Canadian Journal of School Psychology

http://cjs.sagepub.com The Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents, Psychological Symptoms, and Clinical Status in Adolescents
Sandra Prince-Embury Canadian Journal of School Psychology 2008; 23; 41 originally published online Apr 8, 2008; DOI: 10.1177/0829573508316592 The online version of this article can be found at: http://cjs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/1/41

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Canadian Association of School Psychologists

Additional services and information for Canadian Journal of School Psychology can be found at: Email Alerts: http://cjs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://cjs.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations (this article cites 16 articles hosted on the SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): http://cjs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/23/1/41

Downloaded from http://cjs.sagepub.com by iulia gavris on October 3, 2008

The Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents, Psychological Symptoms, and Clinical Status in Adolescents
Sandra Prince-Embury
Resiliency Institute of Allenhurst LLC

Canadian Journal of School Psychology Volume 23 Number 1 June 2008 41-56 2008 Sage Publications 10.1177/0829573508316592 http://cjsp.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

Abstract: The Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents (RSCA) are three scales for assessing the relative strength of three aspects of personal resiliency as a profile in children and adolescents. This article presents preliminary evidence to support the use of the RSCA in preventive screening. First, this article examines associations between the RSCA Global scale and index scores and psychological symptoms as assessed by the Beck Youth InventoryII in a normative sample of adolescents. A normative sample was chosen as screening would presumably occur in a nonclinical setting. Findings suggest associations between psychological symptoms and the RSCA scale and index scores. Specifically, positive associations were found between psychological symptoms and the RSCA Vulnerability Index and the Emotional Reactivity scale score. Negative associations were found between psychological symptoms and the RSCA Resource Index, Sense of Mastery, and Sense of Relatedness scale scores. Second, the RSCA is examined as a potential predictor of clinical status differentiating the normative sample from a clinical sample. Results support the use of the RSCA in screening protocols for the identification of vulnerability that does not rely on the presence of an identified disorder or clearly defined psychological symptoms. Rsum: Les Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents (RSCA), constitues de trois chelles, servent valuer la force relative de trois aspects de la rsilience personnelle en tant que profil chez les enfants et les adolescents. Nous prsentons ici des donnes prliminaires qui soutiennent lemploi des RSCA lors de dpistages prventifs. Dans un premier temps, nous examinons, dans un chantillon normatif dadolescents, des associations entre lchelle globale des RSCA et des symptmes psychologiques tablis selon lInventaire Beck-II pour adolescents. Notre choix a port sur un groupe normatif, car le dpistage se ferait probablement dans un cadre non clinique. Les rsultats suggrent des associations entre les symptmes psychologiques et les scores sur lchelle et les index des RSCA. Plus prcisment, on note des associations positives entre les symptmes et lindex de Vulnrabilit et le score de lchelle de Ractivit motionnelle des RSCA. Des associations ngatives apparaissent entre les symptmes psychologiques et lindex de Ressource, lchelle du Sens de la matrise et celle du Sens de connexion des RSCA. Dans un deuxime temps, nous valuons les RSCA en tant que prdicteurs potentiels de ltat clinique, pour diffrencier un chantillon

41
Downloaded from http://cjs.sagepub.com by iulia gavris on October 3, 2008

42 Canadian Journal of School Psychology

normatif dun groupe clinique. Les rsultats soutiennent lemploi des RSCA dans les protocoles de dpistage destins identifier la vulnrabilit en labsence dun trouble identifi ou de symptmes psychologiques clairement dfinis. Keywords: resiliency; vulnerability; psychological symptoms; clinical status

tudies of psychological vulnerability and associated variables in children and adolescents have been complex, multifaceted, interactive, and longitudinal (Garmezy, 1971; Garmezy, Masten, & Tellegen, 1984; Luthar, 1991; Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000; Luthar & Zelazo, 2003; Luthar & Zigler, 1991; Masten, 2001; Masten & Powell, 2003; Rutter, 1987; Wright & Masten, 1997). According to this research, risk and vulnerability are the cumulative effects of multiple environmental and personal circumstances (Fischhoff, Nightingale, & Iannotta, 2001). However, researchers have not reached consensus on terminology, on the underlying constructs of vulnerability and resiliency, or on whether they are systematically related to each other (Blum, McNeely, & Nonnemaker, 2001; Luthar & Zelazo, 2003). Several researchers have suggested that vulnerabilities are counterbalanced by resources (Patterson, McCubbin, & Warwick, 1990), assets (Bensen, 1997), protective factors (Blum, 1998), and resilience (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; Masten & Curtis, 2000). The many facets of risk and vulnerability and their interactive effects have made translation of research findings into assessment tools for clinical application quite difficult. Fischhoff et al. (2001) suggested that measures that tap adolescent vulnerability are sorely needed. Previous research has identified lists of risk and protective factors, but in ways that are not simple to measure, are not systematically related to each other, may not be generalizable across populations, and are not easily translated into tools for clinical application. This study employs the Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents (RSCA; Prince-Embury, 2006, 2007) to assess both personal resource and vulnerability in adolescents as these are related to self-reported psychological symptoms and clinical status. Particularly challenging is the assessment of personal vulnerability that is not based on preexisting syndrome-related symptoms. Presumably, the distinction between assessing vulnerability in adolescents as opposed to symptoms in adolescents is the increased opportunity for preventive screening. Once psychological symptoms have occurred, there is more of a chance that the symptoms have already interfered with the youths functioning and a greater likelihood that the symptoms might crystallize into a psychological disorder. This article presents preliminary evidence to support the use of the RSCA (Prince-Embury, 2006, 2007) for use in preventive screening in adolescent populations before the emergence of psychopathology. The RSCA is based on three theoretical constructs that emerge from developmental theory and previous research (see Prince-Embury, 2006, 2007). Two of these constructs represent sense of mastery and sense of relatedness, which have previously been identified as protective personal

