ArticlePloS one2026
Mapping resilience: Development of the resilience process scales (RPS) and resilience profiles during adversity.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The resilience literature is often criticised for lacking clarity in the conceptualisation and measurement of resilience, with the literature yet to consider within-person profiles of resilience and how such profiles might influence reactions to different adverse contexts. To significantly enhance the research area, the current set of studies propose and test a four-stage process model of resilience including proactive (anticipation & minimizing) and reactive (managing & mending) components. We suggest the four processes can function independently within five separate domains (general, physical, social, cognitive, and emotional). Specifically, in Studies 1 (n = 181) and 2 (n = 284) we develop a measure of resilience reflecting our four-stage process model and demonstrated validity of a 13-item measure for each of the five proposed domains via a Bayesian structural equation modelling approach. Focusing on the general domain and based on the four resilience processes (anticipate, minimize, manage, & mend), Study 3 (n = 400) explored resilience profiles in a pilot study, and then confirmed these profiles and their relationship with psychological and behavioral outcomes related to the COVID-19 pandemic in a main study. Using latent profile and latent transition analysis, results revealed four distinct profiles, predicting a range of psychological outcomes. For example, those with lower resilience (particularly profiles with high anticipation but low levels of the other processes), showed higher anxiety (especially with high anticipation), depression, impulsiveness, and lower coping effectiveness. Those with higher resilience (Profile 3 and 4) across the four processes exhibited lower depression, anxiety, and impulsiveness, as well as higher well-being, better perceived coping effectiveness, and preventative behaviors. Taken together the results from the studies presented, support the process model of resilience and underscore the benefits of considering resilience profiles in relation to understanding how people deal with adverse contexts.
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.