Several researchers and theorists have attempted to integrate the many research findings and their implica-
tions for practical application, including assessment. However, the understanding that resilience is a product of
complex interactions of personal attributes and environmental circumstances, mediated by internal mechanisms,
has presented an assessment challenge to developmental researchers ( Luthar et al., 2000 ). Some longitudinal
studies from a developmental psychopathology perspective have tried to capture contextual aspects of resilience
specific to the group and sets of circumstances ( Masten, 2001, 2006; Werner, 2005 ). These studies have employed
extensive batteries of preexisting tests to assess personal resiliency, but like most research in this area, different
measures have been used across both research studies and populations, making it difficult to compare the results
of these published studies. The research-based tools employed in previous studies have often been impractical
for widespread use in the schools and communities because they are too labor intensive, expensive, or focused
on presence or absence of psychiatric symptoms. Consequently, the lack of a common metric for measuring resil-
iency has resulted in difficulty assessing the need for, choice of, and effectiveness of preventive intervention strat-
egies in a way that allows comparison across methods and populations. Thus it is the purpose of this chapter to
present and review measures of resilience/resiliency that are application friendly and consistent with conceptual
definitions presented by these assessments.
MEASURES REVIEWED HERE
Ten measures are reviewed for their theoretical grounding, psychometric underpinnings, and application.
These scales/measures are presented as examples of operationalized definitions of resiliency/resilience that vary
by the intended purpose of the assessment and age of the intended respondent.
1.Ego-resiliency Scale ( Block, 1989; Block & Block, 1971; Block & Kremen, 1996; Block et al., 1988 )
2.Resilience Scale (Wagnild, 1987)
3.Resilience Scale for Adults ( Friborg et al., 2003 )
4.Connor /C0Davidson Resilience Scale ( Connor & Davidson, 2003 )
5.Brief Resilience Scale ( Smith et al., 2008 )
6.Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents ( Connor et al., 1999; Davidson et al., 2006; Prince-Embury,
2006, 2007 )
7.Child and Youth Resilience Measure ( Ungar & Liebenberg, 2009, 2011 )
8.Social/C0Emotional Assets and Resiliency Scales ( Merrell, 2011 )
9.Devereux Student Strengths Assessment (LeBuffe et al., 2009)
10.ClassMaps Survey ( Doll, Zucker, & Brehm, 2004, 2009 )
Instruments selected for this review need to have the intended purpose of assessing strengths, including resil-
ience/resiliency and must have had a least one major favorable review in the published literature and have been
included in several studies supporting their reliability and validity. In addition, the measures selected must dem-
onstrate practical applicability in both applied and research settings. Thus many other measures that may be
more (e.g., hardiness) or less (e.g., psychological flourishing) linked to resiliency have not been included.
However we do acknowledge that there is overlap between many factors that have causal, mediating, moderat-
ing, and outcome relationships with resiliency. Selection of a resiliency measure must also take conceptual issues
into account. The first consideration is whether the assessment is for children, adolescents, or adults. Scales will
vary both in reading level and in the cognitive and developmental complexity of the construct(s) they are asses-
sing. Although protective factors present in childhood may predict better outcome later in life, the actual expres-
sion and experience of resilience may differ across the lifespan.
A second consideration is whether resiliency is considered as a one-dimensional or multidimensional con-
struct. Although much discussion of resilience has referred to it as one-dimensional, most assessment tools
assume multiple dimensions. Some scales have identified the dimensions after the fact by using statistical meth-
ods (exploratory factor analysis) to define the dimensions or subscales. Other tools have selected the theoretical
constructs first and then built the assessment tool around these constructs.
A third consideration is whether resiliency is considered a trait, a state, or a combination of both. Instruments
such as Block and Kremen’s Ego-resiliency Scale consider resiliency as a trait or a relatively enduring characteristic.
Other scales such as the RSCA ( Prince-Embury, 2006 ) consider resiliency as modifiable through appropriate293 MEASURES REVIEWED HERE
III. EMOTION REGULATION