Downloaded from http://cjs.sagepub.com by iulia gavris on October 3, 2008

Prince-Embury / Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents 43

characteristics. The third construct, emotional reactivity, is arousability that might put an individual at risk when confronted with adversity. The present study is a preliminary examination of the relationship among RSCA Global scale and index scores, psychological symptoms, and clinical status to explore the potential use of the RSCA in screening for psychological vulnerability in adolescents.

Vulnerability Index
The Vulnerability Index is a summary score that is based on the three-factor structure underlying the RSCA. See Prince-Embury (2006, 2007) for development of the RSCA and Prince-Embury and Courville (2008 [this issue]) for a more comprehensive examination of the three-factor framework. The RSCA Vulnerability Index represents a systematic, quantified estimate of psychological vulnerability in relation to personal resiliency. The RSCA Vulnerability Index reflects the discrepancy between a youths experience of emotional reactivity, represented by the Emotional Reactivity scale score, and his or her perceived personal resources represented by his or her RSCA Resource Index score. The Vulnerability Index is consistent with theories that vulnerability and resources counterbalance each other. Specifically, resiliency is defined as having sufficient personal resources to match ones emotional reactivity. Conversely, personal vulnerability is defined as having personal resources that are significantly below ones level of emotional reactivity.

Emotional Reactivity
The RSCA Emotional Reactivity scale is one component of the Vulnerability Index discussed above. Much research in the field of developmental psychopathology has found that a childs development of pathology in the presence of adversity is related in some way to the childs emotional reactivity and his or her ability to modulate and regulate this reactivity. Strong emotional reactivity and associated difficulty with self-regulation have been associated with behavioral difficulty and vulnerability to pathology. Conversely, the ability to modulate or otherwise manage emotional reactivity has been found to be a significant factor in fostering resiliency (Cicchetti, Ganiban, & Barnett, 1991; Cicchetti & Tucker, 1994; Rothbart & Bates, 1998; Thompson, 1990). Emotional reactivity has been alternately labeled as vulnerability, arousability, or threshold of tolerance prior to the occurrence of adverse events or circumstances. Rothbart and Derryberry (1981) indicated that reactivity is the speed and intensity of a childs negative emotional response and that regulation is the childs capacity to modulate that negative emotional response. The RSCA Emotional Reactivity scale is designed to tap the youths perceived sensitivity, recovery time, and impairment because of emotional arousal.

Downloaded from http://cjs.sagepub.com by iulia gavris on October 3, 2008

44 Canadian Journal of School Psychology

Perceived Personal Resources

Two of the constructs within the three-factor framework of the RSCA may be collectively considered perceived personal resources. These two constructs are assessed by the Sense of Mastery and the Sense of Relatedness scale scores. These two scores are averaged and standardized as the RSCA Resource Index (Prince-Embury, 2007). Although these constructs are theoretically distinct, the two scale scores are highly correlated with each other (see Prince-Embury & Courville, 2008) and, for the purpose of creating an index score of perceived personal resources, may be combined.

Sense of Mastery
The Sense of Mastery scale builds on previous definitions of self-efficacy. Robert White (1959) introduced the construct as a sense of mastery or efficacy in children and youth that enables them to interact with and enjoy cause-and-effect relationships in the environment. According to White, a sense of competence, mastery, or efficacy is driven by an innate curiosity, which is intrinsically rewarding and the source of problem-solving skills. Albert Bandura (1977) believed that self-efficacy could be developed through learning. Sense of mastery as represented by the Sense of Mastery scale score includes the youths sense of optimism, self-efficacy, and adaptability (Prince-Embury, 2006, 2007).

