The brief resilience scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back
Background: While resilience has been defined as resistance to illness, adaptation, and thriving, the ability to bounce back or recover from stress is closest to its original meaning. Previous resilience measures assess resources that may promote resilience rather than recovery, resistance, adaptation, or thriving. Purpose: To test a new brief resilience scale. Method: The brief resilience scale (BRS) was created to assess the ability to bounce back or recover from stress. Its psychometric characteristics were examined in four samples, including two student samples and samples with cardiac and chronic pain patients. Results: The BRS was reliable and measured as a unitary construct. It was predictably related to personal characteristics, social relations, coping, and health in all samples. It was negatively related to anxiety, depression, negative affect, and physical symptoms when other resilience measures and optimism, social support, and Type D personality (high negative affect and high social inhibition) were controlled. There were large differences in BRS scores between cardiac patients with and without Type D and women with and without fibromyalgia. Conclusion: The BRS is a reliable means of assessing resilience as the ability to bounce back or recover from stress and may provide unique and important information about people coping with health-related stressors.
Key wordsbrief resilience scale stress recovery pain cardiac
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Agnes, M. (Ed.). (2005). Webster’s new college dictionary. Cleveland, OH: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Bagby, M. R., Parker, J. D. A., & Taylor, G. J. (1994). The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale-I item selection and cross-validation of the factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 23–32.Google Scholar
- Cohen, S., Mermelstein, R., Karmarck, T., & Hoberman, H. (1985). Measuring the functional components of social support. In I. G. Sarason & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Social support: Theory, research, and application. The Hague, Holland: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
- Larsen, R., & Diener, E. (1992). Promises and problems with the circumplex model of emotion. In M. S. Clarke (Ed.), Emotion (pp. 25–59). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Moos, R. H., Cronkite, R. C., & Finney, J. W. (1986). Health and Daily Living Manual (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Center for Health Care Evaluation, Stanford University Medical Centers.Google Scholar