Problems defining resiliency: Illustrations from the study of maltreated children

Abstract

In this article, operational definitions of resiliency used in previous studies are reviewed. Data from a sample of 56 maltreated school-age children are then explored to highlight how variations in the source, type, and number of assessments obtained affect the rates of children classified as resilient. Assessments were obtained in three domains: academic achievement, social competence, and clinical symptomatology. Two sources of information were used to assess each domain, and three different data integration procedures were used to calculate rates of resiliency in the maltreated cohort. It is concluded that the most appropriate definition of resiliency to be used in future investigations depends on the aims of the study. If the goal of the study is to assess overall functioning, there is an advantage to using more broad, multidimensional assessments. If, in contrast, the goal of the study is to determine why some high-risk children develop particular types of problems, to identify underlying etiological processes associated with different outcomes, there is an advantage to using narrower definitions.

Social, Emotional, and Academic Competence Among Children Who Have Had Contact With Child Protective Services: Prevalence and Stability Estimates

“…Moreover, resilience in one domain did not ensure resilience across other domains; at any given wave just over 1 in 10 children lacked clinically significant mental health problems, had average or above-average achievement test scores, and were at least moderately socially competent. The present findings replicate and extend those of a smaller study by Kaufman et al (1994) who found that relatively few maltreated children were consistently competent across domains. Nevertheless, the vast majority of NSCAW children were resilient in at least one domain at each wave (Table 4), which suggests that even though many children were not able to maintain consistently competent functioning in a given domain over time, they did at least manifest competence in one domain or another at each time point.…”

“…In practice, however, researchers who study resilience to maltreatment often define resilient children in terms of one criterion: the absence of clinically significant mental health problems. Although this is an important marker of positive functioning, children who lack significant mental health problems may be struggling in other arenas (Kaufman et al, 1994). Moreover, with few exceptions (Cicchetti and Rogosch, 1997;Farber and Egeland, 1987;Herrenkohl et al, 1994), most studies of maltreated children measure children's functioning at a single point in time.…”

“…Rather, children had to demonstrate adequate functioning, but they had to do so consistently across informants or measures. These criteria are consistent with those employed by Kaufman et al (1994). Ideally, we would have measured resilience by combining data from informants such that error associated with informant bias and measurement context would have been minimized (Kraemer et al, 2003).…”

Resilience and mental health

“…mental health protection, promotion and recovery) in one multi-level interacting system and (ii) merging theoretical models with an operational (resilience measurement) approach. So far, these theoretical and practical issues have been very poorly linked together and resilience has mainly been measured according to specific operational definitions depending on the aims of individual studies or according to predefined indicators relating to the theoretical position of an inventory's author (Kaufman, Cook, Arny, Jones, & Pittinsky 1994;Vaishnavi, Connor, & Davidson, 2007).…”

Resilience in children: the nature and the importance of the concept

“…This real definitional difference can affect the populations that resilience research targets, the methodologies and designs they use, and how research findings are viewed and interpreted. (Cowen, 1997;Kaufman et al, 1994).…”