(2004, Sinclair, Wallston) The Development and Psychometric Evaluation of The Brief Resilient Coping Scale
(2004, Sinclair, Wallston) The Development and Psychometric Evaluation of The Brief Resilient Coping Scale
(2004, Sinclair, Wallston) The Development and Psychometric Evaluation of The Brief Resilient Coping Scale
http://asm.sagepub.com/
The Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Brief Resilient Coping Scale
Vaughn G. Sinclair and Kenneth A. Wallston
Assessment 2004 11: 94
DOI: 10.1177/1073191103258144
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Subscriptions: http://asm.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://asm.sagepub.com/content/11/1/94.refs.html
What is This?
Vaughn G. Sinclair
Kenneth A. Wallston
Vanderbilt University School of Nursing
This article introduces the Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS), a 4-item measure designed
to capture tendencies to cope with stress in a highly adaptive manner. Two samples of indi-
viduals with rheumatoid arthritis (ns = 90 and 140) provide evidence for the reliability and
validity of the BRCS. The BRCS has adequate internal consistency and test-retest reliability.
Convergent validity of the scale is demonstrated by predictable correlations with measures
of personal coping resources (e.g., optimism, helplessness, self-efficacy), pain coping be-
haviors, and psychological well-being. Resilient coping, as assessed by the BRCS, also buff-
ers the effects of high levels of arthritis-related and non-arthritis-related stressors on
depressive symptoms. The sensitivity of the BRCS to changes associated with a cognitive-
behavioral intervention is also demonstrated. The BCRS may be useful for identifying indi-
viduals in need of interventions designed to enhance resilient coping skills.
Resilience is a complex phenomenon that refers to the ated with a variety of positive psychological and physical
ability to rebound from and positively adapt to significant outcomes (Benard, 1999; Hechtman, 1991). Researchers
stressors (Dyer & McGuinness, 1996). According to Web- interested in adaptive coping need an efficient instrument
ster’s dictionary (Mish, 1996, p. 996), resilience is “an that measures this construct. The purpose of this article is
ability to recover from or adjust easily to misfortune or to present the validity and reliability data for the Brief Re-
change.” O’Leary and Ickovics (1995) note that some re- silient Coping Scale (BRCS) using two samples of indi-
silient individuals actually thrive after successfully deal- viduals with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatoid arthritis
ing with stressful challenges, extracting positive changes (RA) is an autoimmune condition often accompanied by
from the experience and surpassing former levels of high levels of pain, fatigue, and functional disability
growth and functioning. After decades of correlational re- (Pincus, 1996). Because of the chronic disease-related
search dedicated to identifying individual and environ- stressors associated with RA, this patient population can
mental protective factors promoting resilient behavior, the provide helpful information about resilient patterns of
current research focus has shifted to the protective process adapting to stress. There is great individual variability in
of resilient coping (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000; how well individuals with RA adjust to the condition, and
Richardson, 2002). This focus is reflected in a recent defi- this adaptation pattern varies even when controlling for the
nition of resilience as “a dynamic process encompassing amount of pain and disability reported (Newman &
positive adaptation within the context of significant adver- Revenson, 1993). Highly resilient individuals should gen-
sity” (Luthar et al., 2000, p. 543). erally be able to cope with RA-related stressors such as
Knowledge about the resilient coping process is of pain, fatigue, and functional limitations without depres-
great interest to researchers because this process is associ- sion or psychological breakdown.
The research reported in this article was supported by a Clinical Science Award from the Arthritis Foundation (Sample 1) and Grant
No. 5R01 NR01007 from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Nursing Research (Sample 2). The authors would like to
thank Joseph Hepworth, Ph.D., and anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback on an earlier version of this manuscript.