Sense of Relatedness
Prior research has suggested that sense of relatedness may provide a buffer from external adversity in two ways. First, the youth may view relationships as available for specific supports in specific situations. Second, internal mechanisms reflecting the cumulative experience of previous support may in some way shield the child from potential negative psychological impact of specific events. Relationships and relational ability as mediators of resilience have been supported in research by developmental psychopathologists such as Werner and Smith (1982, 1992). Sense of relatedness, as assessed here, includes the experiences of trust, comfort with others, perceived access to support, and tolerance of differences.

Questions Addressed by This Study

1. Preliminary concurrent validity for the RSCA was examined through the association of the RSCA scale and index scores with symptom severity in depression, anxiety, anger, and disruptive behavior assessed by the Beck Youth InventoryII (BYI-II) scale scores in a normative sample. A normative rather than clinical sample was selected because the question addressed is one of screening in a nonclinical sample. These associations are examined through correlations between RSCA and BYI-II scores. Previous research has suggested that symptom severity would

Downloaded from http://cjs.sagepub.com by iulia gavris on October 3, 2008

Prince-Embury / Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents 45

be positively associated with higher scores on the Vulnerability Index and the Emotional Reactivity scale score representing vulnerability variables. Conversely, lower symptom severity would be associated with a higher Resource Index score, higher Sense of Mastery score, and higher Sense of Relatedness score representing resource variables. 2. In what way and to what extent of accuracy the RSCA scale and index scores predict clinical status, defined as presence or absence of a clinical diagnosis, was examined. This relationship was examined through comparison of mean scores for the clinical and nonclinical groups, through discriminant function analysis (DFA), and through the calculation of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive validity of the prediction equation. However, it is important to clarify that the prediction of general clinical status rather than prediction of specific disorder is of interest here. This is because the RSCA used as a screener would be general rather than specific. In other words, use of the RSCA as a screener would be to detect vulnerability for the development of pathology in general and not as a diagnostic predictor of specific disorders.

Method
Samples
The normative sample consisted of 100 males and 100 females, 15 to 18 years old, and was stratified to match the U.S. 2002 census by ethnicity, parent education level, and region (Prince-Embury, 2006). Ethnicity of the clinical group was as follows: 66% White, 15% Hispanic, 15% African American, 1% Other, and 3% Asian. Parent education level was distributed as follows: 22% had less than 12 years, 36% had 12 years, 28% had 13 to 15 years, and 15% had 16 years or more. The normative sample included nine clinical cases to match the 5% prevalence of psychopathology that is customarily estimated for normative samples. Examiners administered the test to individuals and to small groups in academic and office settings. Parents signed consent forms for teens younger than 18 years of age, and 18year-olds signed an adult consent form. Participants were paid for their participation. Testing took place between May 2004 and April 2005. A total of 37 examiners tested the entire sample. Examiners represented a variety of education, health, and mental health professions and were paid examiners or consultants for PsychCorp. All were clinicians, teachers, and counselors who held a masters degree or PhD. Of these examiners, 20 were from urban areas (population greater than or equal to 50,000), 6 from suburban areas (population of 2,500 to 50,000), and 11 from rural areas (population less than 2,500). The sample was drawn from 20 states across the United States. The clinical sample was obtained by examiners described above who regularly tested adolescents and/or provided counseling or therapy. Most adolescents in the clinical samples were individually tested by individual examiners. A few were tested

Downloaded from http://cjs.sagepub.com by iulia gavris on October 3, 2008

46 Canadian Journal of School Psychology

in small groups of four or five individuals. A portion of the clinical samples was provided by clinical sites, including a residential facility for children and adolescents in Texas and a correctional institution for juvenile offenders in Colorado. These examiners had a masters degree or above. Criteria for inclusion in the clinical sample were as follows:
The diagnosis needed to have been made within 3 three months prior to testing. The diagnosis needed to be made on the basis of a standard structured diagnostic interview or standard diagnostic assessment tool plus an independently obtained confirmation of the diagnosis.

The clinical sample of 169 adolescents, 48% females and 52% males, consisted of five groups of teens aged 15 to 18 diagnosed with depressive disorder (48), anxiety disorder (30), conduct disorder (55), or bipolar disorder (9) and a mixed clinical group that included youth with dual diagnoses including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (27). Ethnicity of the clinical group was as follows: 66% White, 15% Hispanic, 8% African American, 7% Other, and 4% Asian. For the clinical sample, parent education level was distributed as follows: 32% had less than 12 years, 28% had 12 years, 26% had 13 to 15 years, and 15% had 16 years or more. Although there was an attempt to match the normative sample in collecting the clinical sample, there were two significant demographic differences between the clinical sample and the normative sample. These samples were the same in ethnic distribution, except that the clinical sample had 6% more youth identified as Other and 7% fewer identified as African American. The clinical sample had more youth whose parents had less than a 12th grade education and fewer students whose parents had a 12th grade education. The decision was made not to use matched samples as this would have reduced both sample sizes. Instead, the decision was made to include demographic variables in the analyses.

