Skip to main content
Download PDF

Psychometric properties of the Persian version of abridged Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale 10 (CD-RISC-10) among older adults

BMC Psychiatry volume 22, Article number: 493 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Resilience is an ability of an individual to respond positively to environmental challenges. This ability could help elderly people to better cope with their age-related changes and diseases. The aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of Persian version of abridged Connor- Davidson scale of resilience among Iranian elderly people with chronic diseases.

Methods

Standard translation/back-translation procedure was applied to prepare the Persian version of abridged Connor-Davidson scale of resilience (CD-RISC 10-P) and its face and content validity were examined by an expert panel. The internal consistency and reliability of the drafted CD-RISC 10-P were investigated using the Cronbach’s alpha and intra-class correlation coefficients. A sample of 400 Muslim and Zoroastrian Persian older adults residing in the city of Yazd, Iran was recruited to assess factor structure of CD-RISC 10-P using the confirmatory factor analysis.

Results

The calculated values of the Cronbach’s alpha (0.89) and ICC (0.90) coefficients were in the within of acceptable range. The confirmatory factor analysis outputs also confirmed the unidimensionality of the CD-RISC 10-P (RMSEA = 0.073, SRMR = 0.030).

Conclusions

The study findings showed that the CD-RISC 10-P is a valid and reliable scale to measure resilience with age-related challenges of chronic diseases among Persian-speaking elderly people. Cross-cultural adaptability of the CD-RISC 10-P is recommended to be assessed in different subgroups of the Iranian elderly people and possibly in other Persian-speaking populations of different countries.

Peer Review reports

Background

People of old age are facing with an accumulating trajectory of chronic diseases that raise daily life stresses [1]. Therefore, interventions to enhance their resilience to withstand adversity and bounce back from difficult life events is enormously pivotal for maintaining elders’ mental and emotional health [1]. Connor & Davidson referred to resilience as a personal capability that enables an individual to tap into their strengths for thriving and overcoming outstanding life challenges [2].

Resilience involves an individual’s ability to respond positively to environmental challenges that might be physiological, psychological or social [3]. The concept of resilience does not imply a passive acceptance of damage or threatening situations nor to adopt an unsatisfactory orientation when facing dangerous situations. It is in contrast an individual’s ability to establish bio-psychological balance under difficult conditions [2]. Resilience is a multidimensional concept that includes a set of behaviors and attitudes that empowers individuals to deal with acute and chronic stressful life events [4].

Resilience encompasses physical, psychological and social dimensions in its general sense that represents its multidimensionality. Empirical evidence suggests positive impact of high resilience in reducing depression, other morbidities and also improving quality of life [5]. Therefore, the power of resilience is regarded as an important feature of successful aging [6] while its attributes and possible changes over years still needs to be further speculated.

It has been suggested that aging may be associated with increased resilience due to being more experienced in handling life challenges. This means that older people may be more resilient and better able to cope with the challenges of illnesses and disabilities they are experiencing in their life in comparison to younger age subgroups [7]. However, diversity of challenges elderly people experience in their daily life such as chronic diseases, stress, retirement, death of spouse, etc. and also inherent discrepancy of contextual social circumstances (e.g. socio-economic and cultural variations, quality and accessibility of social support services etc.) make deep understanding of the phenomenon in different subgroups of elderly people a high priority. This could add to credibility of initiatives that seek identification of the major determinants of resilience in different population samples and its enhancement thereafter [3]. A number of measurement scales have been introduced for application in studies on resilience such as the Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA) [8], the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) [9], the Resilience Scale (RS) [10] but there are reports about limitations of these measures in terms of wider acceptability and applicability [11]. The Connor- Davidson scale of resilience (CD-RISC) is a self-report scale comprised of 25 items that aims to measure resilience among the potential respondents [2]. Its psychometric properties were assessed in several studies [12,13,14,15] and seems to be a reliable measurement tool for its intended purpose.

Due to observed instability of the five-factor structure the original CD-RISC 25 and inability of the researchers to agree on its best possible factor compositions [11], Campbell-Sills & Stein [16], extracted and validated a summarized version of the CD-RISC with 10 items (CD-RISC 10) that indicated robust loading values and high level of consistency when compared to the original 25 items CD- RISC. Validity and reliability of the two versions have been studied in several studies [17,18,19] and both (CD-RISC 25 and CD-RISC 10) revealed good psychometric properties. However, CD-RISC 10 possessed better and more established factor structure and is suggested to be more robust, efficient, simple to use and parsimonious [11].

