistency of the scale, for both samples. The Validity Findings a. Factor analysis The factor structure of the Resilience Scale for Adults varied between 5 (Fribog et al. 2003) and 6 (Fribog et al. 2005) di- TABLE 3. Item-total correlations. mensions. Both factor structures were analyzed with the stu- Student sample Employee sample dent sample (n = 350) in the present study. Confirmative fac- (alpha = 0.86) (alpha = 0.86) tor analysis was conducted to determine the validity of both Corrected Cronbach’s Corrected Cronbach’s Item-Total Alpha if Item Item-Total Alpha if Item structures of the scale using Amos v.16.0. Figure 1 shows the Correlation Deleted Correlation Deleted results of the factor analysis of the scale with 5 dimensions, after R1 .425 .855 .404 .854 the perception of self and perception of future dimensions were R2 .204 .860 .202 .860 R3 .235 .861 .298 .857 combined to form the personal strength dimension. The results R4 .291 .859 .205 .860 of confirmative factor analysis show that the ratio of chi-square R5 .312 .858 .200 .860 to the degree of freedom (2/df) was 2.8, the root mean square R6 .316 .858 .311 .857 R7 .404 .856 .416 .854 error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.057, the Tucker Lewis R8 .406 .856 .414 .854 Index (TLI) was 0.83, and the comparative fit index (CFI) R9 .220 .861 .301 .857 was 0.84. On the other hand, the results of factor analysis of R10 .338 .857 .291 .857 R11 .433 .856 .439 .854 the scale with 6 dimensions (Figure 2) show that the ratio of R12 .372 .857 .418 .854 chi-square to the degree of freedom (2/df) was 2.1, the root R13 .350 .857 .398 .855 mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.053, the R14 .481 .854 .475 .852 R15 .340 .858 .360 .856 Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) was 0.91, and the comparative fit in- R16 .365 .857 .321 .857 dex (CFI) was 0.92. A model is considered to have a good fit if R17 .402 .856 .426 .854 the comparative fit index or Tucker Lewis Index is above 0.90. R18 .421 .855 .447 .853 R19 .306 .858 .383 .855 The present results show that the factor structure of the scale R20 .473 .854 .506 .853 with 6 dimensions has a good fit. In addition to these results, R21 .390 .856 .381 .855 the scale with 6 dimensions was administered to the employee R22 .298 .858 .349 .856 sample (n = 262) and the results of our analysis (2 = 1104, df R23 .469 .854 .440 .853 R24 .450 .855 .431 .854 = 480, 2/df = 2.3; RMSEA = 0.055; TLI = 0.90; CFI = 0.91) R25 .345 .857 .309 .857 confirmed the structure of the scale for the other sample. The R26 .482 .854 .407 .854 results explained 55.5% and 53.5% of the total variance in the R27 .464 .855 .444 .854 R28 .345 .857 .293 .857 student and employee samples, respectively. R29 .446 .855 .515 .852 R30 .476 .854 .439 .854 R31 .362 .857 .353 .856 b. Criterion validity R32 .315 .858 .360 .855 The observed correlation between the sub-dimensions of the R33 .528 .853 .528 .852 scale, and the Social Comparison Scale and Locus of Control

5 TABLE 4. Correlations between the scales. Student sample (n = 350) Employee sample (n = 262) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (1) Perception of Self 1 1 (2) Perception of Future .513** 1 .543** 1 (3) Structural Style .200** .303** 1 .299** .343** 1 (4) Social Competence .242** .152** .114* 1 .295** .208** .128* 1 (5) Family Cohesion .221** .295** .279** .182** 1 .312** .330** .318** .204** 1 (6) Social Resources .358** .371** .238** .456** .509** 1 .511** .483** .330** .408** .550** 1 (7) Social Comparison .453** .330** .211** .314** .168** .349** 1 .388** .306** .205** .269** .236** .379** 1 (8) Locus of Control -.242** -.224** -.138** -.096 -.057 -.097 -.133* -.272** -.244** -.206** -.148* -.095 -.125* -.112 *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. (1) Perception of self, (2) perception of future, (3) structural style, (4) social competence, (5) family cohesion, and (6) social resources are sub-dimensions of the Resilience Scale for Adults.

