The sport presents an opportunity for young people to experience the joys of success and cope with setbacks to develop resilient behaviors. However, there is a lack of clarity about how sport can cultivate resilience, particularly among adolescent girls. This study investigated the validation of the Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) and its role in predicting aggression in Iranian athletic adolescent girls. The method of the present study was cross-sectional. The population of this study was Iranian athletic adolescent girls, and 475 Iranian athletic adolescent girls were selected through the convenience sampling method. The participants completed the Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), Quality of Mindfulness, General Self-efficacy (GSE), Alexithymia, and Aggression Scale. The CD-RISC's psychometric properties were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), while reliability was tested using Cronbach’s alpha. Discriminant validity was measured by examining the relationship with alexithymia, and convergent validity was assessed with the quality of mindfulness and GSE. In addition, multiple regression analysis was conducted on the prediction of aggression by the CD-RISC subscales. The five-factor structure provided a good fit for the data. CD-RISC had significant negative associations with alexithymia, and there was a significant positive correlation between CD-RISC and Quality of Mindfulness, GSE. The results indicate that CD-RISC significantly predicts aggression in athletic adolescent girls. The CD-RISC has good validity for athletic adolescent girls in Iran and can be used in psychological evaluations in the Iranian context.
Research Article
Evidence for Psychometric Assessment of Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) and its role in Predicting Aggression among Iranian Athletic Adolescent Girls
https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1494380/v1
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License
You are reading this latest preprint version
Resilience
CD-RISC
Aggression
Athletic Girls
Adolescents
One of the athletes’ primary objectives is to develop their abilities to increase their commitment and sports performance. However, it is also necessary for them to consolidate the habits of a healthy lifestyle and fully develop their physical, cognitive, and social capacities[1, 2]. During sporting activities, emotions are experienced that are of particular importance, and the way these emotions are managed is among the factors that influence adolescents’ sport experiences[3]. One of the crucial factors that affect sports’ experiences is resilience, which is controlled by various factors such as support, strategies, self-concept, motivation, and the athlete’s feelings [4]. In stressful competitions, resilience helps athletes increase their chances of success by enduring adversity and adapting positively to bitter experiences[5]. As one of the most important psychological factors, resilience helps adolescents adjust to adverse circumstances and increase adolescent well-being by using positive reinforcement strategies [6, 7].
In recent years, various studies have analyzed the adaptive response of athletes to various adverse events that they experience at some point in their sporting life (i.e., challenging physical work, failure to compete, confrontation with other players, embarrassing situations, and injuries)[8]. This response is known as resilience and is defined as a set of characteristics that indicate an athlete's ability to overcome undesirable, unpleasant, and stressful situations. It is also responsible for the person's positive growth since it intervenes in achieving personal and sporting objectives [9]. Resilience can also show positive results, despite severe threats to adaptation, growth, or the ability to maintain, recover, or improve mental health after life's challenges[10]. For example, resilient people believe that they can have a reinforcing effect, have a remarkable ability to adapt to change, use past successes to overcome current challenges, and use positive emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. Other characteristics associated with resilience include patience, tolerance for negative emotions, and optimism [11].
Resilience is considered a fundamental skill as it influences the development of athletic ability and personal level and is directly related to students’ mental health and psychological well-being[12]. Resilience protects young athletes in stressful and difficult competitions and prevents many problems[13]. Mental disorders such as substance use, academic failure, violence, conduct disorder, smoking, and depression are among the issues adolescents with low resilience are more likely to face [14]. In short, resilience contributes to the evolution of the exhaustive process of behavioral, social, and emotional adaptation[15].
Since resilient adolescents exhibit fewer harmful behaviors and have a higher mental health score, it makes sense to examine mental health concerning resilience so that adolescents can have better mental health by solving problems and adapting to the environment [16]. This point is crucial for athletes and coaches to have a favorable and stable mental state during competition [17]. It is important to consider emotional, cognitive, physical, and social factors to have such performance. When a young athlete is exposed to adversity and stress, these resources help maintain balance[18]. According to research, resilience facilitates recovery from problems and increases the quality of coping styles of athletes in the face of future stressors[8].
