Strength-Based Flourishing Intervention to Promote Resilience in Individuals With Physical Disabilities in Disadvantaged Communities: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

Purpose: The current study developed a strength-based flourishing intervention (SFI) and examined its efficacy on fostering the resilience of people with physical disabilities in poor areas, using a randomized (1:1) parallel-group controlled, and single-blind trial. Method: A total of 51 participants ( M age = 42.16, standard deviation = 8.42; 43.14% males; 29 for the intervention group, whereas 22 for the control group) completed preintervention, postintervention, and 3-month follow-up tests. Results: The 2 × 3 mixed repeated measure analyses and post hoc analyses revealed a significant main group effect ( F = 4.46, p = .04) and a short-term effect (i.e., 3 month; F = 6.35, p = .02) of the SFI. The results indicated that the SFI could significantly promote resilience in the intervention group. However, the effects of the intervention did not immediately appear. Discussion: The SFI could assist in providing research-based and cost-effective health services to promote flourishing and resilience in vulnerable populations.

The Strengths Use Scale: Psychometric Properties, Longitudinal Invariance and Criterion Validity

“…Finally, the level of internal consistency at both the lowerand upper bound levels for all constructs at both time points suggest that the SUS was a reliable measure of strengths use. This is inline with other findings that showed high levels of internal consistency for the overall strengths use factor in the USA (Govindji and Linley, 2007;Wood et al, 2011), Germany (Huber et al, 2017), China (Bu and Duan, 2020), Finland (Vuorinen et al, 2020), South Africa (Mahomed and Rothmann, 2020), and the U.K. (McTiernan et al, 2020). The second-order factorial model could therefore be used as a reliable measure for Affinity for Strengths and Strengths Use Behaviors within the current context.…”

“…In the majority of international studies, several modifications to the SUS scale (such as correlating error terms, and item parceling) were required to enhance model fit and to increase measurement quality (c.f. Wood et al, 2011 ; Huber et al, 2017 ; Bu and Duan, 2020 ; Vuorinen et al, 2020 ). Enhancing model fit through statistical modification artificially inflates data-model fit but does not address the theoretical reasoning why the instrument did not perform as intended (McNeish et al, 2018 ).…”

“…In the original two U.S. validation studies, the SUS produced Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranging from 0.95 (Govindji and Linley, 2007 ) to 0.97 (Wood et al, 2011 ). Outside of the U.S., the SUS has shown acceptable levels of internal consistency in Germany (α = 0.84: Huber et al, 2017 ), China (α = 0.94: Bu and Duan, 2020 ), Finland (α = 0.88: Vuorinen et al, 2020 ), and the U.K. (α = 0.90: McTiernan et al, 2020 ).…”

“…This 14 item self-report instrument aims to measure the extent to which individuals are drawn to activities that are aligned to their strengths and the extent to which strengths are actively used in a general way (Wood et al, 2011 ). The SUS has been translated into German (Huber et al, 2017 ), French (Forest et al, 2012 ), Hebrew (Littman-Ovadia et al, 2017 ), Finish (Vuorinen et al, 2020 ), Chinese (Bu and Duan, 2020 ), and adapted to work settings (Dubreuil et al, 2014 ). The instrument's popularity may be attributable to the fact that it was the first instrument developed to measure strengths use and that it is more inclined with the purest, functional principles of positive psychology.…”

“…The instrument aims to measure both opportunities to use strengths (affinity for strengths use), as well as individual strengths, use behaviors (strengths use behaviors) (Van Woerkom et al, 2016a ). The SUS is the most widely used instrument to assess general strengths use and has been translated into German (Huber et al, 2017 ), French (Forest et al, 2012 ), Hebrew (Littman-Ovadia et al, 2017 ), Finish (Vuorinen et al, 2020 ), Chinese (Bu and Duan, 2020 ), and even adapted to work settings (Dubreuil et al, 2014 ). Despite its wide use, only four studies have actively attempted to investigate its validity and reliability: Govindji and Linley ( 2007 ) and Wood et al ( 2011 ) in the US, Huber et al ( 2017 ) in Germany, and Duan et al ( 2018 ) in China.…”