Scale provided the criterion validity of the resilience scale of Control Scale, and the social competence and social re- for the both samples (Table 4). These scales were used to de- sources dimensions of the Resilience Scale for Adults-Turkish termine the scale’s validity based on the results of previous Version only in the employee sample at the P < 0.05 signifi- studies (Shehu and Mokgwathi 2008; Baker et al. 1999) that cance level; however, there wasn’t a correlation between the found the similar correlations. The results of our correlation family cohesion dimension and the Locus of Control Scale. analysis show that there was a positive correlation between the Social Comparison Scale and all the sub-dimensions of the Resilience Scale for Adults-Turkish Version at the P < 0.01 DISCUSSION significance level in both samples. The purpose of the present study was to explore the psycho- There was a negative correlation between the Locus of metric properties of the Resilience Scale for Adults-Turkish Control Scale and the perception of self, perception of fu- Version. The results show that the scale’s reliability and validity ture, and structural style dimensions of the Resilience Scale are acceptable, based on findings confirmed in the 2 different for Adults-Turkish Version at the P < 0.01 significance level. samples. The results of our explanatory analysis show that mean Moreover, there was a negative correlation between the Locus resilience in the employee sample was significantly higher than

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E10 E11 E12 E13 E14 E15 E16 E17 E18 E19 E20 E21 E22 E23 E24 E25 E26 E27 E28 E29 E30 E31 E32 E33 .14 .24 .23 .22 .21 .18 .12 .41 .35 .43 .21 .41 .42 .34 .14 .14 .59 .50 .20 .31 .19 .38 .41 .41 .39 .28 .12 .24 .26 .23 .37 .34 .28

R1 R7 R13 R19 R28 R31 R2 R8 R14 R20 R3 R9 R15 R21 R4 R10 R16 R22 R25 R29 R5 R11 R17 R23 R26 R32 R6 R12 R18 R24 R27 R30 R33

.35.49.48.47.45.42.34 57.59.56 .47.60.65.58 .35.67.77.70.45.55 .63.72.64.74.62.53 .55.59.51.68.61.48.62

Personal Structural Social Family Social Strength Style Competence Cohesion Resources

.63 .77 .23 .28

.61 .32 .40

.41 .44

.58

FIGURE 1. The 5-dimensions structure of the Resilience Scale for Adults-Turkish Version.

6 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E10 E11 E12 E13 E14 E15 E16 E17 E18 E19 E20 E21 E22 E23 E24 E25 E26 E27 E28 E29 E30 E31 E32 E33 .49 .29 .24 .23 .40 .41 .17 .42 .41 .42 .21 .41 .42 .34 .14 .14 .59 .50 .20 .31 .19 .38 .41 .41 .39 .28 .12 .24 .26 .23 .37 .34 .28

R1 R7 R13 R19 R28 R31 R2 R8 R14 R20 R3 R9 R15 R21 R4 R10 R16 R22 R25 R29 R5 R11 R17 R23 R26 R32 R6 R12 R18 R24 R27 R30 R33

.68 .51.48.46.59 .61 .39.65.60.65 .48.60 .65 .58 .37.68.75.70.46.56 .64.72.64.74.62 .53 .55 .69.51.68.61.48 .62

Perception Perception Structural Social Family Social of Self of Future Style Competence Cohesion Resources