Building resilience has been studied for decades but has only recently been explored in the sports field[19]. Athletes need to use and optimize various protective factors to deal with the stressful aspects of competition, sports environment, or daily life[20]. Resilient athletes had more ability to deal with problems, while non-resilient athletes used less active coping. [21] interviewed ten current or former academic and professional athletes and, through inductive analysis, identified five broad dimensions to describe the resilience experience: size and duration, confusion, socio-cultural influences, personal resources, and positive outcomes. Research shows that athletes use a variety of coping strategies to manage competition-related stress. These strategies can change depending on the pressure / relationship of the situation, tending to use strategies that focus on negative adjustment during periods of more perceived stress competition[22]
On the other hand, resilience increases a person’s ability to adapt and deal constructively with challenging situations. Conversely, aggression leads to intolerance and destructive ways of coping with complex problems based on this concept; the two variables are inversely related [9]. Resilience is a trait that helps regulate emotions, reinforce behaviors, promote healthy coping mechanisms, and maintain healthy interpersonal relationships. These later contribute to a lower likelihood and reduction of aggressive manifestations [23]. Therefore, looking at aggression is one of the most fruitful researches due to the emotional responses, which can affect the performance of athletes [24].
The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), a 25-item questionnaire, is used to assess resilience. Each item is given a rating between 0 and almost true, according to a five-point Likert scale. These items can be used to calculate scores ranging from 0 to 100 when calculating the scores for these items. Connor and Davidson identified five dimensions of resilience[25].
However, when applied to a new context, there is a need to explore the validity of CD-RISC structure, differentiation, and prediction. For example, the five-factor structure found in the original study [25] was not repeated in subsequent discoveries. While some studies showed two models [26], three [27], or four[28], most of the identified studies showed a one-dimensional structure of the scale, sometimes only 22 [29, 30] or ten items [31, 32]. In addition, several scaling issues have been identified, including the fact that the first three factors are thematically heterogeneous. The fourth and fifth factors consist of only two and three factors, respectively. This scale has already been used in a population of Spanish adolescents [33], Korean students, nurses and firefighters [34], French dental and medical students [35], Portuguese population [36], Indian students [37], people with diabetes in China [38] and even Iranian students [39] have been examined for validity and reliability.
It can be argued that the structure of CD-RISC is at least partially dependent on the context and population in which it is administered. There have been no validation studies of CD-RISC in Iranian athletic adolescent girls. It could be suspected that their sources of resilience would differ compared to other populations. However, they have not been studied in Iranian athletic adolescent girls.
So this study aimed to investigate the psychometric properties of the Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) and its role in predicting aggression among Iranian athletic adolescent girls.
This cross-sectional study was conducted in Iran between December 2018 and January 2019, selecting 475 Iranian athletic volunteers adolescent girls through a convenience sampling method. The STROBE checklist for cross-sectional studies was followed to improve methodological rigor[40].
The data collection method included collecting the answers provided to the research questionnaires via the internet in Iran. Platforms included Instagram, Telegram, WhatsApp, Internet ads, and e-mails in Iran. In this study, an athletic adolescent between 14 and 17 had at least one year of regular and continuous activity in one sport (regardless of a particular sport) and exercised regularly at the club at least two days a week. The participants were required to be able to read and write in Farsi and residence of Iran. Thus, the test was self-administered, and participants could check their responses before answering. There was no need to write a name, and that participation in the research was according to their personal preference due to the use of an online survey and setting the necessary answers for each item. A total of 475 responses were used in the data analysis.
2.1 Measures
The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC)
This is a self-report scale developed by Connor and Davidson in 2003. The scale is a 25-item instrument that measures resilience structure in a five-point Likert-type from zero to four, zero being the minimum resilience score[25]. Therefore, the range of test scores is between 0 and 100. Higher scores indicate higher resilience of the subject. The factor analysis results show that this test has five factors: personal competence, high standards and tenacity, trust in one’s instincts, tolerance of negative affect, strengthening effects of stress, positive acceptance of change and secure relationships, control, spiritual influences.
