posted on 2016-03-31, 13:24authored byJohn Maltby, L. Day, M. Żemojtel-Piotrowska, J. Piotrowski, H. Hitokoto, T. Baran, Ceri Jones, Anjalee Chakravarty-Agbo, H. D. Flowe
The study explored how scores on the three dimensions of the Engineering, Ecological, and
Adaptive Capacity (EEA) trait resilience scale, derived from Holling’s ecological systems
theory of resilience, demonstrate fit within higher-order bifactor models of measurement,
cultural invariance, and associations with clinical caseness of affect. Three samples (295 US
adults, and 179 Japanese and 251 Polish university students) completed the EEA trait
resilience scale. In addition, a subsample of US adults were administered the Ten-Item
Personality Inventory and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale ). Across all samples, a
higher-order bifactor model provided the best fit of the data, with salience of loadings on the
three group factors. A multi-group comparison found configural invariance, but neither
metric nor scalar invariance, for EEA resilience scores across the three samples. Among the
US sample, engineering and adaptive trait resilience scores predicted clinical caseness of
depression, and adaptive trait resilience scores predicted clinical caseness of anxiety, after
controlling for sex, age, income, education, employment, and personality. The findings
suggest the cross-cultural replicability of the structure (but not the meaning) of the threefactor
EEA measure of trait resilience, and its relevance for predicting clinical caseness of
affect among a US sample.
History
Citation
Personality and Individual Differences
Author affiliation
/Organisation/COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES AND PSYCHOLOGY/MBSP Non-Medical Departments/Neuroscience, Psychology and Behaviour
Version
AM (Accepted Manuscript)
Published in
Personality and Individual Differences
Publisher
Elsevier for International Society for the Study of Individual Differences (ISSID)