Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35366196›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2022

Psychometric validity and reliability of the 10- and 2-item Connor-Davidson resilience scales among a national sample of Americans responding to the Covid-19 pandemic: an item response theory analysis.

Anthony C Waddimba, Bailey M Baker, Jamie R Pogue, Madison P McAuliffe, Monica M Bennett, Ronald D Baxter, David C Mohr, Ann Marie Warren

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
5.9field-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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anthony C WaddimbaBaylor Scott and White Research Institute, Dallas, TX, USA. Anthony.Waddimba@BSWHealth.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5377-0864
Bailey M BakerCollege of Medicine, Texas A&M University Health Science Center, Dallas Campus, Dallas, TX, USA.
Jamie R PogueBaylor Scott and White Research Institute, Dallas, TX, USA.
Madison P McAuliffeBaylor Scott and White Research Institute, Dallas, TX, USA.
Monica M BennettBaylor Scott and White Research Institute, Dallas, TX, USA.
Ronald D BaxterGeneral Medical Education, Department of Surgery, Baylor University Medical Center, 3500 Gaston Avenue, Dallas, TX, 75246, USA.
David C MohrCenter for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA.
Ann Marie WarrenBaylor Scott and White Research Institute, Dallas, TX, USA.
Baylor University Medical Center · USBoston University · USUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at Dallas · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePsychometric validity/reliability of 10-item and 2-item abbreviations of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10; CD-RISC-2) was investigated via item response theory and classic approaches.

methodsWe sampled 5023 adult American participants in a June/July 2020 survey on the COVID-19 pandemic's psychological effects. Our questionnaire incorporated the CD-RISC-10 with other validated measures. CD-RISC-10 items were ranked on item-to-scale correlations, loadings on a one-factor confirmatory factor analysis model, and item slope/threshold parameters plus information curves from a unidimensional graded response model. Concurrent validity of the highest ranked item pair was evaluated vis-à-vis the CD-RISC-10 and CD-RISC-2. Internal consistency, based on average variance extracted (AVE) and multiple reliability coefficients, was also compared. Convergent/divergent validity was tested by correlating anxiety, depression, fear of COVID-19, anxiety sensitivity, coping, and personality measures with both scales and the highest ranked item pair. Binary agreement/classification indexes assessed inter-rater reliability.

resultsItems 2 and 9 from CD-RISC-10 ranked the highest. Reliability coefficients were > 0.93, > 0.72, and > 0.82 for the CD-RISC-10, CD-RISC-2, vs summation of items 2 and 9. AVEs were 0.66, 0.67, and 0.77. CD-RISC abbreviations and the summation of items 2 and 9 correlated negatively with anxiety (> - 0.43), depression (> - 0.42), and fear of COVID-19 (> - 0.34); positively with emotional stability (> 0.53) and conscientiousness (> 0.40). Compared to the CD-RISC-2, summative scores of items 2 and 9 more efficiently classified/discriminated high resilience on the CD-RISC-10.

conclusionWe confirmed construct validity/reliability of copyrighted CD-RISC abbreviations. The CD-RISC-10's items 2 and 9 were psychometrically more salient than the CD-RISC-2.

Indexed as

COVID-19Resilience, PsychologicalAdultFactor Analysis, StatisticalHumansPandemicsPsychometricsQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesCD-RISC-10CD-RISC-2COVID-19 pandemicGraded response modelItem response theoryResilience

Identifiers

PMID35366196
PMCPMC8976171
OpenAlexW4225783353

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.