Quality of Mindfulness
The Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R) [41] is a 12-item scale measuring everyday mindfulness. It focuses on how individuals are aware of their thoughts and feelings and does not require meditation training. Items are rated on a 4-point Likert scale from one (not at all) to four (almost always).[42] also reported a Cronbach’s alpha of .80 in Iran.
General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE)
The scale was developed by Schwarzer & Jerusalem in 1979 and revised in 1981 into ten items, all general measuring self-efficacy. The assessment is based on a four-point Likert scale ranging from one to four. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of this scale was 0.82 [43]. In Iran, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of this scale was 0.81 [44].
Alexithymia
TheToronto Alexithymia Scale-2 [45] is a 20-item self-report measure of alexithymia. Items are rated on a Likert scale ranging from one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree). The scale's internal consistency by Cronbach’s alpha for the total score was 0.72[46].
The Aggression Scale
It is a measure with 11 indicators to assess aggressive behaviors -the responses in each indicator range from 0 (times) to 6 (or more often)[47]. The Persian version of the aggression scale was validated in Iran and showed good reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.87[48].
2.2 Procedure
Before the survey, informed consent was obtained from participants and their parents/legal guardians. This study strictly protected participants' confidentiality. Therefore obtaining informed consent was a priority. Consenting participants (and their parents/legal guardians) and questionnaires were then entered into Google Forms, and the link was sent to social networks to be completed online by the respondents. The survey collected demographic characteristics, including age and sport type. The survey also included an information sheet reminding participants of their voluntary and anonymous participation, and it is coded to do the test-retest reliability step. The respondents had the right to choose whether to join the study and provide information or withdraw—inter-rater agreement measured by Cohen’s kappa coefficient (K=0.76) indicates acceptable agreement.
The data collection period began in December 2018 and January 2019. The online questionnaires took an average of 25 min to complete for each respondent. Also, the study procedure was approved by an ethical committee of Alzahra University (IR/12/12/1400). All procedures were carried out under applicable guidelines and regulations. Alongside the translated CD-RISC, the other scales used in this study were already translated into Persian.
This research was divided into two phases: the instrument's translation and the cultural adaptation technique, then analysis of its psychometric properties and the verification of its validity. The CD-RISC was translated into Farsi (Persian) in the first phase using the back-translation technique. In this technique, one translation team translates the scale into Persian, and then the second team translates it back into the original language. The translation accuracy was judged by closely matching the second team’s original version. However, as [49] pointed out, this commonly used technique has shortcomings. They suggested that translators be proficient in both languages and familiar with both cultures. The quality of the translation has been assessed as to how it fits the initial text. Accordingly, two translators were contacted to help with the study. The translators worked independently, and no significant differences were found in the translation and expression of the items. The authors subsequently reached a consensus with the translators on both versions. Finally, some items were revised by a professor of English and other psychologists to make them more understandable and comprehensible to the target audience. Care was taken to ensure that the length of the items corresponded to the original scale. The authors then achieved agreements with the translators for the final version.
2.3 Statistical Analysis
The IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0 (IBM SPSS Statistics, Inc., Armonk, USA) was used to analyze demographic frequencies and measure the Pearson correlation between the CD-RISC with the quality of mindfulness and general self-efficacy (GSE) and alexithymia. In addition, the confirmatory model Factor Analysis (CFA) was used. The internal consistency of the CD-RISC was determined using Cronbach’s alpha. In addition, a multiple regression analysis was used to predict aggression by the subscales of the CD-RISC.
2.4 Preliminary Analysis
Preliminary tests, such as data loss analysis, discarded data, and normality of the data were performed before the CFA. Discarded data were assessed by the Mahalanobis distance square with a significance level of 0.001 in AMOS software, and no discarded pieces of data were identified. Skewness (0.154- 0.181) and Kurtosis (0.35-2.15) were used to test the normality assumption of the items. The normality of the data is met when the values range between ± 2 for skewnesss and ± 3 for Kurtosis [50]; and the results showed the normal distribution of the data.
A total of 475 Iranian athletic adolescent girls participated in the survey. The participants' mean (SD) age was 15.68 (1.89). Regarding sports status, 246 (52.9%) of the participants were Individual sports, and 229 (47.1%) played team sports (see Table 1).