The CD-RISC 10 was used to measure resilience among elderly people [3] in the past but distinct socio-cultural attributes may render different results in diverse sample of elderly populations [20]. Since, there are no validated tools to study resilience among Persian-speaking aged populations, this study was aims to examine psychometric properties (reliability, validity and cultural adaptability) of the CD-RISC 10 for its possible utilization among Persian-speaking elderly populations.

Methods

Study sample

A total of 400 older adults (200 Zoroastrian and 200 Muslim individuals) aged 60 years old and above were recruited from two primary health care centers in the city of Yazd, the center of Iran. Since, one of the objectives in this study was to compare resilience capacities between the two religious subgroups of the Iranian elderly people (Zoroastrians and Muslims) and to ensure diversity of the selected sample, inclusion of participants from both mentioned religious affinities was decided. The sample size was based on the recommended sample size (8 participants per item) for factor analysis by the MacCallum et al. and Boomsma [21, 22]. According to the suggestion different subsamples are required to perform the exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA, CFA). To ensure adequacy of the sample size and robustness of the yielded outputs the number of participants was doubled for each sub-sample.

For selection of participants from two health care centers, convenience sampling method was used. Then the participants were randomly selected from the Iranian national health system’s database (SIB) and they were invited to participate in the study.

The study participants were residents of the city of Yazd in the age of 60 years and above and also were diagnosed with at least one to three simulataneous chronic diseases. Main aim of selecting eldery people with at least a chronic disorder was to have a sample with greatest accuracy and resembalance to the original and ordinary population of the country’s eldery population. Other inclusion criteria included ability to speak and understand Persian language, not having considerable hearing loss to make inerviews challenging and also not having a major cognitive problems which was tested based on the Abbreviated Mental Test Score (AMTS) [23]. People with severe medical conditions or cognitive impairment that make participation in the study medically inconsistent or to make a respondent cognitively dependent on others were excluded to ensure that all participants could follow the study protocol, and assure accuracy of the responses to the survey questions.

Instrument

The original Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale 10 (CD-RISC 10) [16] that was prepared based on the CD-RISC 25 [2], comprises 10 self-report items, each rated on a Likert-type scale from 0 (not true at all) to 4 (true nearly all the time). In its original version, all of the 10 items load on a single dimension. The total score could range from 0 to 40 with higher scores indicating greater resilience of the respondent. A Persian translated version of the CD-RISC 10 that had been psychometrically tested before on a group of undergraduate nursing students [24] was used as a preliminary draft in this study but to ensure rigor in application of the translated version we performed standard back-translation procedure on the original CD-RISC 10 [16].

Translation procedure

The English version of the CD-RISC 10 scale [16] was translated into Persian by two academic translators fluent in both English and Persian. In the next stage, the drafted Persian version of the scale was back- translated into English by a proficient translator. Later, this back-translated version was compared with the original English version and minor revisions were made to correct mismatches between the two versions. The prepared Persian version of the CD-RISC 10 [16] was also contrasted with the preliminary Persian draft [24] and all mismatches resolved with consensus. The final adapted Persian version was used for quantitative validity and reliability appraisal. Permission was obtained from the CD-RISC 10 developer (Professor Jonathan RT Davidson) to use the scale and report the study findings.

Qualitative validity assessment

The CD-RISC 10-P was sent to a panel of experts consisting of fifteen gerontologists, geriatricians, health education and promotion specialists, psychologists and nursing specialists to assess its simplicity of wording, clarity of sentences and concept transferability. Based on the feedback received from the panelists the Content validity index (CVI) and content validity ratio (CVR) were calculated to ascertain content validity of the instrument. A CVI of 0.8 or greater [25] and a CVR of greater than 0.49 [26] were deemed to be in acceptable range. The Persian version of the CD-RISC 10 was also pilot tested on 28 older adults with regard to understandability of the questions and response items. There was a two-week time interval between testing in pilot section.