.83 .67 .23 .28 .77

.53 .23 .40 .62

.43 .40 .44

.38 .53

.58

FIGURE 2. The 6-dimensions structure of the Resilience Scale for Adults-Turkish Version. that in the student sample. As the mean age of the employees Turkish Version overlapping with the original confirmed the was 29.63 years and that of the students was 21.84 years, we fit of the 6-sub-dimensions: perception of self, perception of think this finding supports the notion that resilience is a devel- future, structural style, social competence, family cohesion, opmental process (Masten et al. 1990). Both the student and and social resources. employee samples demonstrated the test-retest reliability and The Social Comparison Scale and the Locus of Control Scale internal consistency of the scale. The student sample showed were used to test the criterion validity of the Resilience Scale that the scale’s test-retest reliability is similar to that which was for Adults-Turkish Version. The Social Comparison Scale previously reported (Friborg et al. 2003, 2005). measures positive and negative perceptions of self by compar- Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were computed for the internal ing an individual’s responses in various dimensions to those consistency of the scale’s sub-dimensions and results were simi- of others (Gilbert et al. 1991). The results of our correlation lar and at significantly acceptable levels in both samples. The analysis show that all dimensions of the Resilience Scale for internal consistency of the entire scale was calculated for both Adults-Turkish Version had a positive correlation with the samples and high Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were obtained. Social Comparison Scale in both samples. This implies a pro- In addition, the scale’s item-total correlations in both groups spective relationship. High scores indicate a positive self, as was > 0.20, which is regarded as the lower limit (Büyüköztürk compared to others for the Social Comparison Scale (Şahin 2007). Ultimately, together with the reliability results of the and Şahin 1992). In this regard, a positive self implies an in- previous studies, the internal consistency of the scale was es- crease in the resilience. tablished for the selected samples (Friborg et al. 2003, 2005). The Locus of Control Scale was also used to test the criterion The structure validity and criterion validity of the scale were validity of the Resilience Scale for Adults-Turkish Version. computed to determine its validity. Confirmative factor anal- The results show that Locus of Control Scale had significant ysis was performed for the 5- and 6-dimensions structures of negative correlations with the perception of self, perception of the scale using the student sample. The results of the analysis future, and structural style dimensions of the Resilience Scale show that the fit indices of the 5-dimensions version of the for Adults-Turkish Version in both samples. Moreover, there scale were lower than the approved levels. On the other hand, were significant negative correlations between the Locus of the fit indices of the 6-dimensions version of the scale were Control Scale, and the social competence and social resources at the approved levels. These findings support those of the dimensions of the Resilience Scale for Adults-Turkish Version development studies of the original scale (Friborg et al. 2003, only in the employee sample. Nevertheless, there wasn’t a 2005). Finally, the scale with 6-dimensions was administered correlation between the Resilience Scale for Adults-Turkish to the employee sample in order to test the factor structure Version family cohesion dimension and the Locus of Control on a different sample. Thus, the Resilience Scale for Adults- Scale. High scores indicate an external locus of control and

7 low scores indicate an internal locus of control. People with the experts involved confirmed the face validity of the trans- an external locus of control have low self-esteem, and are gen- lation. The findings relevant to the reliability and validity of erally incompetent and passive (Şahin et al. 2009). These at- the Resilience Scale for Adults-Turkish Version are limited to tributes imply that people with an external locus of control the selected samples. In order to obtain more generalizable also have low-level resilience. These results indicate prospec- findings on the scale’s reliability and validity it is essential to tive relations. All of the present study’s findings indicate that administer the scale to qualitatively and quantitatively differ- the Resilience Scale for Adults-Turkish Version has adequate ent samples. Consequently, the Resilience Scale for Adults- criterion validity. Turkish Version (in appendix) might contribute to future studies of organizational research and clinical applications Translation of the term resilience into Turkish was accom- about the resilience for the national literature. plished based on a survey. The high level of consensus among