TABLE 1 Socio-demographic characteristic (n=475)
|
|
N |
% |
M |
SD |
|
Sport Type |
|
|
|
|
|
Individual Sport |
246 |
52.9% |
68.00 |
16.17 |
|
Team Sport |
229 |
47.1% |
65.17 |
14.61 |
|
Age Group |
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
113 |
23.5% |
65.94 |
15.42 |
|
15 |
166 |
35.8% |
68.20 |
15.56 |
|
16 |
148 |
30.8% |
65.95 |
12.93 |
|
17 |
48 |
9.9% |
65.02 |
21.57 |
3.1 Factor Structure
The Kaiser- Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index was 0.908, above the recommended value of 0.6, and Bartlett’s test for sphericity reached statistical significance (x2 =2855.39,p≤0.001) that the data were suitable for factor analysis. We conducted CFA on a sample of 475 athletic adolescent girls. The initial CFA began with five factors and 25 items. The final CFA showed five factors, 25-item solutions: the factor loadings and fit statistics(Table 2).
TABLE 2. CFA of Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC)
|
Items |
Factor Loading |
Eigenvalue |
|
||||
|
Total |
% of variance |
Cumulative % |
Overall Alpha |
||||
|
ITEM 1 |
0.43 |
9.377 |
37.509 |
37.509 |
|
||
|
ITEM 2 |
0.41 |
1.635 |
6.538 |
44.047 |
|
||
|
ITEM 3 |
0.83 |
1.279 |
5.118 |
49.165 |
|
||
|
ITEM 4 |
0.63 |
1.167 |
4.148 |
53.313 |
|
||
|
ITEM 5 |
0.62 |
1.016 |
3.988 |
57.301 |
|
||
|
ITEM 6 |
0.58 |
.882 |
3.526 |
60.828 |
|
||
|
ITEM 7 |
0.57 |
.865 |
3.461 |
64.288 |
0.912 |
||
|
ITEM 8 |
0.46 |
.788 |
3.153 |
67.441 |
|
||
|
ITEM 9 |
0.65 |
.768 |
3.070 |
70.511 |
|
||
|
ITEM 10 |
0.76 |
.696 |
2.783 |
73.295 |
|
||
|
ITEM 11 |
0.70 |
.651 |
2.602 |
75.897 |
|
||
|
ITEM 12 |
0.70 |
.609 |
2.437 |
78.334 |
|
||
|
ITEM 13 |
0.51 |
.584 |
2.334 |
80.669 |
|
||
|
ITEM 14 |
0.75 |
.520 |
2.080 |
82.748 |
|
||
|
ITEM 15 |
0.76 |
.514 |
2.057 |
84.805 |
|
||
|
ITEM 16 |
0.69 |
.504 |
2.014 |
86.820 |
|
||
|
ITEM 17 |
0.65 |
.480 |
1.919 |
88.738 |
|
||
|
ITEM 18 |
0.47 |
.430 |
1.721 |
90.460 |
|
||
|
ITEM 19 |
0.78 |
.412 |
1.648 |
92.108 |
|
||
|
ITEM 20 |
0.72 |
.378 |
1.511 |
93.619 |
|
||
|
ITEM 21 |
0.76 |
.358 |
1.433 |
95.052 |
|
||
|
ITEM 22 |
0.67 |
.345 |
1.380 |
96.432 |
|
||
|
ITEM 23 |
0.39 |
.320 |
1.279 |
97.711 |
|
||
|
ITEM 24 |
0.71 |
.295 |
1.182 |
98.892 |
|
||
|
ITEM 25 |
0.59 |
.277 |
1.108 |
100.000 |
|
||
The standardized factor loading for the five CD-RISC items can be seen in Figure 1, where all the factor loadings were significant and in the expected direction.