Data collection procedures

Data collection was performed by two trained and qualified interviewers through face-to-face interviews (self-completion of the scale was ruled out due to feasibility concerns including the required literacy level) by the registered Zoroastrian and Muslim older adults in the two purposefully selected urban health care centers. The purpose and voluntariness of participation in the study was explained before the interviews’ initiation and written informed consent obtained from the interviewees or their legal guardians (in the case of illiterate individuals) after explanation of the study objectives, procedures and right to withdraw from the study at any time and by any reason without obligation to expose any reason(s). The interviews were started with asking questions about the respondents’ demographic characteristics (including: age, gender, marital status, educational level, living status and chronic diseases) and CD-RISC 10-P items were impugned later.

Quantitative validity assessment

The CD-RISC 10-P scores’ distribution for possible skewness or kurtosis by conducting a graphic analysis and statistical test (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test) [27] and also the ceiling and floor effects were checked by examining the percentage of respondents with very low or very high scores defined on the base of the core range (< 15%) [28].

The internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the CD-RISC 10-P were assessed using the Cronbach’s alpha and Intra-Class Correlation (ICC) coefficients.

The values of Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient greater than 0.8 and ICC greater than 0.9 were considered to be in acceptable range [29, 30].

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to verify unidimensionality of the scale as observed in the original study [16] and other psychometric assessments of the scale [17, 18]. According to the Hu and Bentler’s suggestion the value of Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) below 0.05 can be deemed as acceptable [31].

The value of Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) smaller than 0.05 was considered acceptable [32]. The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker Lewis index (TLI) values > 0.90 were considered to represent acceptable model fit, and values above 0.95 as very good fit to the study data [31]. The IBM SPSS version 24 [33], and STATA version 14 [34] were used for data analysis.

Results

Participants characteristics

The mean age of the recruited older adults was 70.63 (SD = 8). Of them, 41.8% were male. Among the study participants 72% were married and 17.7% were illiterate. The most reported chronic diseases by the study respondents included hypertension (62.5%), arthritis (59.3%), hyperlipidemia (44.3%) and diabetes (40.3%). The mean resilience score of the respondents was 19.76 ± 8.83 and the approached male interviewees indicated a better resilience capacity (21.08) than their female counterparts (18.82) (P = 0.02, df = 398).

Content validity

The values of CVR and CVI for scale were 0.85 and 0.90, respectively that were in acceptable range [29]. Findings of the scale’s pilot testing on 28 older adults yielded to minor changes in terms of wordings employed.

Reliability

The calculated ICC coefficient over two-week time interval were acceptable in the Muslim (0.91), Zoroastrian (0.90) subgroups, and in the total sample (0.90). Also, value of the Cronbach’s alpha in the Muslim (0.89) and Zoroastrian (0.90) subgroups were in the acceptable range [27].

Feasibility

The estimated ceiling and floor effects for overall score of the CD-RISC 10-P scale and also in Muslims and Zoroastrian participants were presented in Table 1. Ceiling or floor effects are not observed in the data that represents measurement accuracy of the output variable [28]. The values of skewness and kurtosis test for examination of the data normality were reported in Table 1. As indicated they have verified symmetry and normal distribution of the collected data [27]. Missing data was not detected for the observations and the mean score of resilience among Zoroastrians older adults was higher than Muslims.

Table 1 The Resilience scores of the study participants in the cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of the Persian version of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale 10 (CD-RISC 10-P)
Full size table

Construct validity

To quantify the data from the individual items on the questionnaire, a factor analysis was performed. The minimum factor loading for the Q1 (able to adapt to change) were 0.70, 0.62 and 0.61 in the two studied groups (Muslims, Zoroastrians) and in total, respectively. Additionally, except for a few items, most of factor loadings exceeded 0.70 which revealed the model's acceptable validity (Table 2).

The calculated regression weights for the scale’s items that represent direction and magnitude of the parameters’ estimates were positive, in the range of 0.63–0.74 and statistically significant (P < 0.05). These findings further support construct validity of the CD-RISC 10-P.

Table 2 Factor loadings of the  items in the Persian version of Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC 10-P) according to the confirmatory factor analysis outputs
Full size table

The CFA results revealed an adequate unidimensional factor model [31] that consists with the original CD-RISC 10 [16] as presented in Table 3. The estimated values of the goodness-of-fit indices in both sub-groups of the studied Muslims and Zoroastrian older adults were in acceptable range and no considerable variations were observed between the groups. The χ2 value was also significant and the estimated RMSEA in this study was higher than 0.05. It is suggested that the obtained RMSEA values between 0 and 0.05 indicate good fit and 0.05 to 0.08 indicate acceptable fit [35].

