Content area
Abstract
Purpose
Psychometric validity/reliability of 10-item and 2-item abbreviations of the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10; CD-RISC-2) was investigated via item response theory and classic approaches.
Methods
We sampled 5023 adult American participants in a June/July 2020 survey on the COVID-19 pandemic’s psychological effects. Our questionnaire incorporated the CD-RISC-10 with other validated measures. CD-RISC-10 items were ranked on item-to-scale correlations, loadings on a one-factor confirmatory factor analysis model, and item slope/threshold parameters plus information curves from a unidimensional graded response model. Concurrent validity of the highest ranked item pair was evaluated vis-à-vis the CD-RISC-10 and CD-RISC−2. Internal consistency, based on average variance extracted (AVE) and multiple reliability coefficients, was also compared. Convergent/divergent validity was tested by correlating anxiety, depression, fear of COVID-19, anxiety sensitivity, coping, and personality measures with both scales and the highest ranked item pair. Binary agreement/classification indexes assessed inter-rater reliability.
Results
Items 2 and 9 from CD-RISC-10 ranked the highest. Reliability coefficients were > 0.93, > 0.72, and > 0.82 for the CD-RISC-10, CD-RISC-2, vs summation of items 2 and 9. AVEs were 0.66, 0.67, and 0.77. CD-RISC abbreviations and the summation of items 2 and 9 correlated negatively with anxiety (> − 0.43), depression (> − 0.42), and fear of COVID-19 (> − 0.34); positively with emotional stability (> 0.53) and conscientiousness (> 0.40). Compared to the CD-RISC-2, summative scores of items 2 and 9 more efficiently classified/discriminated high resilience on the CD-RISC-10.
Conclusion
We confirmed construct validity/reliability of copyrighted CD-RISC abbreviations. The CD-RISC-10’s items 2 and 9 were psychometrically more salient than the CD-RISC−2.
Details
; Baker, Bailey M. 2 ; Pogue, Jamie R. 3 ; McAuliffe, Madison P. 3 ; Bennett, Monica M. 3 ; Baxter, Ronald D. 4 ; Mohr, David C. 5 ; Warren, Ann Marie 3 1 Baylor Scott and White Research Institute, Dallas, USA (GRID:grid.486749.0) (ISNI:0000 0004 4685 2620); Health Systems Science, Baylor University Medical Center, Department of Surgery, Dallas, USA (GRID:grid.411588.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 2167 9807)
2 Texas A&M University Health Science Center, Dallas Campus, College of Medicine, Dallas, USA (GRID:grid.412408.b)
3 Baylor Scott and White Research Institute, Dallas, USA (GRID:grid.486749.0) (ISNI:0000 0004 4685 2620); Baylor University Medical Center, Division of Trauma, Acute Care, & Critical Care Surgery, Dallas, USA (GRID:grid.411588.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 2167 9807)
4 Baylor University Medical Center, General Medical Education, Department of Surgery, Dallas, USA (GRID:grid.411588.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 2167 9807)
5 VA Boston Healthcare System, Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Boston, USA (GRID:grid.410370.1) (ISNI:0000 0004 4657 1992); Boston University School of Public Health, Department of Health Law, Policy and Management, Boston, USA (GRID:grid.189504.1) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7558)