TABLE 3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Fit indexes
|
model |
RMSEA (CI 90%) |
sbX2 |
RMR |
SRMR |
CFI |
NFI |
IFI |
RFI |
|
25 items |
0.078 (0.067 -0.077) |
915.40 |
0.057 |
0.051 |
0.97 |
0.96 |
0.97 |
0.95 |
Legend: RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; RMR: Root Mean Square Residual; SRMR: Standardized RMR; CFI: Comparative Fit Index; NFI: Normed Fit Index; IFI: Incremental Fit Index; RFI: Relative Fit Index
The CFA results for a five-factor structure are shown in Table 3. These results are acceptable because the factor loadings of all items were significant, and all items except item 23 were above 0.40. Model fit was estimated using the following fit indices: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA; criterion 0.08) and its confidence level of 90%, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR; criterion 0.09), Comparative Fit Index (CFI; criterion 0.90), Normed Fit Index (NFI; criterion 0.90), Incremental Fit Index (IFI; criterion 0.90), Relative Fit Index (RFI; criterion 0.90)[51]. The CFA results also showed that the five-factor structure fit the data well. In the present study, the fit indices of the model were RMSEA= 0.072; SRMR =0.051, RMR =0.057, CFI =0.97, NFI=0.96, IFI=0.97, RFI=0.95. All items of the loadings showed a significant factor(Table 3).
3.2 Content Validity
According to their content validity, items must cover the objectives of the topic in which they are included. The content validity ratio and content validity index is the most common quantitative methods to evaluate the content validity of the content on Likert scales[52]. Seventeen experts were asked to rate the following items: 1) Not necessary, 2) Useful, but not necessary, and 3) Necessary to evaluate the content validity ratio. Based on Lawshe’s [53] table and the number of experts, it is essential if an index number is more significant than 49% to have the corresponding item at p<0.05. The minimum acceptable CVR for 15 and 20 people is recommended to be 0.49 and 0.42, respectively. The following formula determines the validity ratio: ne is the number of experts who graded the items at three, and N is the number of professionals who paid attention to the item.
Content validity ratio = =
On the basis of Lawshe's [53] table, when eight panels of experts are involved, the CVR should be equal to or higher than 0.78. This is the reason why no items were eliminated in this selection process. To qualify as valid, an item must have a score greater than 0.79 on the CVI, which measures these three factors ("simplicity and fluency", "relevance", and "clarity")[54].
In addition, the content validity index (CVI) was calculated to assess the relevance of the items. CVR is calculated for each item separately, while CVI is calculated for the entire scale. There are two types of CVI: item-level CVI (I-CVI) and scale-level CVI (S-CVI).
Lynn [55] argues that if a panel of eight experts gave an I-CVI, it should be 0.78. The S-CVI is calculated in two ways: S-CVI/UV (based on Universal Agreement) and S-CVI/Ave (based on average). Using the average method, there are two ways for me to calculate S-CVI: 1. By summing the scores from the I-CVI and the number of items, 2. A ratio between the proportional relevance rating and the number of experts is calculated [56, 57]. According to this survey, the I-CVI for all items was higher than 0.79. Furthermore, the S-CVI/Ave value was 0.91, indicating satisfactory content validity. The CVI did not require any adjustments or omissions.
There is significant evidence of higher CVR than what has also been observed, suggesting acceptable content validity (see Table 4). It's important to emphasize that each of the 25 items has acceptable content validity. Furthermore, the S-CVI/Ave (0.947) value was higher than 0.9.