Table 3 The estimated model fit indices according to the confirmatory factor analysis of the structure of the Persian version of the CD-RISC 10 (n = 400)
Full size table

Discussion

The common pattern of comorbidities in later years of life and consequent hassles that they pose on elderly people make resilience a tangible trait to confront resulted infirmities [36]. Studies have examined psychometric properties of the resilience tool (CD-RISC 25) in Iran [37, 38], but no study has been found among the older adults to use CD-RISC 10. The main aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric attributes of abridged CD-RISC 10 for use on Persian-speaking older adults.

The study findings indicated good internal consistency and test-retest reliability (ICC) of the CD-RISC 10-P and unidimensionality of the scale as observed in the original study [16]. The estimated Cronbach’s alpha coefficient in this study was congruent with the observed measure of internal consistency of the CD-RISC 10 in other studies [36, 39,40,41,42,43] but higher than the calculated values in the original study [16] and other studies [18, 19, 44, 45]. The study results also showed acceptable goodness-of-fit indices which represent applicability of the CD-RISC 10-P in the Persian speaking Zoroastrian and Muslim older adults.

Application of the original English version [16] of the CD-RISC 10 and other psychometric studies that tested its appropriateness for use in different sub-samples i.e. Australian cricketers [17], women with breast cancer [18], Chinese undergraduates and depressive patients [39], patients with fibromyalgia [40], young adults [44], vulnerable Colombian adolescents [46] people with lower-limb amputation [47], Greek adults of the general population [48], Russian youth sample [49] and low-income African American men [50] all represented unidimentionality of the instrument. But EFA and CFA outputs in the study of Aloba et al. yielded a two-factor model fit with the data collected from student nurses in Southwestern Nigeria [19]. The discrepancy might be related to differences in the design of studies, study samples and use of different data collection methods (i.e. cross-sectional versus cohort, inclusion of different age-groups in study sample, self-completion versus performing interview) than a real mismatches among the findings. Conforming psychometric attributes of the CD-RISC 10-P with observed findings in the studies on samples from different sub-cultures [36, 42, 45, 51] might reflect its cross-cultural adaptability [40] that need to be further investigated in future studies on other sub-samples and cross-border Persian speaking older adults. Simplicity and its convenient usability among older adults due to limited number of items makes CD-RISC 10-P and ideal choice for utilization in studies on capacities of elderly people to cope with the adverse consequences of their generally occurring chronic illnesses.

Conclusions

This study indicated that the Persian version of the CD-RISC 10 could be considered as a valid and reliable scale for measuring resilience among Persian speaking older adults in research or in clinical practice and health care settings after its further psychometric assessment in different cross-cultural and socio-economically diverse subgroups of Persian-speaking elderly people.

Study limitations

This study has several limitations therefore; the findings must be interpreted with caution. Different socio-economic background of the study participants might cast a shadow on the estimated resilience scores of the participants. There is also possibility that economic and political turbulences in Iran have posed an effect on the respondents’ answers to questions about their ability to cope and resilience capacity when confronting with diseases (due to repeated and accumulated hits from multiple stressors that can alleviate resilience capacities of the individuals). Thus the observed scores of resilience might reflect the recruited people capabilities in exceptional circumstances than their authentic baseline capacity to deal with dilemmas of chronic diseases in a normal condition. This is one the probable confounders in this and similar studies on resilience capacities of people that should carefully be considered in future studies. Those people who were under multiple stressors for a relatively long time (or chronically) might give contrasting responses to questions about their resilience capacities than people who experienced a normal life with conventional lifetime stresses. Literally, individuals’ personal and social alostatic load could have impact on their perceptions about their resilience capacities. Caution must be taken in interpretation of study findings based on the mainstream social/economic conditions in location where resilience studies are taking place.

