Assessing psychological resilience: translation and validation of the Chinese version of the resilience evaluation scale (RES)

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of participants and associations with the RES total score among the total sample (n = 484).

	N (%)/ Mean ± SD	RES total score, Mean ± SD	p
Total sample	484 (100)	22.43 ± 5.64
Gender			.000
Male	160 (33.1)	24.16 ± 5.22
Female	324 (66.9)	21.59 ± 5.66
Ethnicity			.126
Han ethnicity	456 (94.2)	22.33 ± 5.66
Ethnic minority	28 (5.8)	24.04 ± 5.27
Education level			.147
Below college	110 (22.7)	21.19 ± 5.67
College	228 (47.1)	22.27 ± 5.69
Above college	146 (30.2)	23.15 ± 5.50
Marital status			.027
Single	233 (48.1)	21.64 ± 5.99
In relationship	86 (17.8)	22.50 ± 5.56
Married/cohabitating	151 (31.2)	23.39 ± 5.01
Divorced	14 (2.9)	24.71 ± 4.86
Employment status			.187
Student	166 (34.3)	22.09 ± 5.46
Employed	279 (57.6)	22.51 ± 5.76
Freelancer	25 (5.2)	24.40 ± 5.61
Unemployed/retired	14 (2.9)	21.29 ± 5.09
Self-reported PTE's exposure			.074
Yes	116 (24.0)	22.24 ± 5.55
No	368 (76.0)	23.01 ± 5.62
Age, year	27.33 ± 6.86	rho = .117	.010

Note: RES: Resilience Evaluation Scale. PCL-5: PTSD Checklist for DSM-5. PTE's: potential traumatic events. SD: standard deviation.

Table 2. Factor loadings in the one-factor model of the 9-item RES.

RES Items (in English and Chinese)	Factor loadings
1. I have confidence in myself 我对自己有信心	.785
2. I can easily adjust in a difficult situation 我可以很容易就适应困境	.728
3. I am able to persevere 我有毅力	.611
4. After setbacks, I can easily pick up where I left off 遇到挫折后我可以很容易地继续下去	.735
5. I am resilient 我很有韧性	.725
6. I can cope well with unexpected problems 我能很好的应对突发问题	.700
7. I appreciate myself 我欣赏我自己	.695
8. I can handle a lot at the same time 我可以同时处理很多事情	.607
9. I believe in myself 我相信我自己	.747

Note: RES: Resilience Evaluation Scale. Factor loadings above 0.40 are considered salient.

Table 3. The Spearman's rho correlations between the RES, PCL-5, and 14 subscales of the Brief COPE (n = 116).

	RES	PCL-5
PCL-5	−.183*
Active coping
Active coping	.489**	−.084
Instrumental support	−.184*	.159
Planning	.487**	−.105
Emotional support	−.112	.224*
Positive reframing	.428**	−.205*
Acceptance	.325**	−.137
Religion	−.041	.173
Humour	.432**	−.032
Avoidant coping
Self-distraction	.133	.296**
Denial	−.114	.329**
Substance use	−.035	.203*
Behavioural disengagement	−.287**	.314**
Venting	−.098	.142
Self-blame	−.347**	.257**

Note: RES: Resilience Evaluation Scale. PCL-5: PTSD Checklist for DSM-5.

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 4. Mediation effect of psychological resilience on PTSD symptoms through coping strategies of behavioural disengagement, self-blame, and positive reframing among the PTE-exposed subsample (n = 116).

	Estimate	SE	p	Bias-corrected 95% CI
				Lower	Upper
Indirect effects
Behavioural disengagement	−0.220	0.092	.017	−0.403	−0.092
Self-blame	−0.165	0.103	.110	−0.379	−0.030
Positive reframing	−0.064	0.111	.568	−0.267	0.103
Contrasts
Behavioural disengagement vs. Self-blame	−0.055	0.143	.702	−0.282	0.179
Behavioural disengagement vs. Positive reframing	−0.156	0.156	.316	−0.410	0.104
Self-blame vs. Positive reframing	−0.101	0.162	.532	−0.400	0.135

Note: Demographic variables were not related to the total scores of either RES or PCL-5 after Bonferroni correction (all p-values > 0.008). Thus, no covariates were entered in the mediation models. We conducted bias-corrected bootstrap tests based on 5000 bootstrap samples (Preacher and Hayes, 2008) to test the significance of the total, direct, and indirect effects in each of the models. The indirect effect is the amount of mediation effects accounted by the mediators. The direct effect is the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable when the mediators are accounted for. RES: Resilience Evaluation Scale. PCL-5: PTSD Checklist for DSM-5. PTSD: posttraumatic stress disorder. SE: Standard Error. CI: Confidence Interval. The 95% CI that did not include zero was considered to indicate statistically significant. A full mediation was determined when the direct effect became insignificant when the mediator was included in the model.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. http://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy and ethical restrictions.