No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

These scales are designed to assess perceived bene$ts that result from a spec@ stressox Research with the SRGS suggests a unidimensional structure of thriving, whereas research with the PTGI suggests a multidimensional structure. Two possible reasons for this inconsistentfinding concern diflerences in the method ofparticipant selection and in the recall period for the reporting of stressful events. In addition, we present a number of strategies to validate self-report measures of thriving, including corroboration from sign$cant others and the use of control groups. We conclude with a brief discussion of the assessment of thriving at the group and community levels.As the articles in this issue illustrate, the conceptualization of thriving is not yet consensual, nor clearly explicated, and theory on thriving is in its infancy. It is not surprising, therefore, that quantitative research on thriving is scarce and unsophisticated, to date. The purpose of this article is to review issues related to the quantitative assessment of thriving. We discuss general conceptual and methodological problems, and then present specific measurement strategies and research findings. Most of the article focuses on thriving at the individual level, although at the end we briefly consider thriving at the group and community levels. The focus is on methodological issues in the quantitative assessment of thriving, and therefore we do not document the extent of thriving reported in the empirical literature. Our research group has developed a measure of individual thriving, the Stress-Related Growth