Do subjective and objective resilience measures assess unique aspects and what is their relationship to adolescent well‐being?

Abstract

Measurement of resilience is important within schools to support student mental health and well‐being. Resilience is defined as the healthy integration, adaptation, and positive functioning over time in response to the experience of adversity and challenge. This study explored the relationship between a subjective and objective measure of resilience and the respective predictability of psychophysical well‐being measures. A sample of 282 Year 10 students completed a subjective resilience measure (Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale) and psychological measures of well‐being. A subset of 76 students completed an objective measure of resilience (heart rate variability [HRV]). Correlational analyses revealed no significant relationship between the two measures and do not support the use of one measure as a proxy for the other. Hierarchical regression analyses illustrated the significant predictive quality of the subjective measure to psychophysical well‐being measures. The strongest relationships were reported with EPOCH subscales Optimism (r = 0.68), Happiness (r = 0.64), and Perseverance (r = 0.59). No significant relationships were found between the objective resilience measure and well‐being measures. With objective resilience showing no relationship to subjective resilience and well‐being, it is possible that HRV instead measures the capacity for resilience, rather than resilience. This study highlights the importance of defining resilience and the implications for measurement in adolescent students.

Promotion of Healthy Habits in University Students: Literature Review

“…De la Fuente et al (2021) [22], who conducted their study on Spanish university students, focus on resilience, positivity, and coping strategies as predictors of engagement in the context of burnout in university students, making proposals for therapeutic intervention for prevention in different student profiles, considering the work on resilience fundamental to withstand experiences of change. Jardim et al (2021) [19], who studied Portuguese university students; and Sigley-Taylor et al (2021) [18], who focused on Australian university students, highlight the importance of defining resilience and its implications in students.…”

“…In direct relation to stress, we highlight two concepts: resilience and burnout. The first concept, resilience, is defined as healthy integration and adaptation over time in response to adversity and challenges [18]. Some college students lack the necessary skills to cope positively with the crises inherent to the college stage [19].…”

“…Some college students lack the necessary skills to cope positively with the crises inherent to the college stage [19]. For this reason, mental resilience is key to student well-being and performance, and its measurement is important to support mental health and well-being [18,20].…”

“…Resilience: A lack of skills has been observed in university students who face crises inherent to the university period in a negative way, and resilience is a key factor in the well-being and performance of students. Therefore, it is essential to measure it and for this purpose we have the Resilience Scale-14 and the Resilience Scale-10 [18][19][20]22].…”

Do these jeans make me feel fat? Exploring subjective fatness, its workplace outcomes, and rethinking the role of subjectivity in the stigmatization process

“…By embracing a subjective perspective on body fat, 1 we follow the lead of other streams of research that have demonstrated the significant influence of subjective assessments of personal characteristics (versus objective measures of those same conditions) for factors ranging from psychological to physical to social characteristics. For example, research has clearly demonstrated the importance of subjective assessments of one's wellbeing (Diener et al., 1999), resilience (Sigley‐Taylor et al., 2021), pain (Stewart et al., 2021), sleep disruption (Dhruva et al., 2012), social status (Anderson et al., 2012), individual power (Anderson & Berdahl, 2002), and socioeconomic status (Adler et al., 2000) in fully understanding these constructs and their effects.…”