Table 4 CVI and CVR values for the items of CD-RISC scale
|
|
CVI |
CVR |
||
|
Items |
Difficulty |
Ambiguity |
Relevancy |
Urgency |
|
ITEM 1 |
1 |
0.9 |
0.8 |
0.8 |
|
ITEM 2 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
1 |
1 |
|
ITEM 3 |
1 |
0.9 |
1 |
1 |
|
ITEM 4 |
1 |
0.9 |
1 |
1 |
|
ITEM 5 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
1 |
1 |
|
ITEM 6 |
1 |
0.9 |
1 |
1 |
|
ITEM 7 |
1 |
0.9 |
1 |
1 |
|
ITEM 8 |
1 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.8 |
|
ITEM 9 |
1 |
0.9 |
1 |
1 |
|
ITEM 10 |
1 |
0.9 |
1 |
1 |
|
ITEM 11 |
1 |
0.9 |
1 |
0.8 |
|
ITEM 12 |
1 |
0.9 |
1 |
1 |
|
ITEM 13 |
1 |
0.9 |
1 |
1 |
|
ITEM 14 |
0.7 |
0.9 |
1 |
0.6 |
|
ITEM 15 |
1 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.8 |
|
ITEM 16 |
1 |
0.9 |
1 |
1 |
|
ITEM 17 |
1 |
0.9 |
1 |
1 |
|
ITEM 18 |
1 |
0.9 |
1 |
1 |
|
ITEM 19 |
1 |
0.9 |
1 |
1 |
|
ITEM 20 |
1 |
0.9 |
1 |
1 |
|
ITEM 21 |
1 |
0.9 |
1 |
1 |
|
ITEM 22 |
1 |
0.9 |
0.9 |
0.8 |
|
ITEM 23 |
1 |
0.9 |
1 |
1 |
|
ITEM 24 |
1 |
0.9 |
1 |
1 |
|
ITEM 25 |
1 |
0.9 |
1 |
0.8 |
3.3 Face Validity
Using face validity, this study evaluated its appropriateness, representativeness, readability, and clarity. Evaluation of surveys can be accomplished in a variety of ways. The most common method is cognitive interviews. Before collecting data from a large sample, cognitive interviews are useful for researchers to clarify the items, ensure adequate coverage of the content, and modify the questionnaire if any questions are unclear[58]. Twelve athletic adolescent girls participated in cognitive interviews to determine item complexity, vagueness, and comprehensibility of interview items. Twenty-five questions were ultimately compiled as a final scale. As a result, no changes had to be made to the Persian scale when designing the CD-RISC's final Persian version, as there were no unclear Persian terms.
3.4 Internal Consistency Reliability
The internal consistency reliability of the Iranian Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha for all participants and was 0.908. The internal consistency of the Iranian Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) was similar.
3.5 Follow-up Study and Test-Retest Reliability
Temporal stability using a test-retest strategy in a small subsample of 105 participants in the main study was randomly selected and asked to complete the CD-RISC again after two weeks. The results showed that after this period, the calculated test-retest coefficient was 0.81(CI=0.79-0.83).
3.6 Convergent Validity
The convergent validity of the CD-RISC was assessed by correlation with the quality of mindfulness and General Self-efficacy (GSE) scores. Significant positive correlations of the CD-RISC subscales with Quality of Mindfulness and General Self-efficacy (GSE) ranging from 0.19 to 0.48 indicated acceptable convergent validity (Table 5).
TABLE 5. Pearson correlation between CD-RISC with Quality of Mindfulness, General Self-efficacy (GSE), and Alexithymia among participants
|
|
F1 |
F2 |
F3 |
F4 |
F5 |
CD-RISC Total |
|
Quality of Mindfulness |
0.28** |
0.23** |
0.21** |
0.19** |
0.20** |
0.31** |
|
GSE |
0.41** |
0.37** |
0.28** |
0.23** |
0.25** |
0.44** |
|
Alexithymia |
-0.31** |
-0.28** |
-0.22** |
-0.20** |
-0.19** |
-0.34** |
|
*p<0.05 **p<0.01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.7 Discriminant Validity
As shown in Table 5, the negative correlations between the CD-RISC subscales and the alexithymia score ranged from -0.19 to -0.34. All correlations were statistically significant at p<0.01, indicating acceptable discriminant validity.
TABLE 6. Multiple regression analysis for prediction of aggression by subscales of CD-RISC. (N=475)
|
|
B |
S. E |
Beta |
T |
P |
R |
R2 |
F |
P |
|
Constant |
42.352 |
3.123 |
|
6.347 |
.001 |
|
|
|
|
|
F1 |
.171 |
.058 |
.146 |
3.914 |
.001 |
.457 |
.208 |
19.64 |
.001 |
|
F2 |
.159 |
.062 |
.127 |
3.531 |
.001 |
|
|
|
|
|
F3 |
.154 |
.054 |
.114 |
2.531 |
.023 |
|
|
|
|
|
F4 |
.161 |
.059 |
.101 |
2.344 |
.039 |
|
|
|
|
|
F5 |
.112 |
.064 |
.093 |
1.762 |
.087 |
|
|
|
|
Multiple linear regression was calculated to predict aggression based on the components of CD-RISC; the results showed that the components of CD-RISC significantly predicted aggression in Iranian athletic adolescent girls (F (5, 470) = 19.64, P≤ 0.001), with R2 of 0.21 (see Table 6).
