intervention. The ClassMaps instrument (Doll et al., 2003) considers resilience as a characteristic of a classroom
experience resulting from the interaction between the teacher, teaching method, and the children in the classroom.
The first three instruments presented, the ER89 (Block & Kremen, 1989), the RS (Wagnild, 2003), and the RSA
(Friborg, Hjemdal, Rosenvinge, & Martinussen, 2003 ) represent resiliency scales that are intended for adults,
have strong conceptual underpinnings and may be considered largely assessments of traits or relative enduring
characteristics. Both the ER89 and the RS treat resilience/resiliency as one dimensional in that one total score is
utilized, although both scales conceptualize resilience as consisting of multiple characteristics. The fourth and
fifth scales reviewed represent scales that were initially developed for use in medical settings. The CD-RISC
(Connor & Davidson, 2003 ) was developed to demonstrate change in PTSD symptoms due to medication. The
BRS ( Smith et al., 2008 ) was developed to access the specific aspect of resilience relating to ability to bounce back
from stress. Both of these scales assume that resiliency is modifiable, particularly as mediated by psycho-
pharmaceutical intervention. These two instruments each generate one total score and may also be considered
one-dimensional.
The next five scales described apply to children and adolescents. The RSCA ( Prince-Embury, 2006 ) was
designed to tap core aspects of personal resiliency for the purpose of preventive screening and intervention and
for assessment of change associated with interventions. The CYRM-28 ( Unger & Liebenberg, 2009 ) was developed
to tap resilience as the result of internal and external factors in a way that is sensitive to cultural differences. The
SEARS ( Merrell, 2011 ) and DESSA (LeBuffe et al., 2009) were designed to assess strengths in children and these
include resiliency. The ClassMaps Survey (CMS) was defined as an ecological tool to assess the resilience of class-
rooms based on the assumption that the interaction between the child and the environment defines resilience rel-
evant to school engagement and learning.
Ego-Resiliency Scale (ER89)
(Block & Kremen, 1996 ).
Variable
Ego-resiliency was conceptualized by Block as a component of personality, which served as a ‘structure for
managing emotion’ ( Block, 2002 ). Block and associates developed self-report scales for both ego-control and ego-
resiliency. The ego-resiliency scale (ER89) is intended to assess trait variation in psychological resilience.
Description
The ER89 is a 14 item measure with responses on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 to 4, and a high score indicat-
ing high ego-resiliency. Items were drawn from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the
California Psychological Inventory (CPI), were written by Block, or came from other sources that are untraceable
(see Block & Kremen, 1996 ). In his book Personality as an Affect Processing System , (2002), Block presented his
model of personality as an adaptive system for taking in, organizing information, and maintaining non-
disruptive levels of anxiety while responding to inner and outer demands. His proposed system consists of a per-
ceptual and control mechanisms operating in delicate balance.
Ego-control (EC) and ego-resiliency (ER) comprise the central mechanisms for understanding Block’s model of
an adaptive personality system ( Block, J., 1950, 2002 ; Block, J.H., 1951; Block & Block, 1980 ). Ego-control refers to
an adaptive system of impulse inhibition/expression and ego-resiliency encompasses an adaptive system for
modifying one’s level of control in response to situational demands. As a personality theorist, Block employed
these mechanisms to explain relatively enduring traits.
Ego-resiliency is the ability to adapt one’s level of control temporarily up or down as circumstances dictate
(Block, 2002; Block & Block, 1980 ). Highly ego-resilient individuals were described as characteristically able
to modify their level of control to suit the situational context. Individuals with a low level of ego-resiliency
were seen as more restricted in their response to the same level of impulse containment or expression regardless
of the situational context. As a result of this adaptive flexibility, individuals with a high level of ego-resiliency
are more likely to experience positive affect, and have higher levels of self confidence and better psychological
adjustment than individuals with a low level of ego-resiliency ( Block & Kremen, 1996 ). It is presumed that when
confronted by stressful circumstances, individuals with a low level of ego-resiliency may act in a stiff and persev-
erative manner or chaotically and diffusely, and in either case, the resulting behavior is likely to be maladaptive
(Block & Kremen, 1996 ). Block’s theoretical conceptualization of ego-resiliency is closely related to conceptions of294 11. MEASURES OF RESILIENCY
III. EMOTION REGULATION