Table 1.

Longitudinal studies of resilience following child maltreatment

Authors	Sample	Developmental Period	Measures	Thresholds	Findings
Jaffee, Caspi, Moffitt, Polo-Tomas, & Taylor, 2007	N = 2,181 (286 maltreated; 1,895 not maltreated)	Childhood	CBCL-antisocial behavior	At or below the sample median of non-maltreated children	Approximately 72 maltreated children were at or below the median of non-maltreated children on measures of antisocial behavior at both ages 5 and 7. Of those who were deemed resilient at age 5, nearly 64% continued to display resilience at age 7. The odds of being resilient at age 7 increased by a factor of 5 for those who were resilient at age 5.
Egeland, Carlson, & Sroufe, 1993	N = 267 (44 maltreated; 223 not maltreated)	Childhood	12-month & 18-month: Strange Situation task; 24-month: Bayley Scale of Infant Development, Tool Problems assessment, quality of play and problem solving task, measure of maternal assistance and support; 42-month: Barrier Box Situation, teaching task; Preschool: Preschool Behavioral Questionnaire (I & II), the preschool rating scales, and the California Child Q-Sort	Not provided in the manuscript	Single domains of competence were observed in the maltreated group, however, no child demonstrated competence in all domains across all the assessment periods. Improvements in functioning were also observed, yet all maltreated children showed dysfunction resulting from experiences of child maltreatment.
Bolger & Patterson, 2003	N = 107 (all maltreated; no comparison group)	Childhood, adolescence	Classroom Adjustment Rating Scale & youth self-report CBCL (internalizing & externalizing behavior); Peer nominations (peer acceptance); Science Research Associates Achievement Series & Iowa Test of Basic Skills (academic achievement)	Approach #1: scoring 1 standard deviation above the mean in at least 1 domain while simultaneously not scoring 1 standard deviation below the mean in any domain; Approach #2: above the sample median on a composite measure of resilience	Approach #1: Nine children (8%) demonstrated competence in at least 1 domain at any 1 assessment point while only 1 child (< 1%) demonstrated competence in at least 1 domain across all assessment periods. Approach #2: Twenty-three children (21%) demonstrated competence on a composite score of resilience at any 1 assessment period while only 5 (5%) showed competence on the composite across all assessment periods.
Jaffee & Gallop, 2007	N = 5,501 (all maltreated; no comparison group)	Childhood, adolescence	Youth self-reports on the Children’s Depression Inventory (CDI; standardized score <66); Trauma Symptom Checklist (TSCC; standardized score <65); both parent and teacher reports of internalizing and externalizing behavior using the Child Behavior Checklist (standardized score < 60); youth self-reports of externalizing behavior using the CBCL (standardized score < 60); youth self-reports on the Youth Risk Behavior Survey Questionnaire; Mini Battery of Achievement; Social Skills Subscale of the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS; standardized score > 84)	At each wave, individuals were considered emotionally resilient if they met criteria on the CDI and TSCC, met criteria for either caregiver or teacher reports on the internalizing scale from the CBCL, met criteria for 2 out of 3 reporters (self, caregiver, teacher) on the externalizing scale from the CBCL, and had no self-reported substance use. Individuals were resilient in the academic domain if they scored above 100 on either the math or reading subscale while simultaneously scoring above 92.5 on the remaining subscale. Finally, social competence was measured by both teachers and caregivers using the Social Skills Subscale of the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS; standardized score > 84).	Rates of resilience during single waves of data collection (wave 1, 3, and 5) ranged from 37% – 49%. Across the 3 waves, between 14% – 22% of youth were consistently resilience. At any 1 assessment period, 11% – 14% of youth were resilience across all 3 domains of competence. A small percentage of youth (2%) were resilient in every domain across all 3 assessment periods. Logistic regression showed that resilience at wave 1 increased the odds of being resilient at subsequent waves.
Cicchetti & Rogosch, 1997	N = 213 (133 maltreated; 80 not maltreated)	Childhood, adolescence	Children’s depression inventory (CDI); Self-esteem inventory (SEI); Peabody picture vocabulary test-revised (PPVTR); Relatedness scales; Peer nominations; Teacher report of the CBCL; Pupil Evaluation Inventory (PEI); California Child Q-Set; Student-Teacher Relationship (STR); behavior ratings; School risk index	Sociability (highest third of sample), aggressiveness (lowest third of sample), social withdrawal (lowest third of sample), a school-risk index (no problems), child self-report of depression (lowest third of sample), internalizing behavior problems (lowest third of sample), and externalizing behavior problems (lowest third of sample)	Maltreated children showed low levels of competence across the 3 years of assessment. A majority of maltreated children (40.6%) displayed consistently low levels of resilience across the 3 years of assessment while only 1.5% of maltreated children displayed consistently high levels of resilience across the 3 years of assessment. Of those who were maltreated, 10.5% showed a pattern of improvement, 12% displayed a pattern of decline, while 9.8% had an unstable pattern of resilience across the 3 years of assessment. Only 9.8% of maltreated children demonstrated “adaptive functioning” at any 1 point during the 3-year assessment period.