The CD-RISC 10-P is a self-reported scale and a common methodological restrain exist in using this kind of data collection method in studies [52]. The study participants due to reasons such as having reservation in responding to questions by an outsider might not be willing to expose their real experience or thoughts (e.g. in response to questions such as: “I can deal with whatever comes my way”, “I believe I can achieve my goals, even if there are obstacles”, “I am able to handle unpleasant or painful feelings like sadness, fear, and anger” [2]. This could be especially true in working with ethnic or religious minorities. Recall bias could be other potential source of bias in this study considering the age range of the study sample that prone them to misrepresentation of their actual experience in life or giving inaccurate responses to questions about their personal capabilities or limitations.

Due to lack of a criterion measure and also logistic, budgetary and administrative challenges predictive and convergent validity of the CD-RISC 10-P were not examined in this study. Therefore, it was not possible to determine degree of agreement or inconsistency between the applied instrument’s findings with possible obtainable results in application of an instrument that conceptually measure for similar or fully dissimilar underlying constructs.

An official Persian version of the CD-RISC 10 was available by the original CD-RISC 10 developers since 2015 but the authors were not aware of its presence in the time of data collection stage of this study (Jan-June 2019). The prepared version of the CD-RISC 10 in this study have almost identical structure with the official version and only very slightly was modified for use among elderly people.

Therefore, further scrutiny is warranted in comparison of the study findings with results of other studies that used different version of the Persian translated CD-RISC 10.

For all these reasons generalizability of the study findings may be limited and they warrant further scrutiny in future studies.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to the confidentiality agreements with the institutional level Medical Ethics Board of Trustees (MEBoT) but can only be made available to bona fide researchers from the corresponding author on reasonable request subject to a non-disclosure agreement.

References

  1. Seyedjafari JMA, Mehradsadr M, Olamaie, Kopaei Marziye. The Effectiveness of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) on Resilience in Elderlies. J Aging Psychol. 2017;3(1):21–9.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Connor KM, Davidson JR. Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD‐RISC). Depression Anxiety. 2003;18(2):76–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cosco T, Kaushal A, Richards M, Kuh D, Stafford M. Resilience measurement in later life: a systematic review and psychometric analysis. Health Quality Life Outcomes. 2016;14(1):16.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Lamond AJ, Depp CA, Allison M, Langer R, Reichstadt J, Moore DJ, et al. Measurement and predictors of resilience among community-dwelling older women. J Psychiatr Res. 2008;43(2):148–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. MacLeod S, Musich S, Hawkins K, Alsgaard K, Wicker ER. The impact of resilience among older adults. Geriatr Nurs. 2016;37(4):266–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Schure MB, Odden M, Goins RT. The association of resilience with mental and physical health among older American Indians: The native elder care study. Am Indian Alaska Native Mental Health Res (Online). 2013;20(2):27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Solomon R. Longitudinal Evaluation of Quality of Life in Older Persons With Advanced Illness. Yale Medicine Thesis Digital Library: Yale University School of Medicine; 2009.