Measures
RSCA. The Sense of Mastery scale is a 20-item self-report questionnaire written at a third grade reading level. Response options are ordered on a 5-point Likert-type scale: 0 (never), 1 (rarely), 2 (sometimes), 3 (often), and 4 (almost always). The Sense of Mastery scale consists of three conceptually related content areas: optimism about life and ones own competence; self-efficacy associated with developing problem-solving attitudes and adaptability, demonstrated by receptivity to criticism; and the ability to learn from ones mistakes. Internal consistency for the Sense of Mastery scale was excellent, with an alpha of .95 for youth aged 15 to 18. The testretest reliability coefficient for the Sense of Mastery scale was .86 for youth aged 15 to 18. The Sense of Relatedness scale is a 24-item self-report questionnaire written at a third grade reading level. Response options are frequency based, ordered on a 5-point

Downloaded from http://cjs.sagepub.com by iulia gavris on October 3, 2008

Prince-Embury / Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents 47

Likert-type scale: 0 (never), 1 (rarely), 2 (sometimes), 3 (often), and 4 (almost always). As used in this scale, a sense of relatedness refers to comfort with others, trust in others, perceived access to support by others, and the capacity to tolerate differences with others. Internal consistency was excellent for the Sense of Relatedness scale (.95 for youth aged 15 to 18). Testretest reliability coefficients were good (.86 for youth aged 15 to 18). The Emotional Reactivity scale is a 20-item self-report questionnaire written at a third grade reading level. Response options are ordered on a 5-point Likert-type scale: 0 (never), 1 (rarely), 2 (sometimes), 3 (often), and 4 (almost always). Unlike the Sense of Mastery and Sense of Relatedness scales, lower scores on the Emotional Reactivity scale are indicative of resiliency, and high scores are indicative of vulnerability. This scale consists of three conceptually related content areas: sensitivity or the threshold for reaction and the intensity of the reaction, length of time it takes to recover from emotional upset, and impairment while upset. Internal consistency for the Emotional Reactivity scale was excellent, with an alpha coefficient of .94 for youth aged 15 to 18. The testretest reliability coefficient was .88 for youth aged 15 to 18. The Resource Index is the standardized average of the Sense of Mastery scale and Sense of Relatedness scale T-scores. This average is an estimate of the youths personal strength or resources weighting Sense of Mastery and Sense of Relatedness equally. Internal consistency for the Resource Index was excellent, with an alpha coefficient of .97 for youth aged 15 to 18. The testretest reliability coefficient was .77 for youth aged 15 to 18. The Vulnerability Index is the standardized difference between the Emotional Reactivity T-score and the Resource Index. Internal consistency for the Vulnerability Index was excellent, with an alpha coefficient of .97 for youth aged 15 to 18. The testretest reliability coefficient was .90 for youth aged 15 to 18. BYI-II. The BYI-II (Beck, Beck, Jolly, & Steer, 2005) consists of Depression, Anxiety, Anger, and Disruptive Behavior Inventories. Each 20-item self-report scale demonstrated adequate to good reliability. The BYI-II scale scores were used to tap psychological symptoms.

Procedure
Adolescents completed the RSCA and the BYI-II within the same test period. The sequence of tests administered was based on previous pilot studies and was designed to place tests that tapped symptoms last. The RSCA was administered before the BYI-II. The RSCA was administered in the published booklet form that presents Sense of Mastery first, Sense of Relatedness second, and Emotional Reactivity last. The BYI-II was administered in the published booklet form that presents Anxiety first, followed by the Depression, Anger, and Disruptive Behavior Inventories.

Downloaded from http://cjs.sagepub.com by iulia gavris on October 3, 2008

48 Canadian Journal of School Psychology

Table 1 Correlations Between the RSCA and Beck Youth InventoryII (BYI-II) Scores in a Nonclinical Adolescent Sample
BYI-II Resiliency Scale or Index Mastery Relatedness Reactivity Resource Vulnerability M SD SE Anx .51 .50 .65 .53 .65 50.00 9.94 0.70 Depress .59 .56 .74 .61 .75 50.03 9.88 0.70 Anger .61 .57 .76 .62 .77 49.89 9.97 0.70 Disrupt .53 .45 .67 .51 .66 50.01 9.99 0.71 M 50.00 49.99 50.00 50.00 50.00 SD 10.01 10.02 9.99 9.48 10.00 SE 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.67 0.71

Note: N = 200. Anx = Anxiety; Depress = Depression, Disrupt = Disruptive Behavior.