Herrenkohl, Herrenkohl, & Egolf, 1994	N = 457 (249 maltreated; 208 not maltreated)	Childhood, adolescence	Teacher report CBCL; School records; Self-report graduation from high school	Top 40% of sample on indicators of social, emotional, and cognitive/academic functioning; Graduation from high school	A group of 25 children (10%) from the 2 child welfare groups were in the top 40% on indicators of social, emotional and cognitive/academic functioning in childhood. Twenty-three of the 25 children originally resilient children were reassessed in adolescence and only 14 had graduated from high school. Sixty-one percent of the original resilient children were deemed resilient in adolescence.
DuMont, Widom, & Czaja, 2007	N = 1,196 (676 maltreated; 520 not maltreated)	Adolescence, adulthood	Self-report graduation from high school; DIS-III (Major Depressive Disorder, Dysthymic Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Antisocial Personality Disorder, substance dependence and abuse); DSM-III-R (dependence); Official arrest records; Self-report of delinquency and criminality; Self-report employment; Self-report homelessness; Self-report of social activity	Adolescence: at least 4 out of 5 of the following: high school education, absence of mental health diagnosis current or remitted, no substance use diagnosis current or remitted, no official delinquency, no self-report delinquency; Adulthood: at least 6 out of 8 of the following: employed, no homelessness, high school education, absence of mental health diagnosis current or remitted since age 18, no substance use diagnosis current or remitted since age 18, participation in social activities, no official delinquency since age 18, no self-report delinquency since age 18	Forty-six percent of maltreated individuals were not resilient during adolescence or during adulthood. Of those maltreated individuals who were resilient during adolescence or adulthood, nearly 24% demonstrated a pattern of continuous resilience from adolescence to adulthood; 24% were only resilient during the adolescent period; 6% showed adult only resilience.
McGloin & Widom, 2001	N = 1,196 (676 maltreated; 520 not maltreated)	Adulthood	Self-report graduation from high school; DIS-III (Major Depressive Disorder, Dysthymic Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Antisocial Personality Disorder, substance dependence and abuse); DSM-III-R (dependence); Official arrest records; Self-report of delinquency and criminality; Self-report employment; Self-report homelessness; Self-report of social activity	At least 6 out of 8 of the following: employed, no homelessness, high school education, absence of mental health diagnosis current or remitted, no substance use diagnosis current or remitted, participation in social activities, no lifetime official delinquency, no lifetime self-report delinquency	Twenty-two percent of maltreated individuals met criteria for resilience in adulthood (met 6+ resilience criteria.
Banyard, Williams, Siegel, & West, 2002	N = 206 (all maltreated; no comparison group)	Adulthood	Trauma Symptom Checklist, self-esteem scale of the Middlesex Hospital questionnaire, self-report history of severe illness or surgery after age 17, self-reported drug or alcohol use, MAST, CAGE measure of sexual functioning, self-report of biological children living situation, child abuse reports, self-report friendships with women, self-report social activity, self-report adult arrests, self-report income, self-report employment, self- report friendships with males/few problems with males	Thirteen-item resilience scale: Resilience = 8 – 9 resilience criteria; Excellent resilience 10+ criteria; below sample median on the Trauma Symptom Checklist, above median on the self-esteem scale of the Middlesex Hospital questionnaire, no history of severe illness or surgery after age 17, no reported current drug or alcohol use, above sample median on an adapted measure of sexual functioning, all biological children living with the participant, no reports to authorities for abuse of children, friendships with women, moderate social activity, no self-report adult arrests, income above sample median, working full time, friendships with males/few problems with males	Forty women (29%) demonstrated high scores on the resilience scale (score between 8 – 9), while 25 women (18%) showed high levels of competence in nearly all assessed areas, termed excellent resilient (score of 10+).
Banyard & Williams, 2007	N = 206 (all maltreated; no comparison group)	Adulthood	Trauma Symptom Checklist, self-esteem scale of the Middlesex Hospital questionnaire, self-report history of severe illness or surgery after age 17, self- reported drug or alcohol use, MAST, CAGE, measure of sexual functioning, self-report of biological children living situation, child abuse reports, self-report friendships with women, self-report social activity, self-report adult arrests, self-report income, self-report employment	Same as above excluding question about relationships with males; Subtracted Wave 2 resilience score from Wave 3 resilience score; 1 standard deviation change indicates a significant change in resilience; Less than 1 standard deviation change demonstrates stability in resilience	Three fourths (75.6%) of the sample showed a pattern of stability in resilient functioning from Wave 2 to Wave 3. Approximately 8.1% of the sample had a 1 standard deviation decrease in their resilience score from Wave 2 to Wave 3, while 16.3% of the sample had an increase of more than 1 standard deviation in their resilience score between waves.
Mersky & Topitzes, 2010	N = 1,539 (191 maltreated; 1,348 not maltreated)	Adulthood	Self-report and official reports of educational attainment; self-report and official reports of income (Illinois Department of Employment); Public records and self-report crime; self- report substance use; Derogatis Brief Symptom Inventory (depression subscale); self-report life satisfaction	Approach #1: 5 out of 7 resilience criteria; Approach #2: 6 out of 7 resilience criteria; High school completion or GED; 4-year college attendance; Above average adulthood income; no adult incarceration; no substance misuse; no depressive symptomology; life satisfaction	Nearly 15% of the maltreated sample met 5 out of 7 resilience criteria in adulthood compared to 40% of their non-maltreated counterparts. Only 5% of maltreated sample met 6 out of 7 resilience criteria in adulthood compared to 16% of their non-maltreated counterparts.