This study examined the Persian version of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) among athletic Iranian adolescent girls. The CD-RISC results showed that the item sum and inter-item coefficients were appropriate and that the CD-RISC had high internal consistency. Findings from the CFA confirm the factorial validity of the CD-RISC. Both convergent and discriminant validity results supported CD-RISC validity. The first factor reflects a person's ability to have high standards, tenacity, and competence (eight items).
Additionally, one of the factors relates to coping with negative emotions, trusting one's instincts, and recognizing the benefits of stress (seven items). The third factor relates to a positive attitude toward changing and securing relationships (five items). A fourth item relates to perceived control (three items), while a fifth item relates to spirituality (two items). In the current population, no items have been removed, and all of the items have a high factor; finally, the scale has 25 questions.
To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first to assess CD-RISC among Iranian athletic adolescent girls, including factors and items that represent all of the five higher-order categories. The results are broadly consistent with previous studies that showed high internal consistency for the CD-RISC in clinical and general populations[59, 60]. The results of this study are consistent with findings of [14, 61] and in contrast to findings of [62, 63] that some questions and factors were omitted. The explanation for this could be that the population in Sweden is not as religious as in many other countries. Especially the inquiries related to religious beliefs and spirituality had the lowest loadings, which may be a reason for eliminating the questions with the weakest loadings [63]. Also, the factors of spiritual influence and control and religion are not components of the resilience structure in Romanian society [62].
CD-RISC was correlated with quality of mindfulness, general self-efficacy, and alexithymia. The subscales of CD- RISC has a significant positive correlation with mindfulness and general self-efficacy, indicating acceptable convergence validity of this scale. There is also a negative correlation between subscales of CD-RISC, and alexithymia, meaning acceptable differential validity of this scale. Consistent with [64, 65], quality of mindfulness and CD-RISC have a positive correlation. Resilience can be improved by helping adolescents disengage from automatic responses to challenging situations and ruminative reflections[66]. There is also a negative correlation between CD-RISC and alexithymia[67, 68]. Alexithymia is observed in people suffering from psychopathological disorders that lower patients' resilience [69, 70]. In previous studies, such as [71, 72] and based on the results of this study, it is a positive correlation between CD - RISC and general self-efficacy. It is expected that an increase in resilience level will lead to an increase in general self-efficacy levels as adolescents with self-efficacy levels are more successful in difficult situations[72].
On the other hand, it is important to note that the factor structure of the CD-RISC varies depending on the cultural context of the study population [73]. The CD-RISC has been studied in different countries and people. Although five subscales were confirmed in the original version of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale in athletic adolescent girls in this study, there is considerable variation in the subscales of this instrument in the results of other studies. It could depend on the samples' age, culture, and patients versus healthy individuals[37].
[74] showed that athletes are more resilient and better prepared to deal with challenges and stresses in the sports environment, which increases the likelihood of a successful sports career. Utilizing stereotypical feminine behaviors, such as maintaining relationships as providers and nurturers by establishing positive communication consistent with the culture, is key to resilience in women and girls[75]. Resilience pathways in girls and boys follow different patterns. For example, boys act through problem solving and individualism, while girls act through social interaction [76]. Gender differences in resilience may reflect specific behavioral characteristics in girls compared to boys (positive levels of socio-emotional development such as communication, empathy, help-seeking, and experiencing autonomy and higher levels of caring adult and peer relationships and social support)[77]. Under stress, girls are more likely than boys to use resilience to seek and receive support [78].
