Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26821587›Full record

SynthesisHealth and quality of life outcomes2016

Resilience measurement in later life: a systematic review and psychometric analysis.

T D Cosco, A Kaushal, M Richards, D Kuh, M Stafford

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudySystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03797313 (Observational Study of Expected Acute Respiratory Failure), which is not on this map. Cited by 66 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03797313 completednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Observational Study of Expected Acute Respiratory Failure (ARF) Recovery

TypeobservationalSponsorJohns Hopkins UniversityRan2019 to 2021Enrolled180ConditionsAcute Respiratory Failure, Post Intensive Care Syndrome
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

66 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 141 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

T D CoscoMRC Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing at UCL, 33 Bedford Place, London, WC1B 5JU, UK.
A KaushalMRC Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing at UCL, 33 Bedford Place, London, WC1B 5JU, UK.
M RichardsMRC Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing at UCL, 33 Bedford Place, London, WC1B 5JU, UK.
D KuhMRC Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing at UCL, 33 Bedford Place, London, WC1B 5JU, UK.
M StaffordMRC Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing at UCL, 33 Bedford Place, London, WC1B 5JU, UK. t.cosco@ucl.ac.uk.
University College London · GBMRC Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_12019/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_12019/5
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo systematically review and examine the psychometric properties of established resilience scales in older adults, i.e. ≥60 years.

methodsA systematic review of Scopus and Web of Science databases was undertaken using the search strategy "resilience" AND (ageing OR aging)". Independent title/abstract and fulltext screening were undertaken, identifying original peer-reviewed English articles that conducted psychometric validation studies of resilience metrics in samples aged ≥60 years. Data on the reliability/validity of the included metrics were extracted from primary studies.

resultsFive thousand five hundred nine studies were identified by the database search, 426 used resilience psychometrics, and six psychometric analysis studies were included in the final analysis. These studies conducted analyses of the Connor Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) and its shortened 10-item version (CD-RISC10), the Resilience Scale (RS) and its shortened 5- (RS-5) and 11- (RS-11) item versions, and the Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS). All scales demonstrated acceptable levels of internal consistency, convergent/discriminant validity and theoretical construct validity. Factor structures for the RS, RS-11 and CD-RISC diverged from the structures in the original studies.

conclusionThe RS, RS-5, RS-11, CD-RISC, CD-RISC10 and BRCS demonstrate psychometric robustness adequate for continued use in older populations. However, results from the current study and pre-existing theoretical construct validity studies most strongly support the use of the RS, with modest and preliminary support for the CD-RISC and BRCS, respectively. Future studies assessing the validity of these metrics in older populations, particularly with respect to factor structure, would further strengthen the case for the use of these scales.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PsychologicalAttitude to HealthResilience, PsychologicalAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsAgingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsSex FactorsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID26821587
PMCPMC4730639
OpenAlexW2281161925

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.