ArticleJournal of rehabilitation medicine2025
Psychometric properties of the Danish version of the resilience scale for adults in individuals with acquired brain or spinal cord injury, and their family members.
Article in Journal of rehabilitation medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveTo investigate validity and reliability of the Danish version of the Resilience Scale for Adults among individuals with acquired brain or spinal cord injury, and their family members.
designCross-sectional study. SUBJECTS/PATIENTS: Adults with acquired brain or spinal cord injury, and their family members.
methodsUnidimensionality, floor/ceiling effects, and internal consistency of the 6 subscales were analysed using confirmatory factor analysis. A series of models were estimated to investigate structural validity, and construct validity was analysed using correlations.
resultsFamily cohesion, Planned future, and Perception of self showed good reliability (ω = 0.79-0.83) and good model fit (Comparative fit index: 0.986-1.000). Social resources and Social competence demonstrated adequate reliability (ω = 0.81 and 0.75) and good fit, accounting for local dependency. Structured style had poor reliability (ω = 0.53) and model misfit. The Resilience Scale for Adults was best represented by a 6-factor correlated model, compared with a single first- or second-order factor, but all models showed inadequate fit. All scale scores correlated negatively with scores of anxiety and depression.
conclusionAll but 1 subscale demonstrated good psychometric properties. The Resilience Scale for Adults can be used to measure different aspects related to resilience for this mixed population.
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.