Journal of Nursing Measurement, Volume 17, Number 2, 2009

© 2009 Springer Publishing Company 105

DOI: 10.1891/1061-3749.17.2.105
A Review of the Resilience Scale
Gail Wagnild, RN, PhD
Worden, Montana
The purpose of this article is to review 12 completed studies that have used the Resilience
Scale (Wagnild &Young, 1993). Completed studies were identified through PubMed and
CINAHL. Studies that identified Resilience Scale scores, sample descriptions, and tested
relationships between the Resilience Scale and study variables were selected for inclusion.
CronbachÊs alpha coefficients ranged from .72 to .94 supporting the internal consistency
reliability of the Resilience Scale. Hypothesized relationships between the Resilience
Scale and study variables (e.g., forgiveness, stress, anxiety, health promoting activities)
were supported strengthening the evidence for construct validity of the Resilience Scale. In
the studies reported here, the Resilience Scale has been used with a variety of individuals
of different ages, socioeconomic, and educational backgrounds. The Resilience Scale has
performed as a reliable and valid tool to measure resilience and has been used with a wide
range of study populations.
Keywords: resilience; resilience scale; review; measurement
The study of resilience was relatively new with most research focusing on children
(Garmezy, 1993; Rutter, 1987, 1993; Werner, 1984) 15 to 20 years ago. Since
then, knowledge and understanding of resilience has expanded to other populations
of interest. In a brief review of studies cited in PubMed, psychological resilience
was referred to 11 times from 1977 to 1987. In the second and third decades since, it was
referred to 92 and 508 times respectively. From January through April 2007 alone, resilience
has been referred to in 50 studies. Clearly, interest in resilience is growing.
Traditionally, health care interventions have used a model grounded in pathology, which
emphasizes deficits and fixing problems. Focusing on concepts such as resilience redirects
health care to recognize strengths and develop strategies to build on existing capabilities.
Resilience connotes inner strength, competence, optimism, flexibility, and the ability to
cope effectively when faced with adversity. Resilience is associated with numerous desired
outcomes including physical health (Black & Ford-Gilboe, 2004; Humphreys, 2003;
Monteith & Ford-Gilboe, 2002; Wagnild, 2007) and emotional health (Broyles, 2005;
Humphreys, 2003; March, 2004; Nygren et al., 2005; Rew, Taylor-Seehafer, Thomas, &
Yockey, 2001).
Researchers have measured resilience in a variety of ways. Most have selected multiple
indicators and instruments to measure resilience including self-esteem, morale, life satisfaction,
sense of coherence, and so forth. Others have used instruments designed specifically
to measure resilience of which there are now several.
The purpose of this article was to review completed studies that have used the Resilience
Scale (Wagnild & Young, 1993) in a variety of settings and with diverse samples. The
Resilience Scale is the earliest published instrument designed to measure resilience.
Competence in the context of adversity: Pathways to resilience and maladaptation from childhood to
late adolescence

Competent outcomes in late adolescence were examined in relation to adversity over time, antecedent
competence and psychosocial resources, in order to investigate the phenomenon of resilience. An urban
community sample of 205 (114 females, 90 males; 27% minority) children were recruited in elementary
school and followed over 10 years. Multiple methods and informants were utilized to assess three major
domains of competence from childhood through adolescence (academic achievement, conduct, and
peer social competence), multiple aspects of adversity, and major psychosocial resources. Both variable-
centered and person-centered analyses were conducted to test the hypothesized significance of
resources for resilience. Better intellectual functioning and parenting resources were associated with
good outcomes across competence domains, even in the context of severe, chronic adversity. IQ and
parenting appeared to have a specific protective role with respect to antisocial behavior. Resilient
adolescents (high adversity, adequate competence across three domains) had much in common with
their low-adversity competent peers, including average or better IQ, parenting, and psychological well-
being. Resilient individuals differed markedly from their high adversity, maladaptive peers who had few
resources and high negative emotionality. Results suggest that IQ and parenting scores are markers of
fundamental adaptational systems that protect child development in the context of severe adversity.