Assessment, Volume 11, No. 1, March 2004 94-101
DOI: 25814410.1177/1073191103258144
© 2004 Sage Publications
ently and creatively address problems, reflective capabil- tionnaire that was administered twice, 6 weeks apart. They
ities that promote independent and novel approaches to also completed these items at the end of the intervention
problems (evidenced in reframing), and an ability to elicit program and at a 3-month follow-up. The mean age for
positive support from others (Beardslee & Podorefsky, 1988; Sample 1 was 46 years old (SD = 11.8), and the average
Fonagy, Steele, Steele, Higgitt, & Target, 1994; Garmezy, length of time since diagnosis was 10.35 years (SD =
1993; Hechtman, 1991; Werner & Smith, 1982; Wood- 8.79). The items in the BRCS were also completed by 140
gate, 1999b). The competent cognitive skills and reflective men and women with RA (73% women) who were partici-
capabilities identified in these samples may promote the pating in a longitudinal measurement study of adaptation
use of the resilient coping pattern of creative problem solv- to RA (hereafter referred to as Sample 2). The items were
ing. In general, child and adolescent studies focus on pro- administered to this sample only once, during the third
tective factors that encourage the development of resilient wave of data collection. The mean age in Sample 2 was
traits over time despite significant adversity (Kaplan, 57.8 years old (SD = 13.35), and the average length of time
1999), whereas this study focuses on resilient coping be- since diagnosis was 5.25 years (SD = 1.25). In addition to
haviors in adults dealing with current stressors. marked differences in gender—Sample 1 only included
women, χ2(1) = 29.26; p < .001— there were significant
Available Measures differences between our two samples with respect to age,
t(228) = 6.83; p < .001, and length of time since diagnosis,
The literature offers few scales related to resilience t(91.32) = .5.47; p < .001.
measurement, and none of the published scales focuses on
resilient coping in adults. Jew, Green, and Kroger (1999) Scale Development
developed a 35-item Resiliency Scale for adolescents that
is based on 12 skills and abilities identified by Mrazek and In the initial phase of instrument development, the first
Mrazek (1987) as factors contributing to less vulnerability author wrote a set of items related to beliefs that could the-
to stress in children. Their 35-item Resiliency Scale has oretically be affected by a cognitive-behavioral interven-
three subscales related to future orientation, active skill ac- tion designed to enhance adaptive coping and a sense of
quisition, and independence/risk taking, with many items control over stressful conditions. The questions were de-
that are related to specific adolescent issues, such as seek- signed to measure resilient coping and the effective use of
ing help from teachers. A 45-item Dispositional Resil- social support–related constructs that were addressed in
ience Scale published by Bartone, Ursano, Wright, and the intervention. The details of that intervention have been
Ingraham (1989) was developed to refine measurement of described elsewhere (Sinclair, Wallston, Dwyer,
the personality style of hardiness, a construct composed of Blackburn, & Fuchs, 1998). With the assistance of six doc-
commitment, control, and challenge dimensions (Kobasa, toral nursing students in a research methods course, nine
1979). Wagnild and Young (1993) developed a 25-item items were selected for further analysis to determine
Resilience Scale based on five aspects of resilience that whether they constituted a unidimensional measure of
were identified in their qualitative study of elderly women coping. The directions for the items were worded as fol-
who had successfully coped with loss (Wagnild & Young, lows: “Consider how well the following statements de-
1990). The five attributes of resilience guiding the devel- scribe your behavior and actions on a scale from 1 to 5,
opment of this scale—perseverance, self-reliance, where 1 means the statement does not describe you at all
meaningfulness, existential aloneness, and equanimity— and 5 means it describes you very well.”
correspond more closely to Polk’s (1997) dispositional The data on these nine items completed by both sets of
and philosophical patterns of resilience than to her situa- participants were combined into a single data set and were
tional patterns. subjected to exploratory principal components factor anal-
yses with orthogonal rotation to determine whether one or
more factors emerged. The Scree test indicated that there
METHODS were two factors (see Table 1 for a listing of the items with
their loadings on the two principal components). As dem-
Samples onstrated in Table 1, four of the nine items loaded cleanly
on the first component, three of the items loaded on the
The items used to develop the BRCS were administered second component, one item loaded on both, and one item
to two samples of individuals with RA. Ninety women loaded on neither. The four items that loaded cleanly on
with RA who were enrolled in a cognitive-behavioral in- the first component were deemed to fit the authors’ con-
tervention program (hereafter referred to as Sample 1) ceptualization of the construct of resilient coping. Subse-
completed the items as part of a baseline assessment ques- quently, these four items became the BRCS.
