Measurement properties and implications of the Brief Resilience Scale in healthy workers.
Adult
Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale
/ standards
Cross-Sectional Studies
Factor Analysis, Statistical
Female
Humans
Language
Male
Mental Disorders
/ diagnosis
Middle Aged
Netherlands
Occupational Diseases
/ diagnosis
Psychometrics
Reproducibility of Results
Resilience, Psychological
Surveys and Questionnaires
/ standards
Translations
Work
/ psychology
employability
factor structure
health prevention
reliability
resilience
validity
Journal
Journal of occupational health
ISSN: 1348-9585
Titre abrégé: J Occup Health
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 9616320
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2019
May 2019
Historique:
received:
21
06
2018
revised:
18
12
2018
accepted:
19
12
2018
pubmed:
25
3
2019
medline:
25
12
2019
entrez:
24
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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 (χ 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30903648
doi: 10.1002/1348-9585.12041
pmc: PMC6499349
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
242-250Subventions
Organisme : Tech for Future
ID : TFF150101
Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors. Journal of Occupational Health published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of The Japan Society for Occupational Health.
Références
J Pers. 2009 Dec;77(6):1805-32
pubmed: 19807863
BMC Public Health. 2016 Jul 12;16:553
pubmed: 27405459
BMC Pediatr. 2015 Apr 22;15:48
pubmed: 25898349
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 Mar 18;10:22
pubmed: 20298572
Front Psychol. 2015 Feb 04;6:73
pubmed: 25698999
Child Abuse Negl. 2013 Jan;37(1):22-32
pubmed: 23260123
J Clin Psychol. 2006 Aug;62(8):971-85
pubmed: 16700017
PLoS One. 2015 Dec 30;10(12):e0145382
pubmed: 26716829
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011 Feb 04;9:8
pubmed: 21294858
Am J Psychiatry. 1998 May;155(5):630-7
pubmed: 9585714
Scand J Caring Sci. 2010 Dec;24 Suppl 1:86-92
pubmed: 21070312
J Affect Disord. 2014 Oct;168:262-8
pubmed: 25069081
Int J Behav Med. 2008;15(3):194-200
pubmed: 18696313
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2017 Mar;117(3):396-403
pubmed: 27825793
Work. 2014;47(4):491-500
pubmed: 23531578
Occup Med (Lond). 2009 Jan;59(1):32-7
pubmed: 19073989
Addict Behav. 2014 Feb;39(2):406-13
pubmed: 24090625
Psychol Assess. 2016 May;28(5):e101-e110
pubmed: 26502199
Am J Crit Care. 2015 Sep;24(5):412-20
pubmed: 26330434
Occup Med (Lond). 2004 Mar;54(2):115-21
pubmed: 15020730
Psychol Bull. 2003 Jan;129(1):52-73
pubmed: 12555794
J Occup Health. 2019 May;61(3):242-250
pubmed: 30903648