Angela Kunzler

Intervention studies to foster resilience – A systematic review and proposal for a resilience framework in future intervention studies

Psychological resilience refers to the phenomenon that many people are able to adapt to the challenges of life and maintain mental health despite exposure to adversity. This has stimulated research on training programs to foster psychological resilience. We evaluated concepts, methods and designs of 43 randomized controlled trials published between 1979 and 2014 which assessed the efficacy of such training programs and propose standards for future intervention research based on recent developments in the field. We found that concepts, methods and designs in current resilience intervention studies are of limited use to properly assess efficacy of interventions to foster resilience. Major problems are the use of definitions of resilience as trait or a composite of resilience factors, the use of unsuited assessment instruments, and inappropriate study designs. To overcome these challenges, we propose 1) an outcome-oriented definition of resilience, 2) an outcome-oriented assessment of resilience as change in mental health in relation to stressor load, and 3) methodological standards for suitable study designs of future intervention studies. Our proposals may contribute to an improved quality of resilience intervention studies and may stimulate further progress in this growing research field.

Population-based validation of a German version of the Brief Resilience Scale

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.