IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0148843.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Psychometric Evaluation of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale Using a Chinese Military Sample

Author

Listed:
  • Yuanjun Xie
  • Li Peng
  • Xin Zuo
  • Min Li

Abstract

This study examined the psychometric properties of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) with a Chinese military population with the aim of finding a suitable instrument to quantify resilience in Chinese military service members. The confirmatory factor analysis results did not support the factorial structure of the original or the Chinese community version of the CD-RISC, but the exploratory factor analysis results revealed a three-factor model (composed of Competency, Toughness, and Adaptability) that seemed to fit. Moreover, the repeat confirmatory factory analysis replicated the three-factor model. Additionally, the CD-RISC with a Chinese military sample exhibited appropriate psychometric properties, including internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and structural and concurrent validity. The revised CD-RISC with a Chinese military sample provides insight into the resilience measurement framework and could be a reliable and valid measurement for evaluating resilience in a Chinese military population.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuanjun Xie & Li Peng & Xin Zuo & Min Li, 2016. "The Psychometric Evaluation of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale Using a Chinese Military Sample," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-10, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0148843
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148843
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0148843
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0148843&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0148843?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hubbard, Raymond & Allen, Stuart J., 1987. "An empirical comparison of alternative methods for principal component extraction," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 173-190, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tayyebeh Ali-Abadi & Siavash Talepasand & Christopher Boyle & Hamid Sharif Nia, 2020. "Psychometric properties of The Baruth Protective Factors Inventory among nursing students," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-11, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Armand Djoumessi & Shu-Ling Chen & Stephen Cahoon, 2019. "Deconstructing Lawson And Samson’S Concept Of Innovation Capability: A Critical Assessment And A Refinement," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(06), pages 1-31, August.
    2. A. Oumlil & Joseph Balloun, 1994. "Some simple structure significance tests for exploratory component analysis with market survey data," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 371-381, November.
    3. Mohamad D. Revindo & Christopher Gan, 2018. "Factors Affecting Variation in SMES' Export Intensity," LPEM FEBUI Working Papers 201820, LPEM, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Indonesia, revised May 2018.
    4. Letizia Caso & Andrea Greco & Eleonora Florio & Nicola Palena, 2021. "Assessment of Family, Peers, and Externalising Behaviour Dimensions in Adolescence: The Proposal of a Comprehensive Instrument (FPEB)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-17, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0148843. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.