Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

dc.contributor.authorSharif-Nia, Hamid
dc.contributor.authorSánchez Teruel, David 
dc.contributor.authorSivarajan Froelicher, Erika
dc.contributor.authorHejazi, Sima
dc.contributor.authorHosseini, Lida
dc.contributor.authorFomani, Fatemeh Khoshnavay
dc.contributor.authorMoshtagh, Mozhgan
dc.contributor.authorMollaei, Fereshteh
dc.contributor.authorGoudarzian, Amir Hossein
dc.contributor.authorBabaei, Amir
dc.date.accessioned2024-05-14T11:08:21Z
dc.date.available2024-05-14T11:08:21Z
dc.date.issued2024-03-27
dc.identifier.citationSharif-Nia et al. Annals of Medicine & Surgery 86(5):p 2976-2991, May 2024. [DOI: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000001968]es_ES
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10481/91763
dc.description.abstractBackground: Psychometrical evaluation of persons of diverse contexts and different populations, including general or clinical. Objective: This review study aimed to evaluate the psychometrics quality of resilience scales. Methods: International and Iranian databases were searched with MESH terms, including “psychometric”, “validity”, “reliability”, “Connor-Davidson resilience scale”, “Resilience scale”, for published articles up to 1 February 2023. For each of the selected studies, the risk of bias was evaluated using the COSMIN Risk of Bias Checklist. Then the COSMIN checklist was used to evaluate the entire text of the article for methodological quality. Results: Considering the inclusion criteria, 80 documents were evaluated. According to the COSMIN’s criteria for evaluating the risk of bias, the current study findings revealed the included studies’ limitations in assessing the three versions of CD-RISC cross-cultural and content validity as well as their stability (e.g. conducting test re-test), whereas the majority of psychometric studies of CD-RISC-25, and CD-RISC-2 rated as very good or adequate in terms of structural validity. In terms of quality assessment of the included studies, the current study indicated that investigating the structural validity of the CD-RISC was mainly done based on exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and confirmatory factor analysis was absent. Conclusion: The general result indicates the acceptability of the quality of the studies. However, concerns for measurement properties such as responsiveness and criterion validity as well as the standard error of measurement have been neglected.es_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipMazandaran University of Medical Sciences (Sari, Iran)es_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherWolters Kluwer Healthes_ES
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.subjectConnor-Davidson Resilience Scalees_ES
dc.subjectCOSMINes_ES
dc.subjectPsychometrics es_ES
dc.titleConnor-Davidson Resilience Scale: a systematic review psychometrics properties using the COSMINes_ES
dc.typejournal articlees_ES
dc.rights.accessRightsopen accesses_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/MS9.0000000000001968
dc.type.hasVersionVoRes_ES


Ficheros en el ítem

[PDF]

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional
Excepto si se señala otra cosa, la licencia del ítem se describe como Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional