Resilience to affective disorders: A comparative validation of two resilience scales

Ruslan Leontjevas*, Wendie Op de Beek, Johan Lataster, Nele Jacobs

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Background
Resilience to affective disorders in rehabilitating patients or in individuals with a severe disability is of special research interest. However, there is no gold standard for measuring resilience. We aimed to test the accuracy of the Dutch translation of the Brief Resilience Scale (BRSnl) and of the Resilience Scale (RSnl) in recognizing rehabilitating patients without anxiety and depression, and to determine the reliability and construct validity of both scales.

Methods
A within-subjects longitudinal study with six assessments, each one week apart. Forty residents of a nursing home rehabilitating unit were interviewed to assess resilience (BRSnl and RSnl), optimism and pessimism (LOT-R), depression and anxiety (HADS), positive and negative affect (PANAS), and pain (VAS).

Results
Receiver operating characteristic analyses for recognizing the absence of depression and anxiety (HADS-score≤7) revealed better accuracy (P=0.038) for the BRSnl (AUC=0.84; p<0.0001) than for the RSnl (AUC=0.68; P=0.017). The scales correlated moderately at baseline (rs=0.35; p=0.026), and at four-week follow-up (rs=0.50; p=0.004). The RSnl was positively associated with positive outcomes (optimism and positive affect), and the BRSnl positively with positive outcomes, and negatively with negative outcomes (pessimism, anxiety and negative affect). The RSnl showed a better four-week test–retest reliability (ICC, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.97) than the BRSnl (0.66; 95% CI, 0.29 to.83).

Limitations
Short study duration, a relatively small sample.

Conclusion
The BRSnl showed better performance in detecting people without depression and anxiety than the RSnl, and performed better on construct validity.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)262-268
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Affective Disorders
Volume168
Early online date17 Jul 2014
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 15 Oct 2014

Fingerprint

Mood Disorders
Anxiety
Depression
Area Under Curve
Nursing Homes
Reproducibility of Results
Longitudinal Studies
Pain
Research
Optimism
Pessimism
4-amino-4'-hydroxylaminodiphenylsulfone

Keywords

  • Anxiety/anxiety disorders
  • Assessment/diagnosis
  • depression
  • Rehabilitation
  • Resilience

Cite this

@article{e0ce235d4f994e1b8e09a69011fa52b5,
title = "Resilience to affective disorders: A comparative validation of two resilience scales",
abstract = "BackgroundResilience to affective disorders in rehabilitating patients or in individuals with a severe disability is of special research interest. However, there is no gold standard for measuring resilience. We aimed to test the accuracy of the Dutch translation of the Brief Resilience Scale (BRSnl) and of the Resilience Scale (RSnl) in recognizing rehabilitating patients without anxiety and depression, and to determine the reliability and construct validity of both scales.MethodsA within-subjects longitudinal study with six assessments, each one week apart. Forty residents of a nursing home rehabilitating unit were interviewed to assess resilience (BRSnl and RSnl), optimism and pessimism (LOT-R), depression and anxiety (HADS), positive and negative affect (PANAS), and pain (VAS).ResultsReceiver operating characteristic analyses for recognizing the absence of depression and anxiety (HADS-score≤7) revealed better accuracy (P=0.038) for the BRSnl (AUC=0.84; p<0.0001) than for the RSnl (AUC=0.68; P=0.017). The scales correlated moderately at baseline (rs=0.35; p=0.026), and at four-week follow-up (rs=0.50; p=0.004). The RSnl was positively associated with positive outcomes (optimism and positive affect), and the BRSnl positively with positive outcomes, and negatively with negative outcomes (pessimism, anxiety and negative affect). The RSnl showed a better four-week test–retest reliability (ICC, 0.94; 95{\%} CI, 0.87 to 0.97) than the BRSnl (0.66; 95{\%} CI, 0.29 to.83).LimitationsShort study duration, a relatively small sample.ConclusionThe BRSnl showed better performance in detecting people without depression and anxiety than the RSnl, and performed better on construct validity.",
keywords = "Anxiety/anxiety disorders, Assessment/diagnosis, depression, Rehabilitation, Resilience",
author = "Ruslan Leontjevas and {de Beek}, {Wendie Op} and Johan Lataster and Nele Jacobs",
year = "2014",
month = "10",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1016/j.jad.2014.07.010",
language = "English",
volume = "168",
pages = "262--268",
journal = "Journal of Affective Disorders",
issn = "0165-0327",
publisher = "ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV",

}

Resilience to affective disorders: A comparative validation of two resilience scales. / Leontjevas, Ruslan; de Beek, Wendie Op; Lataster, Johan; Jacobs, Nele.

In: Journal of Affective Disorders, Vol. 168, 15.10.2014, p. 262-268.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Resilience to affective disorders: A comparative validation of two resilience scales

AU - Leontjevas, Ruslan

AU - de Beek, Wendie Op

AU - Lataster, Johan

AU - Jacobs, Nele

PY - 2014/10/15

Y1 - 2014/10/15

N2 - BackgroundResilience to affective disorders in rehabilitating patients or in individuals with a severe disability is of special research interest. However, there is no gold standard for measuring resilience. We aimed to test the accuracy of the Dutch translation of the Brief Resilience Scale (BRSnl) and of the Resilience Scale (RSnl) in recognizing rehabilitating patients without anxiety and depression, and to determine the reliability and construct validity of both scales.MethodsA within-subjects longitudinal study with six assessments, each one week apart. Forty residents of a nursing home rehabilitating unit were interviewed to assess resilience (BRSnl and RSnl), optimism and pessimism (LOT-R), depression and anxiety (HADS), positive and negative affect (PANAS), and pain (VAS).ResultsReceiver operating characteristic analyses for recognizing the absence of depression and anxiety (HADS-score≤7) revealed better accuracy (P=0.038) for the BRSnl (AUC=0.84; p<0.0001) than for the RSnl (AUC=0.68; P=0.017). The scales correlated moderately at baseline (rs=0.35; p=0.026), and at four-week follow-up (rs=0.50; p=0.004). The RSnl was positively associated with positive outcomes (optimism and positive affect), and the BRSnl positively with positive outcomes, and negatively with negative outcomes (pessimism, anxiety and negative affect). The RSnl showed a better four-week test–retest reliability (ICC, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.97) than the BRSnl (0.66; 95% CI, 0.29 to.83).LimitationsShort study duration, a relatively small sample.ConclusionThe BRSnl showed better performance in detecting people without depression and anxiety than the RSnl, and performed better on construct validity.

AB - BackgroundResilience to affective disorders in rehabilitating patients or in individuals with a severe disability is of special research interest. However, there is no gold standard for measuring resilience. We aimed to test the accuracy of the Dutch translation of the Brief Resilience Scale (BRSnl) and of the Resilience Scale (RSnl) in recognizing rehabilitating patients without anxiety and depression, and to determine the reliability and construct validity of both scales.MethodsA within-subjects longitudinal study with six assessments, each one week apart. Forty residents of a nursing home rehabilitating unit were interviewed to assess resilience (BRSnl and RSnl), optimism and pessimism (LOT-R), depression and anxiety (HADS), positive and negative affect (PANAS), and pain (VAS).ResultsReceiver operating characteristic analyses for recognizing the absence of depression and anxiety (HADS-score≤7) revealed better accuracy (P=0.038) for the BRSnl (AUC=0.84; p<0.0001) than for the RSnl (AUC=0.68; P=0.017). The scales correlated moderately at baseline (rs=0.35; p=0.026), and at four-week follow-up (rs=0.50; p=0.004). The RSnl was positively associated with positive outcomes (optimism and positive affect), and the BRSnl positively with positive outcomes, and negatively with negative outcomes (pessimism, anxiety and negative affect). The RSnl showed a better four-week test–retest reliability (ICC, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.97) than the BRSnl (0.66; 95% CI, 0.29 to.83).LimitationsShort study duration, a relatively small sample.ConclusionThe BRSnl showed better performance in detecting people without depression and anxiety than the RSnl, and performed better on construct validity.

KW - Anxiety/anxiety disorders

KW - Assessment/diagnosis

KW - depression

KW - Rehabilitation

KW - Resilience

U2 - 10.1016/j.jad.2014.07.010

DO - 10.1016/j.jad.2014.07.010

M3 - Article

VL - 168

SP - 262

EP - 268

JO - Journal of Affective Disorders

JF - Journal of Affective Disorders

SN - 0165-0327

ER -