A Comprehensive Resiliency Framework: Theoretical Model, Treatment, and Evaluation

• Main Authors: Elyse R Park PhD (Author), Christina M Luberto PhD (Author), Emma Chad-Friedman (Author), Lara Traeger (Author), Daniel L Hall PhD (Author), Giselle K Perez PhD (Author), Brett Goshe PhD (Author), Ana-Maria Vranceanu PhD (Author), Margaret Baim MS, ANP-BC (Author), John W Denninger MD, PhD (Author), Gregory Fricchione MD (Author), Herbert Benson MD (Author), Suzanne C Lechner PhD (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: SAGE Publishing, 2021-03-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 2164-9561; 10.1177/21649561211000306
• Keywords: Medicine (General); R5-920; Public aspects of medicine; RA1-1270
• Source: Global Advances in Health and Medicine, Vol 10 (2021)

Background There is heterogeneity in conceptualizations of resiliency, and there is, to date, no established theoretically driven resiliency assessment measure that aligns with a targeted resiliency intervention. We operationalize resiliency as one's ability to maintain adaptive functioning in response to the ongoing, chronic stress of daily living, and we use a novel resiliency measure that assesses the target components of an evidence based resiliency intervention. We present our resiliency theory, treatment model, and corresponding assessment measure (Current Experience Scale; CES). Methods To establish the psychometric properties of the CES, we report the factor structure and internal consistency reliability (N = 273). Among participants in our resiliency intervention (N = 151), we explored construct validity in terms of associations with theoretical model constructs, a validated resiliency measure, and sensitivity to change from before to after the intervention. Results Results indicated that a 23-item, 6-factor solution was a good fit to the data (RMSEA = .08, CFI = .97; TLI =.96) and internal consistency was good (α = .81 to .95). The CES showed correlations in the expected direction with resiliency model constructs (all p 's < .001) and significant post intervention improvements. Conclusion Our resiliency theory, treatment model, and outcome appear aligned; the CES demonstrated promise as a psychometrically sound outcome measure for our resiliency intervention and may be used in future longitudinal studies and resiliency building interventions to assess individuals' resiliency to adapt to ongoing stress.