Measurement properties of the brief resilient coping scale in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus using rasch analysis

Abstract

BacgroundResilience has been defined as the capacity or the ability to rebound from and positively adapt to significant stressors, despite experiences of significant adversity or trauma. To capture to what extent an individual copes with stress in a resilient fashion the Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS) was developed. This tool was validated in people with chronic disease, such as rheumatoid arthritis using standard psychometric techniques of classical test theory, but not yet in patients with Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The aim of this study was to explore the psychometric properties of the Brief Resilient Coping Scale in patients with SLE using Rasch analysis.MethodThis study used cross-sectional data. The BRCS was administered to 232 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. The aspects analyzed were unidimensionality, local independence and differential item functioning (DIF) to construct an interpretative scale of scores with the Rasch model.ResultsRating scale mode (RSM) showed that the four categories used in the items of the BRCS are properly ordered. The four items provided a good fit to the polytomous Rasch model. Moreover, the parameters were sufficiently separated to measure resilience in patients with SLE. BRCS is a unidimensional scale (eigenvalue = 1.843) of resilience and the items were locally independent. There was no DIF between males and females in the sample. Only marginally significant differences depending on the level of education were found. The BRCS showed adequate discriminant validity between groups of scores.ConclusionsBRCS is a suitable scale for measuring resilience in patients with SLE. This scale might be useful for clinicians to obtain information concerning the degree of resilience that each patient has, allowing individuals with low resilience to be identified who need interventions aimed at developing coping skills.

Factors associated with psychological distress, fear and coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia

“…Psychological impact was assessed by the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) [16], fear was assessed by the Fear of COVID-19 scale (FCV-19S) [17], and coping strategies were assessed by the Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS) [18]. K10 was found to be a valid and reliable tool, with wide applications in research and clinical practice [16,19,20]; FCV-19S was developed more recently in response to the global pandemic of COVID-19, which was validated and tested for reliability in a few recent studies [17,21,22]; validity and reliability had also been tested for BRCS in earlier studies [18,23,24]. K10 has ten items and response to each item in the questionnaire was measured using a 5-point Likert scale (none, a little, sometimes, most of the time, all the time).…”

“…All items were scored, and the total score categorised into low (score 10-15), moderate (score [16][17][18][19][20][21], high (score 22-29) and very high (score 30-50). FCV-19S has seven items and the response to each item was also measured using a 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat agree, strongly agree), with scores categorised into low (score 7-21) and high (score [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35]. BRCS has four items and responses were collected again using a 5-point Likert scale (does not describe me at all, does not describe me, neutral, describes me, describes me very well), with scores similarly categorised into low (score 4-13), medium (score 14-16) and high (score 17-20) resilient copers.…”

“…Each study participant read the consent form along with plain language summary and ticked their consent in the online form prior to accessing the study questionnaire. * Cardiac diseases/Stroke/Hypertension/Hyperlipidaemia/Diabetes/Cancer/Chronic respiratory illness 19.6 (7.6) Range 10 to 45 Level of psychological distress (K10 categories) 547 Low (score [10][11][12][13][14][15] 205 (37.5) Moderate (score [16][17][18][19][20][21] 160 (29.3) High (score [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] 111 (20.3) Very high (score 71 (13.0)…”

Validity of the Brief Resilience Scale and Brief Resilient Coping Scale in a Chinese Sample

“…Similarly, BRCS validation studies have been performed in different languages and with different groups, such as Spanish university students (α = 0.67) [25] and a household survey sample in Germany (α = 0.78) [26]. In addition, the BRCS has been used to study patients with systemic lupus erythematosus [27].…”

The influence of self-efficacy and resilient coping on cancer patients’ quality of life

“…Self-efficacy is associated with QoL in general (Kostka & Jachimowicz, 2010) and with QoL outcomes in cancer (Chirico, Serpentini et al, 2017;Foster et al, 2015;Thieme, Einenkel, Zenger, & Hinz, 2017). Resilience is a further protective factor that describes the presence of coping mechanisms that lead to positive outcomes (or at least outcomes within or above the expected range) despite exposure to risk and adverse circumstances (Luthar et al, 2000;Rutter, 2013;Southwick, Bonanno, Masten, Panter-Brick, & Yehuda, 2014;Beutel et al, 2017) Clinicians who notice low levels of resilience in their patients and are knowledgeable about its significance will be better equipped to identify those who need interventions aimed at developing coping skills (López-Pina et al, 2016).…”