TABLE 1
Results of Principal Components Analysis With Varimax Rotation
a
Loadings
Item Wording Component 1 Component 2
1. I actively look for ways to replace the losses I encounter in life.b .685 –.112
2. I believe that I can grow in positive ways by dealing with difficult situations.b .679 –.200
3. I look for creative ways to alter difficult situations.b .652 –.130
4. Regardless of what happens to me, I believe I can control my reaction to it.b .623 –.137
5. I only set goals which I know I can reach without the help of others. .494 .481
6. When I need help, I don’t hesitate to ask a friend to help. .239 –.756
7. I hesitate to ask others to help me. .039 .846
8. My friends and family frequently don’t live up to my expectations of how they should act. –.173 .414
9. I really resent anyone telling me what to do. –.116 .174
Psychometric Testing were returned by mail to research assistants who then en-
tered the data. Data were checked for accuracy by another
After assessing the internal consistency and stability of research assistant.
the BRCS, construct validity was investigated by correlat-
ing BRCS scores with measures of personal coping re-
sources, pain coping behavior, and psychological well- RESULTS
being in both samples. The researchers hypothesized that
the BRCS would correlate positively with personal coping Reliability Testing
resources (e.g., self-efficacy), adaptive pain coping behav-
iors, and positive indicators of psychological well-being. Separate item analyses were conducted in both samples
Conversely, the BCRS should be negatively correlated and in the combined sample for the purposes of establish-
with helplessness, psychological vulnerability, maladap- ing the internal consistency of the scale and to determine
tive pain coping behaviors, and negative mood. The mea- whether all four of the items contributed to Cronbach’s
sures of personal coping resources were the arthritis alpha. Table 2 lists item means, standard deviations, and
helplessness subscale of the Arthritis Helplessness Index corrected item-total correlations for both samples. Com-
(Stein, Wallston, & Nicassio, 1988), the Perceived Health bining the two samples, the mean BRCS score was 14.81
Competence Scale (M.S. Smith, Wallston, & Smith, (SD = 2.95). With a theoretical range from 4 to 20, 30.5%
1995), the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scales (Lorig, Chastain, (low-resilient copers) scored 13 or less, and 27.1% (high-
Ung, Shoor, & Holman, 1989), the Life Orientation Test resilient copers) scored 17 or more.
(LOT)—a measure of dispositional optimism (Scheier &
Internal consistency. Cronbach’s alpha reliability for
Carver, 1985), and the Psychological Vulnerability Scale
the 4-item BRCS was computed for each time it was ad-
(Sinclair & Wallston, 1999). In Sample 2, pain coping be-
ministered to Sample 1. The alphas were .64 (first base-
havior was assessed by the Vanderbilt Multidimensional
line), .76 (second baseline), .69 (end of program), and .71
Pain Coping Inventory (VMPCI) (C. A. Smith, Wallston,
(3-month follow-up). The BRCS was administered only
Dwyer, & Dowdy, 1997). A shortened version of the
once to Sample 2, and the alpha for that sample was .68.
VMPCI was administered to participants in Sample 1.
The alpha for the combined (pooled) sample was .69.
Psychological well-being was assessed by the Positive and
Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) (Watson, Clark, & Stability. To assess test-retest reliability, Sample 1
Tellegen, 1988), the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, BRCS scores collected 6 weeks prior to the intervention
Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985), and, for Sample 2 were correlated with BRCS scores collected during the
only, the Center for Epidemiological Studies–Depression week prior to the intervention. The test-retest correlation
scale (CES-D) (Radloff, 1977). The reliability and validity of the BRCS over this 5- to 6-week baseline period was .71
of all these measures have been established in the literature (n = 87; p < .001). Stability was also assessed by correlat-
and in studies of patients with RA (Sinclair et al., 1998; ing the postintervention BRCS scores with the BRCS
C. A. Smith & Wallston, 1992; C. A. Smith, Wallston, & scores obtained 3 months later at the follow-up. That cor-
Dwyer, 1995). For both samples, self-report instruments relation was .68 (n = 83; p < .001).