  8. Friborg O, Hjemdal O, Rosenvinge JH, Martinussen M. A new rating scale for adult resilience: What are the central protective resources behind healthy adjustment? Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2003;12:65–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.143.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Smith BW, Dalen J, Wiggins K, Tooley E, Christopher P, Bernard J. The brief resilience scale: assessing the ability to bounce back. Int J Behav Med. 2008;15:194–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705500802222972.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wagnild GM, Young HM. Development and psychometric evaluation of the resilience scale. J Nurs Meas. 1993;1(2):165–78.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Salisu I, Hashim N. A critical review of scales used in resilience research. IOSR J Bus Manag. 2017;19(4):23–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ni MY, Li TK, Nancy XY, Pang H, Chan BH, Leung GM, et al. Normative data and psychometric properties of the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) and the abbreviated version (CD-RISC 2) among the general population in Hong Kong. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(1):111–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fernandez AC, Fehon DC, Treloar H, Ng R, Sledge WH. Resilience in organ transplantation: An application of the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD–RISC) with liver transplant candidates. J Personal Assess. 2015;97(5):487–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Baek H-S, Lee K-U, Joo E-J, Lee M-Y, Choi K-S. Reliability and validity of the Korean version of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale. Psychiatry Investigation. 2010;7(2):109.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Basim HN, Cetin F. The reliability and validity of the Resilience Scale for Adults-Turkish Version. Turk Psikiyatri Derg. 2011;22(2):104.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Campbell-Sills L, Stein MB. Psychometric analysis and refinement of the connor–davidson resilience scale (CD‐RISC): Validation of a 10‐item measure of resilience. J Trauma Stress. 2007;20(6):1019–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gucciardi DF, Jackson B, Coulter TJ, Mallett CJ. The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): Dimensionality and age-related measurement invariance with Australian cricketers. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2011;12(4):423–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Alarcón R, Cerezo MV, Hevilla S, Blanca MJ. Psychometric properties of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale in women with breast cancer. Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2020;20(1):81–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Aloba O, Olabisi O, Aloba T. The 10-item Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale: Factorial structure, reliability, validity, and correlates among student nurses in southwestern Nigeria. J Am Psychiatr Nurs Assoc. 2016;22(1):43–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Yu X, Zhang J. Factor analysis and psychometric evaluation of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) with Chinese people. Soc Behav Personal. 2007;35(1):19–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Boomsma A. Nonconvergence, improper solutions, and starting values in LISREL maximum likelihood estimation. Psychometrika. 1985;50(2):229–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. MacCallum RC, Widaman KF, Zhang S, Hong S. Sample size in factor analysis. Psychol Methods. 1999;4(1):84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bakhtiyari F, Foroughan M, Fakhrzadeh H, Nazari N, Najafi B, Alizadeh M, et al. Validation of the persian version of Abbreviated Mental Test (AMT) in elderly residents of Kahrizak charity foundation. Iran J Diabetes Metabol. 2014;13(6):487–94.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Keyhani M, Taghvaei D, Rajabi A, Amirpour B. Internal Consistency and Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) among Nursing Female. Iran J Med Educ. 2015;14(10):857–65.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(5):489–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychol. 1975;28(4):563–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kim HY. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restorative Dentistry Endodontics. 2013;38(1):52–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Saffari M, Lin C-Y, Koenig HG, O’Garo K-GN, Broström A, Pakpour AH. A Persian version of the Affiliate Stigma Scale in caregivers of people with dementia. Health Promot Perspect. 2019;9(1):31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Taber KS. The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Res Sci Educ. 2018;48(6):1273–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lt Hu, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Model. 1999;6(1):1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Shi D, Maydeu-Olivares A, DiStefano C. The relationship between the standardized root mean square residual and model misspecification in factor analysis models. Multivariate Behav Res. 2018;53(5):676–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Cor I. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 24.0. Armonk: IBM Corp. 2016.

  34. StataCorp L. Stata statistical software (version release 14). College Station: Author; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press, 2015.

  36. Goins RT, Gregg JJ, Fiske A. Psychometric properties of the Connor-Davidson resilience scale with older American Indians: The native elder care study. Res Aging. 2013;35(2):123–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Khoshouei MS. Psychometric Evaluation of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) Using Iranian Students. Int J Test. 2009;9(1):60–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Derakhshanrad SA, Piven E, Rassafiani M, Hosseini SA, Mohammadi Shahboulaghi F. Standardization of Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale in Iranian subjects with Cerebrovascular Accident. J Rehabil Sci Res. 2014;1(4):73–7.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Cheng C, Dong D, He J, Zhong X, Yao S. Psychometric properties of the 10-item Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10) in Chinese undergraduates and depressive patients. J Affect Disord. 2020;261:211–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Notario-Pacheco B, Martínez-Vizcaíno V, Trillo-Calvo E, Pérez-Yus MC, Serrano-Parra D, García-Campayo J. Validity and reliability of the Spanish version of the 10-item CD-RISC in patients with fibromyalgia. Health Quality Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1):14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Peng L, Zhang J, Chen H, Zhang Y, Li M, Yu Y, et al. Comparison among different versions of Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) in rehabilitation patients after unintentional injury. Afr J Psychiatry. 2014;17(6):1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Sharma S, Pathak A, Abbott JH, Jensen MP. Measurement properties of the Nepali version of the Connor Davidson resilience scales in individuals with chronic pain. Health Quality Life Outcomes. 2018;16(1):56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wang L, Shi Z, Zhang Y, Zhang Z. Psychometric properties of the 10-item Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale in Chinese earthquake victims. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2010;64(5):499–504.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Notario-Pacheco B, Solera-Martínez M, Serrano-Parra MD, Bartolomé-Gutiérrez R, García-Campayo J, Martínez-Vizcaíno V. Reliability and validity of the Spanish version of the 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (10-item CD-RISC) in young adults. Health Quality Life Outcomes. 2011;9(1):63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Tourunen A, Siltanen S, Saajanaho M, Koivunen K, Kokko K, Rantanen T. Psychometric properties of the 10-item Connor–Davidson resilience scale among Finnish older adults. Aging Mental Health. 2021;25(1):99–106.