Analyses
Analysis 1. The association among BYI-II Depression, Anxiety, Anger, and Disruptive Behavior scores and the RSCA Vulnerability and Resource Indexes and Sense of Mastery, Sense of Relatedness, and Emotional Reactivity scale scores was examined in a nonclinical adolescent sample using simple correlation analyses. Analysis 2. A preliminary examination of the relative contribution of the RSCA and BYI-II scores and demographic variables to accurate classification of clinical status in adolescents was explored in two ways. First, simple t tests were used to compare means for nonclinical and clinical samples, and affect sizes were evaluated using Cohens d. Second, DFA was employed using clinical status as the dependent variable and RSCA scores, index scores, BYI-II scores, and demographic variables as independent variables. Independent variables were entered using a stepwise method allowing carriers to enter in the order of the size of their correlation. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive power yielded by the DFA are discussed.

Results
Correlations With the BYI-II in Adolescents
Table 1 illustrates a strong positive correlation between the Vulnerability Index score and the Emotional Reactivity score and all BYI-II scores of negative affect and behavior. The Vulnerability Index score had the following significant positive correlations with the BYI-II scores: .65 (Anxiety), .66 (Disruptive Behavior), .75 (Depression), and .77 (Anger). Similarly, high positive correlations were found between the

Downloaded from http://cjs.sagepub.com by iulia gavris on October 3, 2008

Prince-Embury / Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents 49

Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Cohens d for Nonclinical and Clinical Samples on Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents Scale and Index Scores and Beck Youth InventoryII (BYI-II) Scores
Scale Mastery Relatedness Reactivity Resource Vulnerability Anxiety Depression Anger Disruptive Behavior Status non clin non clin non clin non clin non clin non clin non clin non clin non clin M 50.93 40.41 49.99 40.04 50.00 58.82 50.00 39.69 48.81 60.94 48.55 57.65 48.70 58.53 48.56 57.86 49.18 57.83 SD 9.15 9.82 8.99 10.26 8.60 9.09 8.96 9.88 8.75 8.74 7.26 9.68 7.12 9.42 7.64 9.37 8.83 12.32 Difference 10.52 9.95 8.82 10.31 12.13 9.10 9.83 9.30 8.65 t 10.53 10.74 10.62 11.38 13.11 9.99 11.05 10.24 7.57 df 358 358 357 358 357 358 358 358 358 Significance < .0001 < .0001 < .0001 < .0001 < .0001 < .0001 < .0001 < .0001 < .0001 Cohens d 1.11 1.12 1.20 1.21 1.50 1.07 1.19 1.09 .82

Note: Nonclinical (non) n = 191; clinical (clin) n = 169. Nine clinical cases included in standardizations sample were eliminated for this comparison.

Emotional Reactivity score and scores on all BYI-II scores: .65 (Anxiety), .67 (Disruptive Behavior), .74 (Depression), and .76 (Anger). These findings provide support for the hypothesis that vulnerability, represented by the RSCA Vulnerability Index and Emotional Reactivity score, is associated with psychological symptoms represented by the BYI-II in a normative group. In addition, the Vulnerability Index score and the Emotional Reactivity score correlate with BYI-II scores across affective domains. Table 1 also illustrates high negative correlations between the Resource Index score and the BYI-II scores: .51 (Disruptive Behavior), .53 (Anxiety), .61 (Depression), and .62 (Anger). Similarly, high negative correlations were found between the Sense of Mastery (.51 to .61) and the Sense of Relatedness (.45 to .57) scales and all BYI-II scores.

Predicting Clinical Status

All differences between RSCA and BYI-II mean scores for nonclinical and clinical groups are significant in the predicted direction (see Table 2). The nonclinical group scored higher on Sense of Mastery, Sense of Relatedness, and the Resource

Downloaded from http://cjs.sagepub.com by iulia gavris on October 3, 2008

50 Canadian Journal of School Psychology

Table 3a Discriminant Function Analysis of Variables Predicting Clinical Status

Wilkss Lambda Statistic .675 .641 Exact F Statistic 171.900 99.642

Step 1 2

Entered Vulnerability Index Beck Youth InventoryII Anxiety

df1 1 1

df2 2 1

df3 357.00 357.00

df1 1 2

df2 357.000 356.000

Sig. .0001 .0001

Note: At each step, the variable that minimizes the overall Wilkss Lambda is entered. Maximum number of steps is 14. Minimum partial F to enter is 3.84. Maximum partial F to remove is 2.71.

Table 3b Structure Matrix and Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficients for Variables Retained in Discriminant Function
Standardized Canonical Discriminant Function Coefficient .758 .410

Structure Matrix Vulnerability Index Beck Youth Inventory, Anxiety .927 .723

Index. The clinical sample scored higher on Emotional Reactivity, Vulnerability, and all four BYI-II scores. Affect sizes are large for all differences. The largest effect size was for the Vulnerability Index score (d = 1.50). DFA was employed to identify variables that best discriminated the nonclinical sample of adolescents from the clinical sample (see Table 3 [all]). DFA was used to determine which variables discriminate between two categorical groups, which in turn can be used to determine which variables are the best predictors of group membership. In DFA, the dependent variable consists of discrete groups, and the purpose of the statistical function is to maximize the distance between those groups, to come up with a function that has strong discriminatory power among the groups. Variables entered as the independent variable included the following: (a) parent level of education, (b) gender, (c) RSCA scores (Sense of Mastery T-score, Sense of Relatedness T-score, and Emotional Reactivity T-score), Index scores (Vulnerability and Resource) and BYI-II scores for Anxiety, Depression, Anger, and Disruptive Behavior. Groups to be discriminated were coded according to clinical status as 0 (nonclinical) or 1 (clinical). It was hypothesized that the Vulnerability Index would be the best discriminator between cases that were clinical and those who were nonclinical. Tables 3a, 3b, and 3c

