Chmitorz Andrea, Wenzel Mario, Stieglitz Rolf-Dieter, Kunzler Angela, Bagusat Christiana, Helmreich Isabella, Gerlicher Anna, Kampa Miriam, Kubiak Thomas, Kalisch Raffael, Lieb Klaus, Tüscher Oliver
Deutsches Resilienz Zentrum (DRZ), University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
PLoS One. 2018 Feb 13;13(2):e0192761. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192761. eCollection 2018.
Smith and colleagues developed the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) to assess the individual ability to recover from stress despite significant adversity. This study aimed to validate the German version of the BRS. We used data from a population-based (sample 1: n = 1.481) and a representative (sample 2: n = 1.128) sample of participants from the German general population (age ≥ 18) to assess reliability and validity. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted to compare one- and two-factorial models from previous studies with a method-factor model which especially accounts for the wording of the items. Reliability was analyzed. Convergent validity was measured by correlating BRS scores with mental health measures, coping, social support, and optimism. Reliability was good (α = .85, ω = .85 for both samples). The method-factor model showed excellent model fit (sample 1: χ2/df = 7.544; RMSEA = .07; CFI = .99; SRMR = .02; sample 2: χ2/df = 1.166; RMSEA = .01; CFI = 1.00; SRMR = .01) which was significantly better than the one-factor model (Δχ2(4) = 172.71, p < .001) or the two-factor model (Δχ2(3) = 31.16, p < .001). The BRS was positively correlated with well-being, social support, optimism, and the coping strategies active coping, positive reframing, acceptance, and humor. It was negatively correlated with somatic symptoms, anxiety and insomnia, social dysfunction, depression, and the coping strategies religion, denial, venting, substance use, and self-blame. To conclude, our results provide evidence for the reliability and validity of the German adaptation of the BRS as well as the unidimensional structure of the scale once method effects are accounted for.
史密斯及其同事开发了简易复原力量表（BRS），以评估个体在面对重大逆境时从压力中恢复的能力。本研究旨在验证BRS的德文版本。我们使用了来自德国普通人群（年龄≥18岁）的基于人群的样本（样本1：n = 1481）和代表性样本（样本2：n = 1128）的数据来评估信度和效度。进行了验证性因素分析（CFA），以将先前研究中的单因素和双因素模型与特别考虑项目措辞的方法因素模型进行比较。分析了信度。通过将BRS得分与心理健康指标、应对方式、社会支持和乐观主义进行关联来测量收敛效度。信度良好（两个样本的α = 0.85，ω = 0.85）。方法因素模型显示出出色的模型拟合度（样本1：χ2/df = 7.544；RMSEA = 0.07；CFI = 0.99；SRMR = 0.02；样本2：χ2/df = 1.166；RMSEA = 0.01；CFI = 1.00；SRMR = 0.01），这明显优于单因素模型（Δχ2(4) = 172.71，p < 0.001）或双因素模型（Δχ2(3) = 31.16，p < 0.001）。BRS与幸福感、社会支持、乐观主义以及积极应对、积极重新评价、接受和幽默等应对策略呈正相关。它与躯体症状、焦虑和失眠、社会功能障碍、抑郁以及宗教、否认、发泄、物质使用和自责等应对策略呈负相关。总之，我们的结果为BRS德文改编版的信度和效度以及考虑方法效应后该量表的单维结构提供了证据。
