王様のリモガチャワールド

  • - お知らせ

The prospective when you look at the focus was the need for an age-compatible dimension from strength suitable for adolescents and you can teenagers

The prospective when you look at the focus was the need for an age-compatible dimension from strength suitable for adolescents and you can teenagers

Short Variation RS-14

When shopping for a helpful and legitimate appliance, not simply necessary for additional communities but also where recommended basis structure is going to be verified, a couple major requires was in fact inside the attention. “New RS-fourteen shows the brevity, readability, and you will easier rating which were defined as essential qualities when selecting devices for usage having teens” (Pritzker and you may Minter, 2014, p. 332). The fresh RS-fourteen “might provide specifics of new development and you can profile off resilience making use of an acquireable measure of strength which in turn commonly permit evaluations which have earlier in the day and you can coming lookup,” and that “gives supporting facts that it is good psychometrically voice size to assess individual resilience in the age groups of kids and young adults” (Wagnild, 2009a; Pritzker and Minter, 2014).

This new short variation RS-fourteen could have been tested out of the design and it also are discovered one to results are never entirely consistent

In search of a lot more financial type of your Resilience Level, decreasing end date, and you may creating more especially for fool around with having young people, Wagnild (2009a) changed new RS-twenty-five to14 points. The brand new brief “RS-fourteen scale include fourteen worry about-declaration things mentioned together an excellent seven-part rating measure ranging from ‘1-firmly disagree’ so you’re able to ‘7-highly concur.’ Higher score try an indication of resilience height. According to the people, results is actually determined because of the a summary of effect viewpoints for each and every goods, ergo permitting results so you can are priced between 14 to 98.” Ratings below 65 imply lowest strength; ranging from 65 and 81 let you know reasonable resilience; more than 81 could be interpreted while the large degrees of strength (Wagnild and you can More youthful, 1993; Wagnild, 2009b, 2014).

Using principal components analyses supported a single-factor solution; remaining in the RS-14 scale were those items with all item factor loadings >0.40. Reported psychometric properties of the RS-14 have demonstrated sound psychometric properties comparable to those of the RS-25: evidence of a one-factor structure was found and high reliability (coefficient Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90 and greater 0.96) and a strong correlation with the full version (r = 0.97, p = 0.001) were obtained (Wagnild, 2014). The overall factorability of the RS-14 demonstrated a robust one-factor measure of resilience, which has been replicated and has been confirmed in different studies and in the adaptations of this version for different countries (Wagnild, 2014). For instance: German ? = 0.91 (Schumacher et al., 2005); Portugal ? = 0.82 (Oliveira et al., 2015); Finland ? = 0.87 (Losoi et al., 2013); Japan ? = 0.88 (Nishi et al., 2010); China ? = 0.92 (Tian and Hong, 2013); Korean ? = 0.90 (Kwon and Kwon, 2014); Spain ? = 0.79 (Heilemann et al., 2003); Italian ? = 0.88 (Callegari et al., 2016); and Greek ? = 0.89 (Ntountoulaki et al., 2017). Moreover, Yang et al. (2012) “examined the measurement invariance of the RS?14 in samples of U.S., Chinese, and Taiwanese college students and supported a one-factor model that demonstrated scalar invariance vidéo pour en ligne rencontres across cultures” (Yang et al., 2012). Some discrepancies exist between findings of different studies; for instance the Brazilian version with 13 items (Damasio et al., 2011) or 12 items in the Portuguese adaptation for adolescents (Oliveira et al., 2015), and in the German Version 11 items (Schumacher et al., 2005). These discrepancies can eventually result from sampling issues: some studies used participants from very different developmental phases (Damasio et al., 2011), and others used participants <13 years old, an option that is not appropriate given that the authors of the RS advise against the use of the scale with participants from earlier ages (Wagnild, 2009b; Pritzker and Minter, 2014).

© 2022 live.s-gacha.com