Tian Zhenyu, Kuang Kai, Wilson Steven R, Buzzanell Patrice M, Ye Jinyi, Mao Xinyue, Wei Hai
Department of Communication Studies, College of Wooster, Wooster, OH, United States.
School of Journalism and Communication, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Front Psychol. 2024 Mar 28;15:1293857. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1293857. eCollection 2024.
Despite the rapid growth of interdisciplinary resilience research in Chinese contexts, no study has systematically reviewed individual-level measurement scales for Chinese-speaking populations. We report a systematic review of scales developed for or translated/adapted to Chinese-speaking contexts, where we assessed how widely used scales fare in terms of their psychometric qualities.
Studies included in this review must have been published in peer-reviewed English or Chinese journals between 2015-2020 and included self-reported resilience scales in Chinese-speaking populations. Searches were conducted in PsycINFO, CNKI (completed in May 2021), and PubMed (completed in January 2024). We developed coding schemes for extracting relevant data and adapted and applied an existing evaluation framework to assess the most frequently used resilience scales by seven methodological criteria.
Analyses of 963 qualified studies suggested that Chinese resilience scales were used in a diverse range of study contexts. Among 85 unique kinds of resilience measures, we highlighted and evaluated the three most frequently used translated scales and three locally developed scales (nine scales in total including variations such as short forms). In short, resilience studies in Chinese contexts relied heavily on the translated 25-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, which scored moderately on the overall quality. The locally developed Resilience Scale for Chinese Adolescents and Essential Resilience Scale received the best ratings but could use further development.
We discussed how future work may advance widely used scales, and specified seven methodological recommendations for future resilience scale development with existing and new scales in and beyond the Chinese study contexts. We further addressed issues and challenges in measuring resilience as a process and called on researchers to further develop/evaluate process measures for Chinese-speaking populations.
尽管跨学科复原力研究在中国背景下迅速发展,但尚无研究系统回顾针对华语人群的个体层面测量量表。我们报告了一项针对为华语背景开发或翻译/改编的量表的系统综述,评估了广泛使用的量表在心理测量质量方面的表现。
本综述纳入的研究必须在2015年至2020年期间发表于同行评审的英文或中文期刊,并包括华语人群的自我报告复原力量表。检索在PsycINFO、中国知网(2021年5月完成)和PubMed(2024年1月完成)中进行。我们制定了编码方案以提取相关数据,并采用并应用现有的评估框架,通过七个方法学标准评估最常用的复原力量表。
对963项合格研究的分析表明,中文复原力量表在多种研究背景中被使用。在85种独特的复原力测量方法中,我们重点介绍并评估了三种最常用的翻译量表和三种本土开发的量表(总共九个量表,包括简版等变体)。简而言之,中国背景下的复原力研究严重依赖翻译后的25项Connor-Davidson复原力量表,其整体质量得分中等。本土开发的《中国青少年复原力量表》和《基本复原力量表》获得了最佳评分,但仍需进一步完善。
我们讨论了未来的工作如何改进广泛使用的量表,并为中国研究背景内外现有和新量表的未来复原力量表开发提出了七条方法学建议。我们进一步探讨了将复原力作为一个过程进行测量时的问题和挑战,并呼吁研究人员进一步开发/评估华语人群的过程测量方法。