Author: Elyse R Park1,2,3, Christina M Luberto1,2, Emma Chad-Friedman4, Lara Traeger1,2, Daniel L Hall1,2, Giselle K Perez1,2, Brett Goshe1,2, Ana-Maria Vranceanu1,2, Margaret Baim1,2, John W Denninger Md PhD1,2, Gregory Fricchione Md1,2, Herbert Benson Md1,3, Suzanne C Lechner5
Affiliation: <sup>1</sup> Benson-Henry Institute for Mind Body Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
<sup>2</sup> Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
<sup>3</sup> Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
<sup>4</sup> Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.
<sup>5</sup> Department of Psychiatry, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
Conference/Journal: Glob Adv Health Med
Date published: 2021 Mar 24
Other:
Volume ID: 10 , Pages: 21649561211000306 , Special Notes: doi: 10.1177/21649561211000306. , Word Count: 231
Background:
There is heterogeneity in conceptualizations of resiliency, and there is, to date, no established theoretically driven resiliency assessment measure that aligns with a targeted resiliency intervention. We operationalize resiliency as one's ability to maintain adaptive functioning in response to the ongoing, chronic stress of daily living, and we use a novel resiliency measure that assesses the target components of an evidence based resiliency intervention. We present our resiliency theory, treatment model, and corresponding assessment measure (Current Experience Scale; CES).
Methods:
To establish the psychometric properties of the CES, we report the factor structure and internal consistency reliability (N = 273). Among participants in our resiliency intervention (N = 151), we explored construct validity in terms of associations with theoretical model constructs, a validated resiliency measure, and sensitivity to change from before to after the intervention.
Results:
Results indicated that a 23-item, 6-factor solution was a good fit to the data (RMSEA = .08, CFI = .97; TLI =.96) and internal consistency was good (α = .81 to .95). The CES showed correlations in the expected direction with resiliency model constructs (all p's < .001) and significant post intervention improvements.
Conclusion:
Our resiliency theory, treatment model, and outcome appear aligned; the CES demonstrated promise as a psychometrically sound outcome measure for our resiliency intervention and may be used in future longitudinal studies and resiliency building interventions to assess individuals' resiliency to adapt to ongoing stress.
Keywords: health; measurement; resiliency; stress; theory.
PMID: 34377598 PMCID: PMC8327002 DOI: 10.1177/21649561211000306