Downloaded from http://cjs.sagepub.com by iulia gavris on October 3, 2008

Prince-Embury / Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents 51

Table 3c Summary of Canonical Discriminant Function Analysis

Eigenvalue Function 1 Eigenvalue .560 % of Variance 100 Wilkss Lambda Test of Function(s) 1 Wilkss Lambda .641 2 158.260 df 2 Sig. .0001 Cumulative % 1 Canonical Correlation .599

Note: The second canonical discriminant function was used in the analysis.

Table 3d Classification Results for Discriminant Function Analysis

Classification Results Predicted Group Membership Clinical Status Original Count % Nonclinical Clinical Nonclinical Clinical Nonclinical 155 46 81.2 27.4 Clinical 36 122 18.8 72.6 Total 191 166 100 100

Note: 77.2% of original grouped cases correctly classified; 73% sensitivity; 81% specificity.

display the results of the DFA using a stepwise method, displaying functions entered and retained as significant: Wilkss Lambda, F value, significance of F, and 2. The first function included the Vulnerability Index and yielded a Wilkss Lambda of .675 and an F of 171.9 with 357 degrees of freedom, which was significant at p < .0001. The second function entered included the BYI-II Anxiety score. This function yielded a Wilkss Lambda of .641 and an F of 99.64 with 356 degrees of freedom and was significant at p < .0001. Tables 3c and 3d provide a summary of DFA including structure matrix, standardized canonical coefficient, eigenvalues, and classification results. The structure matrix displays a high loading for both the Vulnerability Index and the BYI-II scores on the final discriminant function. The standardized canonical coefficients indicate that the Vulnerability Index contributes more unique variance to the function than does the BYI-II Anxiety score. The canonical correlation for the function was .599, indicating that this function accounted for 36% of the variance in clinical membership.

Downloaded from http://cjs.sagepub.com by iulia gavris on October 3, 2008

52 Canadian Journal of School Psychology

Sensitivity, Specificity, and Rate of Accurate Classification

Using the discriminant function predictive equation described above, the percentage of original cases accurately classified was 77.2%. Sensitivity or percentage of actual clinical cases accurately predicted was 73%, and specificity or percentage of nonclinical cases accurately predicted was 81%. Stated differently, this predictive equation yielded 19% false positives, or nonclinical cases that were misclassified as clinical. False negative percentage was 27%, meaning that this percentage of the clinical cases was missed using this equation. Positive predictive value refers to the chance that a positive test result will be correct. Negative predictive value refers to the chance that a negative test result will be correct. The above analysis produced both positive and negative predictive values of 77%. When the Vulnerability Index was entered alone into the discriminant function (table not shown), sensitivity was 79% and specificity was 78%. The percentage of original cases accurately classified was 78.6%. Therefore, removing the BYI-II scores from the discriminant function decreased specificity but increased sensitivity by 6%, or 11 clinical cases. Examination of the Vulnerability Index score alone as an indicator suggests that in a nonclinical sample, a cut score of T = 55 optimizes sensitivity. This cut score corresponds to the above-average range indicated in the RSCA manual (Prince-Embury, 2007). Other discriminant function analyses (table not presented) indicated that other combinations of variables accurately predicted clinical status to the same degree. For example, with the Vulnerability Index removed, the Resource Index was the primary predictor supplemented by the BYIII Anxiety score and the RSCA Emotional Reactivity scale score.

Discussion
The analyses and results above present preliminary evidence to support the use of the RSCA in preventive screening for psychological vulnerability. Three interrelated analyses consistently provided support: simple correlation analysis, comparison of mean scores of clinical and nonclinical samples, and DFA. Significant correlations were found between the BYI-II scores and all of the RSCA scale and index scores for the normative sample. These findings provide evidence for the hypothesized positive associations between self-reported psychological symptoms and psychological vulnerability assessed by the RSCA Vulnerability Index and Emotional Reactivity scale scores. Evidence was also provided for the hypothesized negative associations between psychological symptoms and personal resources of adolescents assessed by the RSCA Resource Index and Sense of Mastery and Sense of Relatedness scale scores. The strongest correlations were found between the BYI-II scores and the RSCA Vulnerability Index and Emotional Reactivity scale scores. The Emotional Reactivity score accounted for most of the variance of the Vulnerability Index in predicting symptom severity in the nonclinical sample.

