Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This article details the reduction of the Child and Youth Resilience Measure (CYRM) from a 28-item to a 12-item measure. The CYRM-28 is a measure of youth resilience that accounts for cultural and contextual diversity across youth populations. A reduced version of the CYRM is better suited to inclusion in omnibus surveys.
METHODS: Data from two samples of youth from Atlantic Canada are included in the analysis: a) a sample of multiple-service-using youth (n=122; mean age = 18); b) a school-based sample of youth (n=1494; mean age = 15).
RESULTS: Three iterations of an Exploratory Factor Analysis were conducted on data from the first sample of youth to identify items for inclusion in the CYRM-12. In the third analysis, a varimax rotated factor analysis of the 12 items resulted in a four-factor solution, with 10 of the items loading well. Reliability of this grouping of questions is satisfactory (α=0.754). Confirmatory factor analysis was then conducted on the second sample of youth. A satisfactory fit was obtained (χ2 (51, N=1540) = 255.419, p=0.0001; Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index = 0.960; Comparative Fit Index = 0.957; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.050). Cronbach’s Alpha for the 12 items was also satisfactory (α=0.840).
CONCLUSION: Results show sufficient content validity of the CYRM-12 to merit its use as a screener for resilience processes in the lives of adolescents.
Key Words: Child and Youth Resilience Measure (CYRM), adolescents, adversity, validity, risk, positive development
Résumé
OBJECTIFS: Cet article traite de la réduction de l’indicateur CYRM (Child and Youth Resilience Measure) de 28 à 12 éléments. Le CYRM-28 est un indicateur de la résilience des jeunes qui tient compte de la diversité culturelle et contextuelle dans les populations de jeunes. La version réduite du CYRM est plus susceptible d’être incluse dans les enquêtes omnibus.
MÉTHODE: Notre analyse englobe les données de deux échantillons de jeunes du Canada atlantique: a) un échantillon de jeunes utilisant plusieurs services (n=122; âge moyen = 18 ans) et b) un échantillon de jeunes en milieu scolaire (n=1 494; âge moyen = 15 ans).
RÉSULTATS: Trois itérations d’une analyse factorielle exploratoire ont été menées sur les données du premier échantillon de jeunes afin de repérer les éléments à inclure dans le CYRM-12. La troisième, une analyse factorielle des 12 éléments avec rotation Varimax, a donné une solution à quatre facteurs avec 10 éléments se chargeant bien. La fiabilité de ce groupe de questions est satisfaisante (α=0,754). Nous avons ensuite mené une analyse factorielle confirmatoire sur le second échantillon de jeunes. Nous avons obtenu un ajustement satisfaisant (χ2 (51, N=1 540) = 255,419, p=0,0001; Indice de qualité de l’ajustement = 0,960; Indice comparatif d’ajustement = 0,957; Erreur moyenne quadratique d’approximation = 0,050). Le coefficient alpha de Cronbach pour les 12 éléments était également satisfaisant (α=0,840).
CONCLUSION: Les résultats font état d’une validité de contenu suffisante pour que le CYRM-12 soit utilisé comme « crible » des processus de résilience dans la vie des adolescents.
Mots Clés: Child and Youth Resilience Measure (CYRM), adolescent, adversité, validité, risque, développement positif
Footnotes
Acknowledgements: This research was supported by the Public Safety Canada’s National Crime Prevention Centre (NCPC) and the Department of Health of Nova Scotia.
Conflict of Interest: None to declare.
References
- 1.Armstrong MI, Birnie-Lefcovitch S, Ungar M. Pathways between social support, family well being, quality of parenting, and child resilience: What we know. J Child Fam Stud. 2005;14(2):269–81. doi: 10.1007/s10826-005-5054-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Hanson T, Austin G. Student Health Risks, Resilience, and Academic Performance in California: Year 2 Report, Longitudinal Analyses. Los Alamitos, CA: WestEd; 2003. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Lerner RM, Dowling EM, Anderson PM. Appl Dev Sci. 2003. Positive youth development: Thriving as the basis of personhood and civil society; pp. 172–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Ungar M. The social ecology of resilience: Addressing contextual and cultural ambiguity of a nascent construct. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2011;81(1):1–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01067.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Rutter M. Implication of resilience concepts for scientific understanding. In: Lester BM, Masten AS, McEwen B, editors. Resilience in Children. Boston, MA: Blackwell; 2006. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Masten AS, Wright MO. Resilience over the lifespan: Developmental perspectives on resistance, recovery, and transformation. In: Reich JW, Zautra AJ, Hall JS, editors. Handbook of Adult Resilience. New York, NY: Guilford; 2010. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Ungar M. Resilience across cultures. Br J Soc Work. 2008;38(2):218–35. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcl343. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Fergus S, Zimmerman MA. Adolescent resilience: A framework for understanding healthy development in the face of risk. Annu Rev Public Health. 2005;26:399–419. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Werner EE, Smith RS. Vulnerable but Invincible: A Longitudinal Study of Resilient Children and Youth. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1982. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Schoon I, Parsons S, Sacker A. Socioeconomic adversity, educational resilience, and subsequent levels of adult adaptation. J Adolesc Res. 2004;19(4):383–404. doi: 10.1177/0743558403258856. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 11.American Psychological Association, Task Force on ResilienceStrength in Black ChildrenAdolescents. Resilience in African American Children and Adolescents: A Vision for Optimal Development. Washington, DC: APA; 2008. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Ungar M, Liebenberg L. Assessing resilience across cultures using mixed methods: Construction of the Child and Youth Resilience Measure. J Multiple Methods Res. 2011;5(2):126–49. doi: 10.1177/1558689811400607. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Liebenberg L, Ungar M, Van de Vijver FRR. Validation of the Child and Youth Resilience Measure-28 (CYRM-28) among Canadian youth with complex needs. Res Soc Work Pract. 2012;22(2):219–26. doi: 10.1177/1049731511428619. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Windle G, Bennet KM, Noye J. A methodological review of resilience measurement scales. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9:8. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-9-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Sánchez-Jankowski M. Cracks in the Pavement: Social Change and Resilience in Poor Neighborhoods. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press; 2008. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Conners CK, Sitarenios G, Parker JDA, Epstein JN. The revised Conners’ Parent Rating Scale (CPRS-R): Factor structure, reliability, and criterion validity. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 1998;26(4):257–68. doi: 10.1023/A:1022602400621. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Conners CK. The Conners Rating Scales: Use in clinical assessment, treatment planning and research. In: Maruish ME, editor. Use of Psychological Testing for Treatment Planning and Outcome Assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1994. [Google Scholar]
- 18.LeBlanc JC, Almudevar A, Brooks SJ, Kutcher S. The Kutcher Adolescent Depression Scale. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2002;12(2):113–26. doi: 10.1089/104454602760219153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]