Factor structure, internal reliability, and construct validity of the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS): A study on persons with serious mental illness living in the community

Abstract

ObjectivesResilience, the ability to bounce back from a stressful situation, is a valuable asset for aiding adults with serious mental illness (SMI) in navigating the recovery process. People with SMI experience stress, including traumatic experiences at disproportionate rates. The purposes of this study were to examine the factor structure, internal reliability, and construct validity of the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) among adults with SMI living in the community.DesignA cross‐sectional survey design was used. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and correlational analyses were employed.MethodsThree hundred fifteen adults with SMI were recruited for two studies (Sample 1, n = 122; Sample 2, n = 193) from three states. All participants completed the BRS along with nearly identical positive psychology‐ and psychopathology‐related measures.ResultsEFA revealed the BRS was unidimensional and explained 61.20% of the variance. Results from seven CFA models suggested a bifactor structure for the BRS, which fit the data best. Internal reliability of the BRS was computed to be within acceptable ranges (α = .87, ω = .90). The BRS was positively correlated with measures of positive coping and life satisfaction, providing convergent validity. Divergent validity was supported by negative correlations between the BRS and measures of psychiatric symptoms, succumbing, and self‐stigma.ConclusionsThe BRS is a valid measure that can be used by clinical and research professionals to assess levels of resilience in adults with SMI at baseline and across time.Practitioner points The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) was developed to measure a person’s ability to bounce back from stressful situations. The BRS was examined in adults with serious mental illness living in the community. The BRS presented a bifactor structure measuring resilience (an outcome) and correlated with positive psychology‐ and psychopathology‐related measures. The BRS can be used by practitioners to assess levels of resilience in their clients at baseline and over time to evaluate the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions.

Testing Kumpfer’s Resilience Model Among Adults With Serious Mental Illness

“…The BRS reported internal consistency (α = .80–.91) and test–retest reliability ( r = .69 and .62 over 1- and 3-month intervals, respectively) among undergraduate students, cardiac rehabilitation patients, and women with fibromyalgia (Smith et al, 2008). An independent study yielded similar results among adults with SMI (α = .85–.87; Sánchez et al, in press). In this study, Cronbach’s alpha for the BRS was computed to be .87.…”

How Czecho-Slovakia Bounces Back: Population-Based Validation of the Brief Resilience Scale in Two Central European Countries

“…Kyriazos et al, 2018) as well as on clinical samples (e.g. Sánchez et al, 2021) it is known that a lower BRS score is associated with worse mental health, a higher level of psychopathology and lower well-being. The positive correlation between resilience measured by the BRS and physical and mental well-being is consistent with validation studies in Germany, Poland and Australia (Chmitorz, Wenzel, et al, 2018; Konaszewski et al, 2020; McKay et al, 2021).…”

Brief Resilience Scale: Ampliando suas evidências psicométricas em contexto brasileiro

“…Por ser curta, eficaz, teórica e metodológicamente recomendada, a BRS rapidamente se popularizou, sendo utilizada para avaliação da resiliência em pessoas com transtornos mentais severos (Sánchez et al, 2021), pacientes com câncer e que sobreviveram a ele (Koral & Cirak, 2021;Vartak, 2015) e em profissionais de saúde que atuaram na linha de frente da COVID-19 (Saleem et al, 2020). Ademais, a BRS é utilizada em diferentes grupos etários, desde adolescentes (Zhang et al, 2020) até idosos (Silva-Sauer et al, 2020), tendo versões adaptadas em diferentes países, tais como Alemanha (Chmitorz et al, 2018), Espanha (Rodríguez-Rey et al, 2016) e Polônia (Konaszewski et al, 2020).…”