  46. Guzmán CG, Martín MBG, Falcón JS, Sierra M. Psychometric Properties of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) on Vulnerable Colombian Adolescents. Int J Psychol Psychol Ther. 2019;19(3):277–89.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Miller MJ, Mealer ML, Cook PF, Kittelson AJ, Christiansen CL. Psychometric Assessment of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale for People With Lower-Limb Amputation. Physical Ther. 2021;101(4):pzab002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kyriazos T, Stalikas A. Psychometric Evidence of the 10-Item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC 10, Greek Version) and the Predictive Power of Resilience on Well-Being and Distress. Open J Soc Sci. 2021;9(11):280–308.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Nartova-Bochaver S, Korneev A, Bochaver K. Validation of the 10-Item Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale: The Case of Russian Youth. Front Psychol. 2021;12:611026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Coates EE, Phares V, Dedrick RF. Psychometric properties of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale 10 among low-income, African American men. Psychol Assess. 2013;25(4):1349.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Meng M, He J, Guan Y, Zhao H, Yi J, Yao S, et al. Factorial invariance of the 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC 10) across gender among Chinese elders. Front Psychol. 2019;10:1237.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Kim GR, Netuveli G, Blane D, Peasey A, Malyutina S, Simonova G, et al. Psychometric properties and confirmatory factor analysis of the CASP-19, a measure of quality of life in early old age: the HAPIEE study. Aging Mental Health. 2015;19(7):595–609.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191–4. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to appreciate the provided help and support of health workers in the selected Primary Health Care Centers of the city of Yazd and also, all the Zoroastrian and Muslim older adults and community leaders without which this study would not have been possible. We also would like to sincerely thank Professor Jonathan RT Davidson (one of the developers of the CD-RISC 10) for his kindness in allocating time to have some discussion and providing guidance about the scale and its translation.

Funding

Financial support for this study was provided by the Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran, under grant number 5/D/204311-1397-06-17.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Aging Health, School of Public Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran

    Hassan Rezaeipandari & Mohammad Ali Morowatisharifabad

  2. Elderly Health Research Center, School of Public Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran

    Hassan Rezaeipandari & Mohammad Ali Morowatisharifabad

  3. Health and Environment Research Center, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran

    Asghar Mohammadpoorasl

  4. Department of Health Education and Promotion, Faculty of Health Sciences, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran

    Abdolreza Shaghaghi

Authors
  1. Hassan Rezaeipandari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Asghar Mohammadpoorasl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohammad Ali Morowatisharifabad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Abdolreza Shaghaghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors collectively contributed to intellectual content and conceived the original study concept and assisted in the design and appraisal of the findings. HR collected the study data, performed data analysis and interpretation and drafted the first version of the manuscript with receiving considerable help and advices from AM, MAM and AS. AS was the main grant applicant with major role in supervision of the whole research implementation, providing critical feedback and taking the lead in preparation of the final version. All authors discussed the results and commented on the manuscript and have approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdolreza Shaghaghi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Medical Ethics Board of Trustees (MeBOT) affiliated to the Yazd University of Medical Sciences was approved the study protocol (approval number: IR.SSU.SPH.REC.1397.092). All methods in the study were performed in accordance with relevant institutional/national level ethical guidelines and also recommendations of the Helsinki declaration for performing medical research [53]. The purpose and voluntariness of participation in the study was explained before the interviews’ initiation and written informed consent obtained from the interviewees or their legal guardians (in the case of illiterate individuals) after explanation of the study objectives, procedures and right to withdraw from the study at any time and by any reason without obligation to expose any reason(s).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rezaeipandari, H., Mohammadpoorasl, A., Morowatisharifabad, M.A. et al. Psychometric properties of the Persian version of abridged Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale 10 (CD-RISC-10) among older adults. BMC Psychiatry 22, 493 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-022-04138-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-022-04138-0

Keywords

BMC Psychiatry

ISSN: 1471-244X

Contact us