Department of Psychology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Peru, Lima, Peru.
BMC Psychol. 2017 Oct 27;5(1):36. doi: 10.1186/s40359-017-0205-0.
Hope and resilience protect against inner vulnerabilities or harsh life circumstances; they explain individual differences in physical or mental health outcomes under high stress. They have been studied in complementary or competing theoretical frameworks; therefore, the study of measures of hope and resilience should be undertaken prior to explore if they are truly value-added for research. This study investigates the convergent and incremental validity of the Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA) and the Herth Hope Scale (HHS), in the prediction of anxiety and depression (HSCL-25).
Participants in this community-based sample are 762 adults from 18 to 74 years old. They answered the RSA, HHS, Spanish Language Stressful Life-Events Checklist (SL-SLE), and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 (HSCL-25). Incremental validity analyses combined hierarchical regression and structural equation models (SEM). First, hierarchical regression models were compared based on three criteria (R ΔF, and semi-partial r), then the direct effect of resilience on affective symptoms was compared with the mediated effect of resilience on affective symptoms through hope.
The hierarchical models showed that (1) hope and resilience account significantly for the variance of affective symptoms above age, sex, and life-stress; (2) Resilience Total score has greater incremental validity than positive scales of HHS Hope; and (3) RSA Total score, HHS Optimism/Spiritual support, Stressful life-events and sex are unique predictors of affective symptoms. The SEM analyses verified a stronger direct effect of resilience in the prediction of affective symptoms above the significant partial mediated effect of resilience through hope. Additionally, results show that age and better educational opportunities were associated with protection (i.e. resilience and hope) and emotional well-being (i.e. affective symptoms and hopelessness). Women showed higher scores in social competences and resources (RSA), interconnectedness and initiative to take action (HHS). However, they have poorer evaluations of own abilities and efficacy (RSA), and higher scores in all the affective symptoms assessed.
The RSA has incremental validity above the HHS, however, both the RSA and the HHS are effective, differentiated and complementary measures of protection that are of high relevance for research on psychosocial and emotional well-being.
希望和适应力可以抵御内在弱点或严酷的生活环境；它们解释了在高压力下身体或心理健康结果的个体差异。它们在互补或竞争的理论框架中得到了研究；因此，在探索它们是否对研究真正有增值之前，应该研究希望和适应力的测量方法。本研究调查了成人适应力量表（RSA）和赫尔思希望量表（HHS）在预测焦虑和抑郁（HSCL-25）方面的会聚和增量有效性。
本社区样本的参与者是 762 名 18 至 74 岁的成年人。他们回答了 RSA、HHS、西班牙语压力生活事件清单（SL-SLE）和霍普金斯症状清单-25（HSCL-25）。增量有效性分析结合了层次回归和结构方程模型（SEM）。首先，基于三个标准（R ΔF 和半偏 r）比较层次回归模型，然后比较适应力对情感症状的直接影响与适应力通过希望对情感症状的中介影响。
层次模型显示，（1）希望和适应力在年龄、性别和生活压力之外显著解释了情感症状的差异；（2）适应力总分比 HHS 希望量表的积极量表具有更大的增量有效性；（3）RSA 总分、HHS 乐观/精神支持、生活压力事件和性别是情感症状的独特预测因子。SEM 分析验证了适应力在预测情感症状方面的直接影响大于适应力通过希望的部分中介效应。此外，结果表明年龄和更好的教育机会与保护（即适应力和希望）和情感健康（即情感症状和无望感）有关。女性在社会能力和资源（RSA）、相互联系和采取行动的主动性（HHS）方面得分较高。然而，她们对自己的能力和效能的评价较差（RSA），并且在评估的所有情感症状方面得分较高。
RSA 比 HHS 具有增量有效性，但 RSA 和 HHS 都是保护的有效、有区别和互补的测量方法，对研究社会心理和情感健康具有重要意义。
