ReviewApplied psychology. Health and well-being2026
Reverse-engineering psychological resilience: A review and quantitative evaluation of psychometric instruments used in resilience research.
Review in Applied psychology. Health and well-being, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reverse-engineering psychological resilience: A review and quantitative evaluation of psychometric instruments used in resilience research.Applied psychology. Health and well-being · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Discussions on what psychological resilience is, its operationalizations, and approaches to measuring it have occupied the scientific community for decades. This manuscript (1) provides an overview of psychometric methods used to assess resilience, including key characteristics, and (2) evaluates resilience scales through a preregistered, content-analytical evaluation of items based on expert ratings. Items from 83 resilience scales were empirically categorized using a literature-based framework with three main categories (resilience as a process, traits, and environmental factors) and 12 corresponding subcategories. Across all scales, 31.79% of items reflected resilience as a process, 51.95% reflected five-factor model traits, and 16.26% reflected environmental factors. An additional analysis weighted results according to citation frequency, showing how operationalizations influence the current research practice: From this perspective, 60.17% of the items relate to process-related content, 34.59% to trait-related content, and 5.24% to environment-related content. This weighting reflects the prevalence and influence of specific scales in the field. The inter-rater agreement across four raters was κ = .68. Overall, existing questionnaires predominantly cover trait-based content, whereas widely used instruments tend to operationalize resilience as a dynamic process. We derive conceptually grounded recommendations for scale selection to improve clarity and comparability in future research.
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.