Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38694299›Full record

ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2024

Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale: a systematic review psychometrics properties using the COSMIN.

Hamid Sharif-Nia, David Sánchez-Teruel, Erika Sivarajan Froelicher, Sima Hejazi, Lida Hosseini, Fatemeh Khoshnavay Fomani, Mozhgan Moshtagh, Fereshteh Mollaei, Amir Hossein Goudarzian, Amir Babaei

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

10 authors.

Hamid Sharif-NiaTraditional and Complementary Medicine Research Center, Addiction Institute Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran.
David Sánchez-TeruelDepartment of Personality, Assessment and Psychological Treatment, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Erika Sivarajan FroelicherDepartment of Physiological Nursing, School of Nursing, and Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Medicine, University of California Sand Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Sima HejaziBojnurd Faculty of Nursing, North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences, Bojnurd, Iran.
Lida HosseiniSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Iran University of Medical Sciences Tehran, Iran.
Fatemeh Khoshnavay FomaniSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran Iran.
Mozhgan MoshtaghSocial Determinants of Health Research Center, Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Birjand Iran.
Fereshteh MollaeiGuilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran.
Amir Hossein GoudarzianStudent Research Committee, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran.
Amir BabaeiStudent Research Committee, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Psychometrical evaluation of persons of diverse contexts and different populations, including general or clinical. Objective: This review study aimed to evaluate the psychometrics quality of resilience scales. Methods: International and Iranian databases were searched with MESH terms, including "psychometric", "validity", "reliability", "Connor-Davidson resilience scale", "Resilience scale", for published articles up to 1 February 2023. For each of the selected studies, the risk of bias was evaluated using the COSMIN Risk of Bias Checklist. Then the COSMIN checklist was used to evaluate the entire text of the article for methodological quality. Results: Considering the inclusion criteria, 80 documents were evaluated. According to the COSMIN's criteria for evaluating the risk of bias, the current study findings revealed the included studies' limitations in assessing the three versions of CD-RISC cross-cultural and content validity as well as their stability (e.g. conducting test re-test), whereas the majority of psychometric studies of CD-RISC-25, and CD-RISC-2 rated as very good or adequate in terms of structural validity. In terms of quality assessment of the included studies, the current study indicated that investigating the structural validity of the CD-RISC was mainly done based on exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and confirmatory factor analysis was absent. Conclusion: The general result indicates the acceptability of the quality of the studies. However, concerns for measurement properties such as responsiveness and criterion validity as well as the standard error of measurement have been neglected.

Indexed as

Connor-Davidson Resilience ScaleCOSMINpsychometricsresiliencesystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38694299
PMCPMC11060289

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.