Downloaded from http://cjs.sagepub.com by iulia gavris on October 3, 2008

Prince-Embury / Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents 53

In summary, this study of associations among variables supports anticipated positive associations between self-reported symptoms and the Emotional Reactivity scale score and Vulnerability Index score and negative associations between selfreported symptoms and the Resource Index, Sense of Mastery score, and Sense of Relatedness score in a normative sample. These findings suggest that psychological vulnerability, particularly emotional reactivity, was more strongly related to selfreported symptoms than were personal resources such as sense of mastery and sense of relatedness for the normative group as a whole. Findings regarding Emotional Reactivity as a source of psychological vulnerability are consistent with previous research of psychopathology that has found that a childs development of pathology in the presence of adversity is related in some way to the childs emotional reactivity and his or her ability to modulate and regulate this reactivity. Strong emotional reactivity and associated difficulty with self-regulation has been associated with behavioral difficulty and vulnerability to pathology. The practical implications of these findings are that preventive interventions that decrease emotional reactivity with respect to sensitivity, difficulty recovering from upset, and impairment of functioning because of upset may prevent or reduce vulnerability to psychological symptoms. Additional longitudinal research is needed to substantiate these implications. Although the focus of this article is on potential use of the RSCA for potential screening in a normative sample, one might ask whether these relationships hold up in a clinical sample. Correlation analyses were conducted also for the clinical sample (table not reported). All correlations were significant and in the predicted direction. Correlations were lower in the clinical sample than in the normative sample because of a more restricted range of scores both in RSCA scores and in BYI-II scores in the clinical sample. However, relative salience of the Vulnerability Index was supported for the clinical sample. The Vulnerability Index was positively correlated with BYI-II Anger (.65), Depression (.60), and Disruptive Behavior and Anxiety (.46) for the clinical sample. The Emotional Reactivity scale score was positively correlated with BYI-II scores for the clinical sample. Correlations ranged from .48 with the Disruptive Behavior score to .62 with the Anger score. However, it is likely that correlations across clinical samples would vary depending on the clinical composition of the group and would probably be most meaningful studied for specific diagnostic groups. Future research examining correlations for specific diagnostic groups of sufficient size would expand on these findings. DFA using gender, parent education level, RSCA and index scores, and BYI-II negative affect and behavior scores to predict membership in the clinical versus nonclinical sample indicated the Vulnerability Index as the best predictor, followed by the BYI-II Anxiety score accurately predicting 77.2% of cases. Separate discriminant function analyses for females and males (table not reported) yielded very similar results, with the Vulnerability Index indicated as the best predictor for both.

Downloaded from http://cjs.sagepub.com by iulia gavris on October 3, 2008

54 Canadian Journal of School Psychology

Neither parent education level nor gender was indicated as a significant variable in this analysis. DFA predicting clinical status was also conducted without the four BYI-II scores: Anxiety, Depression, Anger, and Disruptive Behavior (table not presented). The Vulnerability Index was the major variable entered into this equation as well. This analysis yielded 79.1% accurately classified cases without the inclusion of the BYIII scores. Another DFA conducted with the Vulnerability Index removed indicated that the Resource Index was the best predictor, supplemented by the BYI-II Anxiety score and the Emotional Reactivity scale score. These findings provide preliminary support for the use of the RSCA in screening normative samples of adolescents for psychological vulnerability to the development of psychopathology. The Vulnerability Index was found to be the best single RSCA screening score in that it accurately identified 77% to 79% of cases depending on what variables are entered into the regression equation. However, other combinations of scores were predictive as well. The advantage of using the RSCA in screening adolescents is that once an initial group is identified as vulnerable with the Vulnerability Index, the RSCA Resiliency Profile of these individuals may be further examined. For example, the examiner can determine the extent to which the youths vulnerability is because of high emotional reactivity or low resources. The prevention implications of these findings are that the RSCA index, scale, and subscale scores may be further examined to suggest intervention strategies for youth who have been identified as psychologically vulnerable. For example, high vulnerability because of high emotional reactivity may be dealt with by teaching relaxation or stress management techniques. On the other hand, high vulnerability because of low resources can be followed up by interventions that enhance sense of mastery or sense of relatedness. In addition, the RSCA may be used to assess the impact of these interventions on youth using pre-post intervention measurement.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

It is recognized that this study was preliminary, and findings should be explored in additional research. The sample sizes were relatively small; therefore, findings should be replicated using larger samples. Further research with larger clinical samples should compare how these variables function within specific disorder groups. It must be kept in mind that these findings provided validity support for the RSCA scores as associated with psychological symptoms and clinical status but did not provide evidence that these scores predict the development of psychopathology. Longitudinal studies would be needed to explore this process. In addition, findings do not suggest that the RSCA should be used alone as a diagnostic indicator. These findings relate to general psychological vulnerability that may or may not be associated with psychological symptoms. In fact, as discussed above, the value of a preventive screener

Downloaded from http://cjs.sagepub.com by iulia gavris on October 3, 2008

Prince-Embury / Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents 55

would be enhanced by an ability to identify youth who are vulnerable but who may not yet have developed psychological symptoms. Additional studies could examine the impact of interventions on the reduction of psychological symptoms as mediated by emotional reactivity, sense of mastery, and sense of relatedness.

