Measurement properties and implications of the Brief Resilience Scale in healthy workers

DOI PDF Web Site Web Site 被引用文献1件 参考文献31件
  • Soer Remko
    Saxion University of Applied Sciences, Expertise Center of Physical Activity and Health University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen Spine Center
  • Six Dijkstra Marianne W. M. C.
    Saxion University of Applied Sciences, Expertise Center of Physical Activity and Health
  • Bieleman Hendrik J.
    Saxion University of Applied Sciences, Expertise Center of Physical Activity and Health
  • Stewart Roy E.
    Department of Health Sciences, Community and Occupational Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen
  • Reneman Michiel F.
    Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen
  • Oosterveld Frits G. J.
    Saxion University of Applied Sciences, Expertise Center of Physical Activity and Health
  • Schreurs Karlein M. G.
    Centre for eHealth and Wellbeing, Department of Psychology, Health and Technology, University of Twente Roessingh Research and Development

書誌事項

公開日
2019-05-20
DOI
  • 10.1002/1348-9585.12041
公開者
公益社団法人 日本産業衛生学会

この論文をさがす

説明

<p>Objectives: The aim of this study was to study measurement properties of the Dutch Language Version of the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS-DLV) in blue and white collar workers employed at multiple companies and to compare the validity and factor structure to other language versions.</p><p>Methods: Workers (n = 1023) were assessed during a cross-sectional health surveillance. Construct validity was tested with exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA and CFA) and hypothesis testing. Reliability was tested with Cronbach's alpha.</p><p>Results: A two-factor structure of the BRS-DLV had good model fit in both EFA and CFA, which could be explained by difficulties of workers with reversed order items. After excluding these inconsistent answering patterns, a one-factor structure showed good model fit resembling the original BRS (χ2 = 16.5; CFI & TLI = 0.99; SRMR = 0.02;RMSEA = 0.04). Internal consistency is sufficient (Cronbach's α = 0.78). All five hypotheses were confirmed, suggesting construct validity.</p><p>Conclusions: Reliability of the BRS-DLV is sufficient and there is evidence of construct validity. Inconsistent answering, however, caused problems in interpretation and factor structure of the BRS-DLV. This can be easily detected and handled because item 2, 4 and 6 are in reversed order. Other language versions differ in factor structure, most likely because systematic errors are not corrected for. To collect valid data, it is advised to be aware of inconsistent answering of respondents.</p>

収録刊行物

被引用文献 (1)*注記

もっと見る

参考文献 (31)*注記

もっと見る

キーワード

詳細情報 詳細情報について

問題の指摘

ページトップへ