Conjoint Community Resiliency Assessment Measure‐28/10 Items (CCRAM28 and CCRAM10): A Self‐report Tool for Assessing Community Resilience

Abstract

Community resilience is used to describe a community's ability to deal with crises or disruptions. The Conjoint Community Resiliency Assessment Measure (CCRAM) was developed in order to attain an integrated, multidimensional instrument for the measurement of community resiliency. The tool was developed using an inductive, exploratory, sequential mixed methods design. The objective of the present study was to portray and evaluate the CCRAM's psychometric features. A large community sample (N = 1,052) were assessed by the CCRAM tool, and the data was subjected to exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. A Five factor model (21 items) was obtained, explaining 67.67 % of the variance. This scale was later reduced to 10-item brief instrument. Both scales showed good internal consistency coefficients (α = .92 and α = .85 respectively), and acceptable fit indices to the data. Seven additional items correspond to information requested by leaders, forming the CCRAM28. The CCRAM has been shown to be an acceptable practical tool for assessing community resilience. Both internal and external validity have been demonstrated, as all factors obtained in the factor analytical process, were tightly linked to previous literature on community resilience. The CCRAM facilitates the estimation of an overall community resiliency score but furthermore, it detects the strength of five important constructs of community function following disaster: Leadership, Collective Efficacy, Preparedness, Place Attachment and Social Trust. Consequently, the CCRAM can serve as an aid for community leaders to assess, monitor, and focus actions to enhance and restore community resilience for crisis situations.

Analyzing community resilience as an emergent property of dynamic social-ecological systems

“…The survey contained 37 fixed statements adapted from validated versions of Likert scales presented in the literature related to the community resilience capacities being studied (Lewicka 2008, Pfefferbaum et al 2011, Leykin et al 2013. Respondents were asked to rate how strongly they agreed with each statement using a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree or agree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).…”

Catalyst or Barrier? The Influence of Place Attachment on Perceived Community Resilience in Tourism Destinations

“…Previous studies have highlighted that place attachment is a key factor of community resilience [54]. Leykin et al believe that place attachment is a key construct in measuring community resilience [55]. Maclean et al note that the people-place connection is one of six attributes of community resilience [56].…”

Resilience of an Earthquake-Stricken Rural Community in Southwest China: Correlation with Disaster Risk Reduction Efforts

“…In this model, community resilience is composed of the social and economic well-being of a community, physical and psychological health of a population, effective risk communication, social connection and integration, and involvement of both governmental and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Prior empirical research, such as the study of Leykin et al [30] in Israel and the investigation of Pfefferbaum et al [31] in an impoverished urban community in the United States revealed that the number of years living in a community, engagement with or volunteering in local entities/activities for DRR, having permanent relationships, and home ownership were positively correlated with perceived community resilience, whereas gender, home emergency preparedness, total family income, employment status, past emergency situations, and level of education had no statistically significant impact. In another study with affiliated volunteer responders in an American community, Pfefferbaum and colleagues [32] indicated that the completion of a basic training program in disaster response and the interest in deploying such a program within a community was negatively associated with the responders’ perception of community resilience.…”