REFERENCES Gürgan U (2006) Yılmazlık Ölçeği (YÖ): Ölçek Geliştirme, Güvenirlik ve Geçerlik Çalışması. J Faculty of Educational Sciences, 39(2):45-74. Baker DA, Huttsman J, Garst B (1999) Influence of Teen Center Participation Haase JE (2004) The Adolescent Resilience Model as a Guide to Interventions. J on Resiliency and Self-Concept, Ninth Canadian Congress on Leisure Pediatr Oncol Nurs, 21:289-299. Research, May 12-15. Hawley DR, DeHaan L (1996) Toward a Definition of Family Resilience: Baruth KE, Carroll JJ (2002) A Formal Assessment of Resilience: The Baruth Integrating Life-span and Family Perspectives. Fam Process, 35:283-298. Protective Factors Inventory. J Individ Psychol, 58:235–244. Hunter AJ (2001) A Cross-cultural Comparison of Resilience in Adolescents. J Basım HN, Şeşen H (2006) Kontrol Odağının Çalışanların Nezaket ve Yardım Pediatr Nurs,16:172-179. Etme Davranışlarına Etkisi: Kamu Sektöründe Bir Araştırma. Selçuk University Social Science Institute Journal, 16:159-168. Jacelon CS (1997) The Trait and Process of Resilience. J Adv Nurs, 25:123–129. Beardslee WR, Podorefsky MA (1998) Resilient Adolescents Whose Parents Karaırmak Ö (2006) Psikolojik Sağlamlık, Risk Faktörleri ve Koruyucu Faktörler. Have Serious Affective and Other Psychiatric Disorders: Importance of Self- Türk PDR Dergisi, 26:129-142. understanding and Relationships. Am J Psychiatry, 145:63-69. Karaırmak Ö, Siviş Çetinkaya R (2009a) Deprem Deneyimini Yaşamış Block JH, Block J (1980) The Role of Ego-control and Ego-resiliency in the Yetişkinlerin Bağlanma Stilleri ve Psikolojik Dayanıklılıkları Arasındaki Organisation of Behaviour. WA Collins (Ed.), Development of Cognition, İlişki. 18. National Education Sciences Council, 1-3 Oct, İzmir. Affect, and Social Relations: Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology 13: Karaırmak Ö, Siviş Çetinkaya R (2009b) Benlik Saygısının ve Kontrol Odağının 39-101. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Psikolojik Sağlamlık Üzerine Etkisi: Bir Model Test Etme Çalışması. 18. Brislin RW, Lonner WJ, Thorndike RM (1973) Cross-Cultural Research National Education Sciences Council, 1-3 Oct, İzmir. Methods. New York, John Wiley and Sons Pub. p.182. Luthar SS (1991) Vulnerability and Resilience: A Study of High-Risk Adolescents. Brooks RB (1994) Children at Risk: Fostering Resilience and Hope. Am J Child Dev, 62:600-616. Orthopsychiatry, 64:545-553. Luthar SS, Cichetti D, Becker B (2000) The Construct of Resilience: A Critical Büyüköztürk Ş (2007) Sosyal Bilimler için Veri Analizi El Kitabı. Geliştirilmiş Evaluation and Guidelines for Future Work. Child Dev, 71:543-562. 7.Baskı, Pegem A Publising, Ankara. p.171. Masten AS (2001) Ordinary Magic: Resilience Processes in Development. Am Connor KM, Davidson JR (2003) Development of a New Resilience Scale: The Psychol, 56:227-238. Connor Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depress Anxiety, 18:76–82. Masten AS, Best KM, Garmezy N (1990) Resilience and Development: Coutu DL (2002) How Resilience Works Harv Bus Rev, 80(5):46-51. Contributions from the Study of Children Who Overcome Adversity. Dev Psychopathol, 2:425-444. Dağ İ (1991) Rotterin İç-Dış Kontrol Odağı Ölçeğinin (RİDKOÖ) Üniversite Öğrencileri için Güvenirliği ve Geçerliği. J Psychol, 7: 10-16. Masten AS, Reed MG (2002) Resilience in Development. CR Snyder SJ Lopez (Ed.), The Handbook of Positive Psychology (74-88). New York: Oxford Engvik H (1993) Big Five in Norwegian. J Norw Psychol Ass, 30:884-896. University Pres, p.143. Fonagy P, Steele M, Steele H et al. (1994) The Emanuel Miller Memorial Lecture Nancy RA, Ermalynn MK, Mary LS et al (2006) A Review of Instruments 1992: The Theory and Practice of Resilience. J Child Psychol Psychiatr, Measuring Resilience. Issues Compr Pediatr Nurs, 29:103-125. 35:231-257. Olsson CA, Bond L, Burns JM et al (2003) Adolescent Resilience: A Concept Friborg O, Barlaug D, Martinussen M et al. (2005) Resilience in Relation to Analysis. J Adolesc, 26:1-11. Personality and Intelligence. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res, 14:29-42. Oshio A, Kaneko H, Nagamine S et al (2003) Construct Validity of the Friborg O, Hjemdal O, Rosenvinge JH et al. (2003) A New Rating Scale for Adolescent Resilience Scale. Psychol Rep, 93:1217-1222. Adult Resilience: What are the Central Protective Resources behind Healthy Adjustment? Int J Methods Psychiatr Res, 12:65-76. Öğülmüş S (2001) Bir Kişilik Özelliği Olarak Yılmazlık. I. Ulusal Çocuk ve Suç Sempozyumu: Nedenler ve Önleme Çalışmaları, 29-30 Mart, Ankara. Garmezy N (1991) Resilience and Vulnerability to Adverse Developmental Outcomes Associated with Poverty. Am Behav Sci, 34:416-430. Özcan B (2005) Anne-Babaları Boşanmış ve Anne-Babaları Birlikte olan Lise Öğrencilerinin Yılmazlık Özellikleri ve Koruyucu Faktörler Açısından Garmezy N (1993) Children in Poverty: Resilience Despite Risk. Psychiatry, Karşılaştırılması. Unpublished Post Graduate Thesis. Ankara University 56:127-136. Social Science Enstitute. Ankara. Gilbert PS, Allan S, Trent D et al. (1991) A Social Comparison Scale: Rotter JB (1966) Generalized Expectancies for Internal Versus External Control Psychometric Properties and Relationship to Psychopathology. Pers Individ of Reinforcements. Psychol Monogr, 80:1-28. Dif, 19(3): 293-299. Rutter M (1993) Resilience: Some Conceptual Considerations. J Adolesc Health, Gizir CA (2007) Psikolojik Sağlamlık, Risk Faktörleri ve Koruyucu Faktörler 14:626-631. Üzerine Bir Derleme Çalışması. Türk PDR Dergisi, 28:113-128. Shehu J, Mokgwathi MM (2008) Health Locus of Control and Internal Gizir CA, Aydın G (2006) Psikolojik Sağlamlık ve Ergen Gelişim Ölçeğinin Resilience Factors among Adolescents in Botswana: a Case-control Study Uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışmaları. Türk PDR Dergisi, 26:87- with Implications for Physical Education. SAJRS, 30: 95-105. 99.

