Reviewing the labyrinth of psychological resilience: Establishing criteria for resilience-building programs.

IF 0.9 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
Richta C. IJntema, Yvonne Burger, W. Schaufeli
{"title":"Reviewing the labyrinth of psychological resilience: Establishing criteria for resilience-building programs.","authors":"Richta C. IJntema, Yvonne Burger, W. Schaufeli","doi":"10.1037/cpb0000147","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is a growing interest in developing resilience-building programs in the work context. Yet the resilience literature provides no clear answer about what constitutes such a program. The aim of this article is to shed light on this question by presenting a set of criteria for resilience-building programs. We developed these criteria by systematically reviewing studies that synthesized the evidence about the definition, conceptualization, measurement, and enhancement of psychological resilience. A literature search in peer-review journals published between 2009 and 2018 using PsycINFO resulted in 286 hits. Twenty-one studies met our inclusion criteria. In addition, we consulted 3 handbooks on resilience. The result of our review is a checklist of 12 criteria for resilience-building programs to improve program consistency and quality. These criteria address the necessity to: specify which working population is in need of psychological resilience; cite which definition is being used; display and explain the process that people go through in order to adapt to adversity; describe how resilience will be measured and enhanced as a dynamic process, as well as say which type of positive adaptation-to which adversity, in which work context, and when-is involved; and make clear the starting point and purpose of the work. These criteria can be regarded as a valuable navigation tool in the complex field of resilience: Program developers can use them to optimize the content of resilience-building programs and to ensure that relevant information is reported; reviewers of resilience-building programs can use them to analyze, evaluate, and compare programs. Therefore, the checklist could become an indispensable tool for both researchers and practitioners to improve designing, describing, and reviewing resilience-building programs at work.","PeriodicalId":53219,"journal":{"name":"Consulting Psychology Journal-Practice and Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"24","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Consulting Psychology Journal-Practice and Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000147","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24

Abstract

There is a growing interest in developing resilience-building programs in the work context. Yet the resilience literature provides no clear answer about what constitutes such a program. The aim of this article is to shed light on this question by presenting a set of criteria for resilience-building programs. We developed these criteria by systematically reviewing studies that synthesized the evidence about the definition, conceptualization, measurement, and enhancement of psychological resilience. A literature search in peer-review journals published between 2009 and 2018 using PsycINFO resulted in 286 hits. Twenty-one studies met our inclusion criteria. In addition, we consulted 3 handbooks on resilience. The result of our review is a checklist of 12 criteria for resilience-building programs to improve program consistency and quality. These criteria address the necessity to: specify which working population is in need of psychological resilience; cite which definition is being used; display and explain the process that people go through in order to adapt to adversity; describe how resilience will be measured and enhanced as a dynamic process, as well as say which type of positive adaptation-to which adversity, in which work context, and when-is involved; and make clear the starting point and purpose of the work. These criteria can be regarded as a valuable navigation tool in the complex field of resilience: Program developers can use them to optimize the content of resilience-building programs and to ensure that relevant information is reported; reviewers of resilience-building programs can use them to analyze, evaluate, and compare programs. Therefore, the checklist could become an indispensable tool for both researchers and practitioners to improve designing, describing, and reviewing resilience-building programs at work.
回顾心理弹性的迷宫:建立弹性建设项目的标准。
人们对在工作环境中发展复原力建设项目越来越感兴趣。然而,关于复原力的文献并没有给出一个明确的答案,说明是什么构成了这样一个项目。本文的目的是通过提出一套恢复力建设项目的标准来阐明这个问题。我们通过系统地回顾有关心理弹性的定义、概念化、测量和增强的综合证据的研究,制定了这些标准。在2009年至2018年间发表的同行评议期刊上,使用PsycINFO进行文献搜索,结果是286次点击。21项研究符合我们的纳入标准。此外,我们还查阅了3本关于弹性的手册。我们审查的结果是制定了一份清单,列出了用于提高项目一致性和质量的韧性建设项目的12项标准。这些标准涉及以下方面的必要性:具体说明哪些工作人口需要心理弹性;引用正在使用的定义;展示和解释人们为了适应逆境而经历的过程;描述如何将弹性作为一个动态过程来测量和增强,并说明涉及哪种类型的积极适应-针对哪种逆境,在哪种工作环境中,以及何时;明确工作的出发点和目的。这些标准可以被视为在复杂的弹性领域中有价值的导航工具:项目开发人员可以使用它们来优化弹性建设项目的内容,并确保报告相关信息;弹性建设项目的评审人员可以使用它们来分析、评估和比较项目。因此,检查表可以成为研究人员和实践者在工作中改进设计、描述和审查弹性建设项目的不可或缺的工具。
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
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
9.10%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research serves as a forum for anyone working in the area of consultation. The journal publishes theoretical and conceptual articles, original research, and in-depth reviews with respect to consultation and its practice. The journal also publishes case studies demonstrating the application of innovative consultation methods and strategies on critical or often overlooked issues with unusual features that would be of general interest to other consultants. Special issues have focused on such current topics as organizational change, executive coaching, and the consultant as an expert witness.
×
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