Green Kimberly T, Hayward Laura C, Williams Ann M, Dennis Paul A, Bryan Brandon C, Taber Katherine H, Davidson Jonathan R T, Beckham Jean C, Calhoun Patrick S
Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
Syracuse VA Medical Center, Syracuse, NY, USA.
Assessment. 2014 Aug;21(4):443-51. doi: 10.1177/1073191114524014. Epub 2014 Feb 27.
The present study examined the structural validity of the 25-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) in a large sample of U.S. veterans with military service since September 11, 2001. Participants (N = 1,981) completed the 25-item CD-RISC, a structured clinical interview and a self-report questionnaire assessing psychiatric symptoms. The study sample was randomly divided into two subsamples: an initial sample (Sample 1: n = 990) and a replication sample (Sample 2: n = 991). Findings derived from exploratory factor analysis (EFA) did not support the five-factor analytic structure as initially suggested in Connor and Davidson's instrument validation study. Although parallel analyses indicated a two-factor structural model, we tested one to six factor solutions for best model fit using confirmatory factor analysis. Results supported a two-factor model of resilience, composed of adaptability- (8 items) and self-efficacy-themed (6 items) items; however, only the adaptability-themed factor was found to be consistent with our view of resilience-a factor of protection against the development of psychopathology following trauma exposure. The adaptability-themed factor may be a useful measure of resilience for post-9/11 U.S. military veterans.
本研究在美国自2001年9月11日起服役的大量退伍军人样本中,检验了25项Connor-Davidson韧性量表(CD-RISC)的结构效度。参与者(N = 1981)完成了25项CD-RISC、结构化临床访谈以及一份评估精神症状的自我报告问卷。研究样本被随机分为两个子样本:初始样本(样本1:n = 990)和重复样本(样本2:n = 991)。探索性因素分析(EFA)得出的结果并不支持Connor和Davidson在工具验证研究中最初提出的五因素分析结构。尽管平行分析表明存在一个两因素结构模型,但我们使用验证性因素分析测试了一至六因素的解决方案,以找出最佳模型拟合。结果支持了一个由适应性(8项)和自我效能主题(6项)项目组成的两因素韧性模型;然而,只有适应性主题因素被发现与我们对韧性的看法一致,即它是一种在创伤暴露后防止精神病理学发展的保护因素。适应性主题因素可能是衡量9·11事件后美国退伍军人韧性的一个有用指标。