ArticleBMC psychology2026
Assessing the psychometric properties of Hindi-translated dispositional resilience (hardiness) scale and cognitive flexibility scale among police personnel.
Article in BMC psychology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHardiness is a personality trait that enables individuals to cope with stress and adversity effectively based on three components: commitment, control, and challenge. A construct associated with hardiness is cognitive flexibility, which enables individuals to be conscious and adaptable in the face of stressful circumstances, make efficient decisions, and solve problems effectively. The Dispositional Resilience Scale (DRS-15) and Cognitive Flexibility Scale (CFS) are widely used, validated measures of assessing psychological hardiness and cognitive flexibility, respectively. The study aimed to assess the psychometric properties (reliability and validity) of the Hindi-translated version of the DRS-15 and CFS among Rajasthan police personnel.
methodsThe DRS-15 and CFS measures were translated using a recognized back-translation and transcultural process, which were then administered to Rajasthan police personnel between the ages of 21 and 60 years. To evaluate internal consistency (reliability), Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s coefficient were calculated. Factor loadings were computed for both measures using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), which were further used to calculate discriminant and convergent validity. The construct validity of the measures was established using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
resultsThe findings revealed good and acceptable internal consistencies for the Hindi-translated DRS-15 (α = 0.75;ω = 0.69) and 10-item CFS (α = 0.78;ω = 0.78) measures. Acceptable reliabilities of the three components of the DRS-15 scale were also established. EFA described the presence of three factors in the DRS-15 and the unidimensionality of the CFS. Discriminant validity was established for DRS-15 as per Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio. Convergent validity for the measures was computed through composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE). CFA further established the construct validity of both the measures with acceptable fit indices.
conclusionThe Hindi-translated DRS-15 and 10-item CFS versions are a good, easy-to-use, reliable, and valid measure in the sample of police personnel. The DRS-15 can be a helpful assessment tool for researchers in evaluating the association between hardiness and stress-related factors, psychological well-being, and quality of life. The CFS is useful for evaluating people’s cognitive flexibility in terms of handling and adapting to stressful situations, making decisions, and solving problems.
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.