Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Alves, Anic C.
• Cecatti, Jose G.
• Mayrink, Jussara
• Galvao, Rafael B.
• Costa, Maria L.
• Feitosa, Francisco E.
• Rocha Filho, Edilberto A.
• Leite, Débora F.
• Tedesco, Ricardo P.
• Santana, Danielly S.
• Fernandes, Karayna G.
• Miele, Maria J.
• Souza, Joao P.
• Souza, Renato T.

Titel

Agreement between the short and long versions of the Resilience Scale: A validation among the obstetric population according to vulnerability status

Ist Teil von

• International journal of gynecology and obstetrics, 2022-09, Vol.158 (3), p.564-571

Ort / Verlag

United States

Erscheinungsjahr

2022

Link zum Volltext

Quelle

Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Objective To compare the 14‐item Resilience Scale (RS‐14) and the original 25‐item scale (RS‐25) in the obstetric population, including vulnerable and non‐vulnerable women. Methods A Brazilian prospective cohort study was conducted of nulliparous singleton pregnant women from March 2018 to March 2020. Women who completed the RS‐25 at 27–29 weeks of pregnancy were included in the analysis. RS‐25 and RS‐14 scores were converted to comparable scales of 0–100. Medians, standard deviations, and centiles between versions were compared for the general, vulnerable, and non‐vulnerable populations. Correlation, concordance, and internal consistency and reliability analyses were performed. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results In total, 381 women who completed the RS‐25 were included. Medians of RS‐14 and RS‐25 scores were significantly different (73.4 and 70.8, respectively; P < 0.001), regardless of the vulnerability status. The RS‐14 showed a high correlation (Pearson´s correlation coefficient of −0.379 (P‐value < 0.001)), but no agreement (Pitman's test of difference in variance: r = 0.422; P < 0.001) with the RS‐25 version. RS‐14 showed high internal consistency and reliability with only one component (Variance of 59.82%, Cronbach’s Alpha 0.947). Conclusion The RS‐14 may overestimate the RS‐25 score and different domains may not be assessed by the short version. The psychometric properties of the RS‐14 and the clinical relevance of the variation between versions require further evaluation. The current findings suggest that the short version of the Resilience Scale (RS‐14) may not be a suitable replacement for the original version (RS‐25) in obstetrics.