The difference between the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale and the Brief Resilience Scale when assessing resilience: confirmatory factor analysis and predictive effects

Background

The Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) and the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) are two scales widely used to measure resilience. Although both scales seek to assess an individual's ability to recover from and adapt to disruptions or stressful events, they can capture different aspects of resilience. While the CD-RISC focuses on resources that can help individuals to recover from and adapt to disruptions or stressful events, the BRS directly measures one's ability to bounce back or be resilient. The aim of this study is to better understand resilience through empirically examining the differences between the CD-RISC and the BRS.

Method

Samples (a pooled sample N = 448 and two subsamples N = 202 and 246) consisting of undergraduate students from Taiwan were used. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to examine the relationship between the CD-RISC and BRS. Regression analysis was conducted to examine predictive effects of the CD-RISC and BRS on depression and life satisfaction.

Result

The results of CFA using different samples consistently show that the CD-RISC and the BRS are highly correlated but still distinct. The results of regression analyses using different samples also consistently show that the CD-RISC and the BRS have unique predictive effects regarding depression and life satisfaction.

Conclusions

The research findings suggest that the CD-RISC and the BRS capture different aspects of resilience. For future research on resilience, researchers should pay closer attention to the differences between these scales and choose the one that most closely fits their research purpose.