References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Beck, A., Beck, J., Jolly, J., & Steer, R. (2005). Beck Youth Inventories (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment. Bensen, P. (1997). All kids are our kids. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Blum, R. W. (1998). Healthy youth development as a model for youth health promotion: A review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 22(5), 368-375. Blum, R. W., McNeely, C., & Nonnemaker, J. (2001). Vulnerability, risk, and protection. In G. Fischhoff, O. Nightingale, & J. Iannotta (Eds.), Adolescent risk and vulnerability: Concepts and measurement (pp. 50-72). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Cicchetti, D., Ganiban, J., & Barnett, D. (1991). Contributions from the study of high risk populations to understanding the development of emotion regulation. In J. Garber & K. Dodge (Eds.), The development of emotion regulation and dysregulation (pp. 15-48). New York: Cambridge University Press. Cicchetti, D., & Tucker, D. (1994). Development and self-regulatory structures of the mind. Development and Psychopathology, 6(4), 533-549. Fischhoff, G., Nightingale, O., & Iannotta, J. G. (Eds.). (2001). Adolescent risk and vulnerability: Concepts and measurement. Washington, DC: National Academic Press. Garmezy, N. (1971). Vulnerability research and the issue of primary prevention. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 41, 101-116. Garmezy, N. (1991). Resiliency and vulnerability to adverse developmental outcomes associated with poverty. American Behavioral Scientist, 34(4), 416-430. Garmezy, N., Masten, A. S., & Tellegen, A. (1984). The study of stress and competence in children: A building block for developmental psychopathology. Child Development, 55, 97-111. Luthar, S. S. (1991). Vulnerability and resilience: A study of high-risk adolescents. Child Development, 62, 600-616. Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D. C., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71, 543-562. Luthar, S. S., & Zelazo, L. B. (2003). Research on resilience: An integrative review. In S. S. Luthar (Ed.), Resillience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities (pp. 510-549). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Luthar, S. S., & Zigler, E. (1991). Vulnerability and competence: A review of the research on resilience in childhood. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61, 6-22. Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227-238. Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on successful children. American Psychologist, 53(2), 205-220. Masten, A. S., & Curtis, W. J. (2000). Integrating competence and psychopathology: Pathways toward a comprehensive science of adaptation in development. Development & Psychopathology, 12(3), 529-550. Masten, A. S., & Powell, J. L. (2003). A resilience framework for research, policy, and practice. In S. S. Luthar (Ed.), Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities (pp. 1-25). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Downloaded from http://cjs.sagepub.com by iulia gavris on October 3, 2008

56 Canadian Journal of School Psychology

Patterson, J., McCubbin, H., & Warwick, W. (1990). The impact of family functioning on health changes in children with cystic fibrosis. Social Science and Medicine, 31(2), 159-164. Prince-Embury, S. (2006). Resiliency Scales for Adolescents: Profiles of personal strengths. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessments. Prince-Embury, S. (2007). Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents: Profiles of personal strengths. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessments. Prince-Embury, S., & Courville, T. (2008). Comparison of one-, two-, and three-factor models of personal resiliency using the Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 23(1), 11-25. Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (1998). Temperament. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional and personality development (5th ed., pp. 105-176). New York: John Wiley. Rothbart, M. K., & Derryberry, D. (1981). Development of individual differences in temperament. In M. E. Lamb & A. L. Brown (Eds.), Advances in developmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 37-86). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316-331. Thompson, R. A. (1990). Emotion and self-regulation. In R. Dienstbier (Series Ed.) & R. A. Thompson (Vol. Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Socioemotional development (pp. 367-467). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A longitudinal study of resilient children and youth. New York: McGraw-Hill. Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children from birth to adulthood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66(5), 297-333. Wright, M. O., & Masten, A. S. (1997). Vulnerability and resilience in young children. In J. D. Noshpitz (Series Ed.) & S. Greenspan, S. Weider, & J. Osofsky (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child and adolescent psychiatry: Vol. 1. Infants and preschoolers: Development and syndromes (pp. 202-224). New York: John Wiley. Sandra Prince-Embury, PhD, is a clinical psychologist and family therapist and author of the Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents and the Family Health Tree. Her research has included the psychological impact of technological disaster. Currently, she provides therapy services for youth and families as well as consultation and training through the Resiliency Institute of Allenhurst LLC.

Downloaded from http://cjs.sagepub.com by iulia gavris on October 3, 2008