Description
The originally validated Norwegian version of the RSA contained 37 items, and covered five dimensions
(Friborg et al., 2003 ). An updated RSA contains 33 items and is based on a 6-dimensional structure ( Friborg,
Barlaug, Martinussen, Rosenvinge, & Hjemdal, 2005 ). A semantic differential response format is currently used
as it effectively reduces acquiescence bias (Friborg et al., 2006). The initial five dimensions of the RSA were
labeled: personal competence, social competence, family coherence, social support, and personal structure (Friborg et al.,
2003). Subsequently, personal competence was broken down into two separate factors, namely perception of self and
planned future and the remaining factors were named social competence, structured style, family cohesion , and social
resources . The content of each factor is: (1) perception of self /C0measures one’s confidence in his/her abilities and
judgment, self-efficacy, and realistic expectations; (2) planned future /C0measures one’s ability to be goal oriented,
have a positive outlook, and plan ahead; (3) social competence /C0measures extraversion, social adeptness/warmth,
cheerful mood, ability to initiate activities and use humor positively, good communication skills, and flexibility
in social matters; (4) structured style /C0measures one’s ability to uphold daily routines, and to plan and organize;
(5)family cohesion /C0measures family conflict/values, cooperation support, loyalty, and stability); and (6) social
resources /C0measures availability of external support from friends and relatives and outside the family, intimacy,
and individual’s ability to provide support ( Friborg et al., 2005; Hjemdal, Friborg, Stiles, Rosenvinge, &
Martinussen, 2006 ). The RSA fits the conceptualization of resilience as characterized by Werner (1989; 1993),
Rutter (1990), and Garmezy (1993), to encompass: (a) personal/dispositional attributes ( personal competence /C0now
perception of self and planned future ,social competence ,personal structure /C0now structured style ); (b) family support
(family coherence /C0now family cohesion ); and (c) external support systems ( social support /C0now social resources )
(Friborg et al., 2003 ).
Thus, the RSA is based on notions of adjustment and coherence and yields 5-6 subscale scores in addition to a
total score. The psychometric properties of the RSA have been explored cross-culturally in countries including
Norway (northernmost Scandinavian culture), Belgium /C0French-speaking version (part of Western European
culture; Hjemdal et al., 2011 ), Turkey ( Basim & Cetin, 2011 ), and in Iran ( Jowkar et al., 2010 ).
Sample
The author’s control sample ( Friborg et al., 2003 ) included 130 women ( M536.0 years, SD57.6) and 97 men
(M537.4 years, SD57.1).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Cronbach alpha coefficients for the RSA five-factor version were 0.90 for personal competence , 0.83 for social com-
petence , 0.87 for family coherence , 0.83 for social support , and 0.67 for personal structure (Hjemdal et al., 2006 ). The
33-item RSA exhibited alpha coefficients that were greater than .70 for all the subscales, being .74, .73, .83, .80,
.80, and .77 with respect to a 6-factor solution (see Hjemdal et al., 2006 ). Alpha coefficients for the six factors
were .81 for perception of self , .78 for planned future , .75 for social competence , .67 for structured style (personal struc-
ture), .79 for family cohesion (family coherence) , and .77 for social resources (social support).
Test/C0Retest
The four-month stability coefficients for the five dimensions were 0.79, 0.84, 0.77, 0.69 and 0.74, respectively,
based on the control sample ( Friborg et al., 2003 ).
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
RSA subscales correlate positively (0.29 to 0.75) with the Sense of Coherence Scale (SOC; Antonovsky, 1993,
1998).
Divergent/Discriminant
Negative correlations (ranging from /C00.19 to /C00.61) have been found between the RSA and the Hopkins
Symptom Check List (HSCL; Nettelbladt et al., 1993). The RSA differentiates between patients and healthy con-
trols ( Friborg et al., 2003 ).298 11. MEASURES OF RESILIENCY
III. EMOTION REGULATION