Open AccessA Comprehensive Resiliency Framework: Theoretical Model, Treatment, and Evaluation
Author(s) -
Elyse R. Park,
Christina M. Luberto,
Emma ChadFriedman,
Lara Traeger,
Daniel L. Hall,
Giselle K. Perez,
Brett Goshe,
AnaMaria Vranceanu,
Margaret Baim,
John W. Denninger,
Gregory L. Fricchione,
Herbert Benson,
Suzanne C. Lechner
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
global advances in health and medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2164-957X
pISSN - 2164-9561
DOI - 10.1177/21649561211000306
Subject(s) - operationalization , psychology , psychological intervention , intervention (counseling) , structural equation modeling , construct (python library) , clinical psychology , construct validity , scale (ratio) , reliability (semiconductor) , psychometrics , measure (data warehouse) , developmental psychology , computer science , mathematics , statistics , psychiatry , philosophy , physics , power (physics) , epistemology , quantum mechanics , programming language , database
Background There is heterogeneity in conceptualizations of resiliency, and there is, to date, no established theoretically driven resiliency assessment measure that aligns with a targeted resiliency intervention. We operationalize resiliency as one’s ability to maintain adaptive functioning in response to the ongoing, chronic stress of daily living, and we use a novel resiliency measure that assesses the target components of an evidence based resiliency intervention. We present our resiliency theory, treatment model, and corresponding assessment measure (Current Experience Scale; CES).Methods To establish the psychometric properties of the CES, we report the factor structure and internal consistency reliability (N = 273). Among participants in our resiliency intervention (N = 151), we explored construct validity in terms of associations with theoretical model constructs, a validated resiliency measure, and sensitivity to change from before to after the intervention.Results Results indicated that a 23-item, 6-factor solution was a good fit to the data (RMSEA = .08, CFI = .97; TLI =.96) and internal consistency was good (α = .81 to .95). The CES showed correlations in the expected direction with resiliency model constructs (all p’s < .001) and significant post intervention improvements.Conclusion Our resiliency theory, treatment model, and outcome appear aligned; the CES demonstrated promise as a psychometrically sound outcome measure for our resiliency intervention and may be used in future longitudinal studies and resiliency building interventions to assess individuals’ resiliency to adapt to ongoing stress.