TABLE 2
BRCS Item Wording, Means, Standard Deviations,
Item-Total Correlations, and Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Is Deleted
Corrected Item— Alpha If
M SD Total Correlation Item Deleted
Item Wording S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2 S1 S2
I look for creative ways to alter difficult situations. 4.15 3.73 0.91 1.10 .45 .49 .70 .61
Regardless of what happens to me, I believe I can control my reaction to it. 3.57 3.50 0.93 1.02 .46 .40 .70 .66
I believe I can grow in positive ways by dealing with difficult situations. 4.14 3.88 0.88 0.84 .55 .50 .65 .61
I actively look for ways to replace the losses I encounter in life. 3.69 3.45 1.01 1.08 .61 .49 .61 .60
FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2
Interaction of Resilient Coping Interaction of Resilient Coping
and RA-Related Stress and Non-RA-Related Stress
(Past Month’s Pain Intensity) on Depressive Symptomatology
on Depressive Symptomatology
21
21 20
20 19
18
19
17
18
Depressive SX
16
17 Low
15 resilient
16
Depressive SX
14 coping
15 13 Average
14 Low 12 resilient
resilient 11 coping
13
coping
12 10 High
Average
9 resilient
11 resilient coping
coping 8
10 High Low Stress High Stress
9 resilient
coping
8
Lo w Pain High Pain
NOTE: RA = Rheumatoid Arthritis.
nism for the effects of stressful circumstances. Reduction BRCS scores had significantly lower CES-D scores under
of risk impact is frequently accomplished by altering the high stress than individuals with low BRCS scores.
appraisal of the risk factor and its ability to cause severe The BRCS appears to be a valid instrument, although
damage. Individuals who score high on the BRCS are en- we acknowledge that more validity testing needs to be
dorsing a tendency to reframe the potency of stressors by conducted. This article presents initial evidence for the
affirming control of positive ways to offset potential construct and criterion validity of the BRCS from two
losses. Using Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) terminology, samples of people with RA. The diversity of the two sam-
they would mitigate their primary appraisal of the potency ples, with significant differences related to gender, age,
of the stressor and enhance secondary appraisals of their and length of time since diagnosis, enhances the potential
ability to deal with ensuing losses. generalizability of these findings to RA populations. Fur-
ther research is warranted in other populations with
The BRCS meets the minimal standard (~ .70) for reli-
chronic illness. In addition, studies are needed to examine
ability of a research instrument. The brevity of this 4-item
the usefulness of the BRCS as a predictor of psychological
scale is a double-edged sword, making the scale conve-
breakdown and depression in healthy populations.
nient to administer although it may affect its internal con-
Resilience is an attribute with considerable intuitive ap-
sistency. Nonetheless, the BRCS has sufficient internal
peal because it lessens a person’s vulnerability to the vicis-
consistency and stability for a 4-item scale (Shelley, 1984).
situdes of life. Information about resilient coping could
Because of its brevity, it could easily be administered mul-
prove useful to both physical and mental health care pro-
tiple times in a longitudinal study.
viders as they attempt to help patients cope effectively
The validity testing demonstrated that BRCS scores with stressful situations and conditions. The BRCS may
correlated in theoretically predictable directions with be useful for identifying individuals in need of interven-
scores from a variety of personal coping resources, pain tions designed to build resilient coping skills. If resilient
coping behaviors, and psychological well-being. These coping can be reinforced, patients may be more likely to
findings were consistent with findings published in studies withstand stress without psychological breakdown. The
evaluating correlates of resilience (Jacelon, 1997; Kaplan, BRCS may also be useful to investigators seeking to un-
1999). BRCS scores were not correlated with measures of derstand how resilient coping processes operate to protect
physical well-being, but our entire study population had a individuals from the effects of stress. Adaptive coping pro-
chronic, progressive illness that involves considerable cesses, in general, are a prime research target for health
amounts of pain and fatigue. BRCS scores were positively care researchers seeking to manage patient populations
correlated with education level, a finding consistent with more effectively and efficiently.
the resilience literature (Rabkin et al., 1993). The BRCS
scores were predictive of outcomes associated with our
cognitive-behavioral intervention. This finding indicates REFERENCES
that the BRCS measures a coping resource that influenced
psychological and physical outcomes, adding to the evi- Antoni, M. H., & Goodkin, K. (1988). Host moderator variables in the
dence of the validity of the BRCS as a measure of an adap- promotion of cervical neoplasia—I. Personal facets. Journal of Psy-
tive coping resource. Furthermore, we demonstrated that chosomatic Research, 32(3), 327-338.
Bartone, P. T., Ursano, R. J., Wright, K. M., & Ingraham, L. H. (1989).
