Connor-davidson resilience scale: A systematic review psychometrics properties using the COSMIN

Hamid Sharif-Nia, David Sánchez-Teruel, Erika Sivarajan Froelicher, S. Hejazi, L. Hosseini, Fatemeh Khoshnavay Fomani, Mozhgan Moshtagh, Fereshteh Mollaei, A. Goudarzian, Amir Babaei
{"title":"Connor-davidson resilience scale: A systematic review psychometrics properties using the COSMIN","authors":"Hamid Sharif-Nia, David Sánchez-Teruel, Erika Sivarajan Froelicher, S. Hejazi, L. Hosseini, Fatemeh Khoshnavay Fomani, Mozhgan Moshtagh, Fereshteh Mollaei, A. Goudarzian, Amir Babaei","doi":"10.1097/ms9.0000000000001968","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Psychometrical evaluation of persons of diverse contexts, and different populations, including general or clinical.\n \n \n \n This review study aimed to evaluate the psychometrics quality of resilience scales.\n \n \n \n International and Iranian databases were searched with MESH terms included “psychometric”, “validity”, “reliability”, “Connor-Davidson resilience scale”, “Resilience scale”, for published articles up to February 1, 2023. For each of the selected studies, risk of bias was evaluated using the COSMIN Risk of Bias Checklist. Then The COSMIN checklist was used to evaluate the entire text of the article for methodological quality.\n \n \n \n Considering the inclusion criteria, 80 documents were evaluated. According to the COSMIN’s criteria for evaluating the risk of bias, the current study findings revealed the included studies’ limitations in assessing the three versions of CD-RISC cross-cultural and content validity as well as their stability (e.g., conducting test re-test), whereas the majority of psychometric studies of CD-RISC25, and CD-RISC-2 rated as very good or adequate in terms of structural validity. In terms of quality assessment of the included studies, the current study indicated that investigating the structural validity of the CD-RISC was mainly done based on EFA (Exploratory Factor Analysis), and confirmatory factor analysis was absent.\n \n \n \n The general result indicates the acceptability of the quality of the studies. However, concerns for measurement properties such as responsiveness and criterion validity as well as the standard error of measurement have been neglected.\n","PeriodicalId":503882,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Medicine & Surgery","volume":"50 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Medicine & Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ms9.0000000000001968","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Psychometrical evaluation of persons of diverse contexts, and different populations, including general or clinical. This review study aimed to evaluate the psychometrics quality of resilience scales. International and Iranian databases were searched with MESH terms included “psychometric”, “validity”, “reliability”, “Connor-Davidson resilience scale”, “Resilience scale”, for published articles up to February 1, 2023. For each of the selected studies, risk of bias was evaluated using the COSMIN Risk of Bias Checklist. Then The COSMIN checklist was used to evaluate the entire text of the article for methodological quality. Considering the inclusion criteria, 80 documents were evaluated. According to the COSMIN’s criteria for evaluating the risk of bias, the current study findings revealed the included studies’ limitations in assessing the three versions of CD-RISC cross-cultural and content validity as well as their stability (e.g., conducting test re-test), whereas the majority of psychometric studies of CD-RISC25, and CD-RISC-2 rated as very good or adequate in terms of structural validity. In terms of quality assessment of the included studies, the current study indicated that investigating the structural validity of the CD-RISC was mainly done based on EFA (Exploratory Factor Analysis), and confirmatory factor analysis was absent. The general result indicates the acceptability of the quality of the studies. However, concerns for measurement properties such as responsiveness and criterion validity as well as the standard error of measurement have been neglected.
康纳-戴维森复原力量表:使用 COSMIN 系统审查心理测量学特性
对不同背景、不同人群(包括普通或临床人群)的心理测量进行评估。 本综述研究旨在评估复原力量表的心理测量质量。 研究人员使用 MESH 术语 "心理测量"、"有效性"、"可靠性"、"康纳-戴维森复原力量表"、"复原力量表 "检索了国际和伊朗数据库中截至 2023 年 2 月 1 日已发表的文章。对于所选的每项研究,均使用 COSMIN 偏倚风险检查表对偏倚风险进行评估。然后使用 COSMIN 检查表对文章全文的方法学质量进行评估。 根据纳入标准,共评估了 80 篇文献。根据 COSMIN 的偏倚风险评估标准,目前的研究结果显示,纳入的研究在评估 CD-RISC 三个版本的跨文化和内容效度及其稳定性(如进行测试再测试)方面存在局限性,而 CD-RISC25 和 CD-RISC-2 的大多数心理测量研究在结构效度方面被评为非常好或足够好。就纳入研究的质量评估而言,本研究表明,对 CD-RISC 结构效度的调查主要基于 EFA(探索性因素分析),而缺乏确认性因素分析。 总体结果表明研究质量是可以接受的。然而,对测量属性的关注,如响应性和标准效度以及测量的标准误差却被忽略了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信