8 Silvera DH, Martinussen M, Dahl TI (2001) The Tromso Social Intelligence Taşğın E, Çetin FÇ (2006) Ergenlerde Major Depresyon: Risk Etkenleri, Scale, a Self-report Measure of Social Intelligence. Scand J Psychol, 42:313- Koruyucu Etkenler ve Dayanıklılık. Çocuk ve Ergen Ruh Sağlığı Dergisi, 319. 13:87-94. Sinclair VG, Wallston KA (2004) The Development and Psychometric Terzi Ş (2006) Kendini Toparlama Gücü Ölçeğinin Uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve Evaluation of the Brief Resilient Coping Scale. Assessment, 11:94-101. Güvenirlik Çalışmaları. Türk PDR Dergisi, 26:77-86. Smith J, Prior M (1994) Temperament and Stress Resilience in School-age Tusaie K, Dyer J (2004) Resilience: A Historical Review of the Construct. Holist Children: A Within-families Study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry, Nurs Pract, 18:3-8. 34:168-179. Wagnild GM, Young HM (1993) Development and Psychometric Evaluation of Şahin NH, Basım HN, Çetin F (2009) Locus of Control and Self-Concept the Resilience Scale. J Nurs Meas, 1:165-178. in Interpersonal Conflict Resolution Approaches. Turk Psikiyatri Derg, Werner EE (1993) Risk, Resilience and Recovery: Perspectives from the Kauai 20:153-163. Longitudinal Study. Dev Psychopathol, 5:503-515. Şahin NH, Şahin N (1992) Adolescent Guilt, Shame and Depression in Relation Werner EE (1995) Resilience in Development. Curr Dir Psychol Sci, 4:81-85. to Sociotropy and Autonomy. World Congress of Cognitive Therapy. Haziran 17-21, Toronto, Canada. Wolin SJ, Wolin S (1993) The Resilient Self: How Survivors of Troubled Families Rise Above Adversity. New York: Villard Boks, p.85.