BRCS scores were sensitive enough to serve as an out- The impact of a military air disaster on the health of assistance work-
come measure for a psychological intervention. ers. A prospective study. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases,
177(6), 317-328.
The literature indicates that resilient coping should Beardslee, W. R., & Podorefsky, D. (1988). Resilient adolescents whose
buffer the effects of stressors on psychological outcomes parents have serious affective and other psychiatric disorders: Impor-
tance of self-understanding and relationships. American Journal of
(Kaplan, 1999; Luthar & Cushing, 1999). According to Psychiatry, 145(1), 63-69.
Roosa (2000, p. 567), “interactions are the heart of the re- Benard, B. (1999). Applications of resilience: Possibilities and promise.
silience construct,” and this scale’s ability to interact with In M. D. Glantz & J. L. Johnston (Eds.), Resilience and development:
the effect of stressors on psychological outcomes is a sa- Positive life adaptations. Longitudinal research in the social and be-
havioral sciences (pp. 161-176). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
lient finding. For Sample 2, the only sample that com-
Cowen, E. L., & Work, W. C. (1988). Resilient children, psychological
pleted the CES-D, we demonstrated that BRCS scores wellness, and primary prevention. American Journal of Community
interacted with stress to affect scores on depressive Psychology, 16(4), 591-607.
symptomatology. This finding was substantiated for both Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satis-
faction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.
RA-related stress (past month’s pain intensity) and non-
Dyer, J. G., & McGuinness, T. M. (1996). Resilience: Analysis of the con-
RA-related stress, suggesting that the buffering effect of cept. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 10(5), 276-282.
resilient coping reflected in the BRCS works in a similar Fonagy, P., Steele, M., Steele, H., Higgitt, A., & Target, M. (1994). The
manner for a variety of stressors. Individuals with higher Emanuel Miller memorial lecture 1992. The theory and practice of
resilience. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35(2), Richardson, G. E. (2002). The metatheory of resilience and resiliency.
231-257. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(3), 307-321.
Garmezy, N. (1993). Children in poverty: Resilience despite risk. Psychi- Roosa, M. W. (2000). Some thoughts about resilience versus positive de-
atry, 56, 127-136. velopment, main effects versus interactions, and the value of resil-
Hechtman, L. (1991). Resilience and vulnerability in long-term outcome ience. Child Development, 71(3), 567-569.
of attention deficit hyperactive disorder. Canadian Journal of Psychi- Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms.
atry, 36, 415-421. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57(3), 316-331.
Jacelon, C. S. (1997). The trait and process of resilience. Journal of Ad- Rutter, M. (1990). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms.
vanced Nursing, 25, 123-129. In J. Rolf, D. Cicchetti, K. H. Nuechterlein, & S. Weintraub (Eds.),
Jew, C. L., Green, K. E., & Kroger, J. (1999). Development and validation Risk and protective factors in the development of psychopathology
of a measure of resiliency. Measurement and Evaluation in Coun- (pp. 181-214). New York: Cambridge University Press.
seling and Development, 32(2), 75-89. Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: As-
Kaplan, H.B. (1999). Toward an understanding of resilience: A critical re- sessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies.
view of applications and models. In M. D. Glantz & J. L. Johnston, Health Psychology, 4, 219-247.
(Eds.), Resilience and development: Positive life adaptations. Longi- Shelley, S. I. (1984). Research methods in nursing and health. Boston:
tudinal research in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 161-176). Little, Brown.
Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer. Sinclair, V. G., & Wallston, K. A. (1999). The development and validation
Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An in- of the Psychological Vulnerability Scale. Cognitive Therapy & Re-
quiry into hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, search, 23(2), 119-129.
37, 1-11. Sinclair, V. G., Wallston, K. A., Dwyer, K. D., Blackburn, D., & Fuchs, H.
Kumpfer, K. L. (1999). Factors and processes contributing to resilience: (1998). Effects of a cognitive-behavioral intervention for women with
The resilience framework. In M. D. Glantz & J. L. Johnston (Eds.), rheumatoid arthritis. Research in Nursing & Health, 21, 315-326.
