SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2024
Measuring resilience for Chinese-speaking populations: a systematic review of Chinese resilience scales.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Progress or plateau? A 20-year systematic review of self-efficacy among TCFL teachers.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Pooled it
- The Effect of Self-Regulation on Spiritual Well-Being Among Parents of Children with Hearing Impairment in China: Does Resilience Function as a Mediator?Journal of religion and health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Despite the rapid growth of interdisciplinary resilience research in Chinese contexts, no study has systematically reviewed individual-level measurement scales for Chinese-speaking populations. We report a systematic review of scales developed for or translated/adapted to Chinese-speaking contexts, where we assessed how widely used scales fare in terms of their psychometric qualities. Methods: Studies included in this review must have been published in peer-reviewed English or Chinese journals between 2015-2020 and included self-reported resilience scales in Chinese-speaking populations. Searches were conducted in PsycINFO, CNKI (completed in May 2021), and PubMed (completed in January 2024). We developed coding schemes for extracting relevant data and adapted and applied an existing evaluation framework to assess the most frequently used resilience scales by seven methodological criteria. Results: Analyses of 963 qualified studies suggested that Chinese resilience scales were used in a diverse range of study contexts. Among 85 unique kinds of resilience measures, we highlighted and evaluated the three most frequently used translated scales and three locally developed scales (nine scales in total including variations such as short forms). In short, resilience studies in Chinese contexts relied heavily on the translated 25-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, which scored moderately on the overall quality. The locally developed Resilience Scale for Chinese Adolescents and Essential Resilience Scale received the best ratings but could use further development. Discussion: We discussed how future work may advance widely used scales, and specified seven methodological recommendations for future resilience scale development with existing and new scales in and beyond the Chinese study contexts. We further addressed issues and challenges in measuring resilience as a process and called on researchers to further develop/evaluate process measures for Chinese-speaking populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.