Resilience and development: Positive life adaptations. Longitudinal Smith, C. A., & Wallston, K. A. (1992). Adaptation in patients with
research in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 161-176). chronic rheumatoid arthritis: Application of a general model. Health
Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer. Psychology, 11(3), 151-162.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New Smith, C. A., Wallston, K. A., & Dwyer, K. A. (1995). On babies and
York: Springer. bathwater: Disease impact and negative affectivity in the self-
Lorig, K., Chastain, R., Ung, E., Shoor, S., & Holman, H. (1989). Devel- reports of persons with rheumatoid arthritis. Health Psychology,
opment and evaluation of a scale to measure perceived selfefficacy in 14(1), 64-73.
people with arthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 32, 37-44. Smith, C. A., Wallston, K. A., Dwyer, K. A., & Dowdy, S. (1997). Beyond
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resil- good and bad coping: A multidimensional examination of coping
ience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child De- with pain in persons with rheumatoid arthritis. Annals of Behavioral
velopment, 71(3), 543-562. Medicine, 19, 11-21.
Luthar, S. S., & Cushing, G. (1999). Measurement issues in the empirical Smith, M. S., Wallston, K. A., & Smith, C. A. (1995). The development
study of resilience: An overview. In M. D. Glantz & J. L. Johnston and validation of the Perceived Health Competence Scale. Health Ed-
(Eds.), Resilience and development: Positive life adaptations. Longi- ucation Research: Theory & Practice, 10, 51-64.
tudinal research in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 129-160). Stein, M. J., Wallston, K. A., & Nicassio, P. M. (1988). Factor structure
Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer. of the Arthritis Helplessness Index. Journal of Rheumatology, 15,
Luthar, S. S., & Zigler, E. (1991). Vulnerability and competence: A re- 427-432.
view of research on resilience in childhood. American Journal of Tack, B. (1990). Selfreported fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis: A pilot
Orthopsychiatry, 6(1), 6-22. study. Arthritis Care and Research, 3, 156-157.
Meenan, R. F., Gertman, P. M., & Mason, J. R. (1980). Measuring health Wagnild, G. M., & Young, H. M. (1990). Resilience among older women.
status in arthritis: The Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales. Arthritis Image: Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 22(4), 252-255.
& Rheumatism, 23, 146-152. Wagnild, G. M., & Young, H. M. (1993). Development and psychometric
Mish, F. C. (1996). Merriam Webster’s collegiate dictionary (10th ed.). evaluation of the Resilience Scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement,
Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster. 1(2), 165-178.
Mrazek, P. J., & Mrazek, D. (1987). Resilience in child maltreatment Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and valida-
victims: A conceptual exploration. Child Abuse and Neglect, 11, tion of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS
357-365. scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psvchology, 54, 1063-1070.
Newman, S. P., & Revenson, T. A. (1993). Coping with rheumatoid Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible. New
arthritis. In S. Newman & M. Shipley (Eds.), Bailliere’s clinical York: McGraw-Hill.
rheumatology: Psychological aspects of rheumatic disease (pp. 259- Woodgate, R. L. (1999a). Conceptual understanding of resilience in the
280). London: Bailliere Tindall. adolescent with cancer: Part I. Journal of Pediatric Oncology
O’Leary, V. E., & Ickovics, J. R. (1995). Resilience and thriving in re- Nursing, 16(1), 35-43.
sponse to challenge: An opportunity for a paradigm shift in women’s Woodgate, R. L. (1999b). A review of the literature on resilience in the ad-
health. Research on Gender, Behavior, and Policy, 1(2), 121-142. olescent with cancer: Part II. Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing,
Pincus, T. (1996). Rheumatoid Arthritis. In S. T. Wegener, B. L. Belza, & 16(2), 78-89.
E. P. Gall (Eds.), Clinical care in the rheumatic diseases. Atlanta,
GA: American College of Rheumatology.
Polk, L. V. (1997). Toward a middle-range theory of resilience. Advances Vaughn G. Sinclair, Ph.D., R.N., is an associate professor of
in Nursing Science, 19(3), 1-13. nursing at Vanderbilt University School of Nursing.
Rabkin, J. G., Remien, R., Katoff, L., & Williams, J. B. W. (1993). Resil-
ience in adversity among long-term survivors of AIDS. Hospital and Kenneth A. Wallston, Ph.D., is a professor of psychology at
Community Psychiatry, 44(2), 162-167. Vanderbilt University.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale
for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Mea-
surement, 1, 385-401.