Our research findings showed that resilience could predict aggression. Accordingly, athletic adolescent girls with higher resilience scores had lower aggression scores. Therefore, it is possible to focus on the resilience level of athletic adolescent girls and provide more appropriate psychological services for aggression control through proper facilities. These findings are consistent with the results of [79, 80]. Adolescents are vulnerable to aggression, anxiety, depression, and other disorders due to the blows they suffer early in life. Increasing resilience is a valuable coping mechanism that helps people deal with stressful situations, and it allows people to make sense of hope and adapt to the environment and humans. Resilience plays an essential role in mitigating and alleviating these instances [23]. This ability helps athletic adolescent girls to withstand challenges and not be aggressive by regulating their emotions. In addition, resilient athletic adolescent girls and considerable control over their feelings reject aggression and avoid destructive and violent activities [80]. Although this study focuses on resilience and aggression in adolescent girls, the difference between resilience and gendered aggression is mainly dependent on changes in the mechanisms and resources that males and females use to manage their performance in times of adversity [81].
Limitations and Recommendation
It is essential to find out the potential of athletic girls, their attitude towards adolescent athletes, and their mindset and compare the results of these different groups. These findings are significant because they are consistent with much of the available data on resilience and sports participation [82]. This instrument has been studied in Iranian athletic adolescent girls in the present study, but it could be applicable in other samples and should be investigated in future research.
Since there is a relationship between resilience and aggression in this study, it is suggested that specific mechanisms in the sport that contribute to resilience should be further identified and investigated. Identifying these mechanisms will allow researchers to pursue other non-sport activities with some precise tools. Planning to increase resilience in adolescents can play an essential role in reducing aggression and help leaders prevent social harm and intervene promptly. Future research can examine the influence of family on resilience in adolescent athletes. It is also recommended that this research be conducted in various sports (individual and team).
The present research findings should be interpreted in light of the study's limitations. The study's main limitation was that it was only conducted on athletic adolescent girls, which constituted the main limitation of the study. At the same time, the various cultures and ethnicities present in the country should also be considered in further research. Another limitation, which relates to this point, is that the study is cross-sectional, which means that caution should be exercised when generalizing the conclusions and future longitudinal studies. Moreover, it is recommended that future studies examine other variables and use longitudinal studies. It is suggested that the results of this study are used to develop educational packages that will promote the resilience of girls and women.
The present research tried to open discussion on the resilience behaviors that may help to raise hardy attitudes in athletic adolescent girls. Regardless of the importance of having resiliency attitudes to face life changes and challenges, these attitudes provide existential courage to humankind to experience a more flourishing and fulfilling life. There is no doubt that further research on this concept in different clinical and research settings is necessary.
CD-RISC can be a valid and reliable instrument to examine and assess resilience in Iranian athletic adolescent girls. Moreover, this instrument and other psychological assessment instruments provide a suitable platform for psychologists, clinicians, and researchers involved in adolescent and sport-related activities for further research and applied activities. The present study results are helpful in that they show that CD-RISC could be used as a complementary instrument to assess psychological changes in Iranian athletic adolescent girls.
In conclusion, the 25-item CD-RISC showed good psychometric properties in assessing resiliency among Iranian athletic adolescent girls. The CD-RISC is one of the primary scales in assessing resiliency and can be used in clinical and research settings.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The ethics committee approved the study procedure of Alzahra University (IR/12/12/1400), and informed consent was obtained from the participants and their parents/legal guardians. All methods have been carried out under relevant guidelines and regulations. All research procedures involving humans were consistent with the National Research Committee’s ethical standards, the Helsinki Declaration of 1964, subsequent revisions, or equivalent ethical norms. Before inclusion, all participants also their parents/legal guardians signed informed consent forms.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets generated during and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Conflict of Interests
The authors have declared that there is no potential conflict of interest.
Funding
The present study was accomplished without any outside financial support.
Authors’ Contribution
All of the authors provided an equal level of contribution to the study.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their gratitude to all the participants.
- Alesi M, Gómez-López M, Chicau Borrego C, Monteiro D, Granero-Gallegos A. Effects of a Motivational Climate on Psychological Needs Satisfaction, Motivation and Commitment in Teen Handball Players. IJERPH. 2019;16:2702.
- Röthlin P, Horvath S, Trösch S, Holtforth M grosse, Birrer D. Differential and shared effects of psychological skills training and mindfulness training on performance-relevant psychological factors in sport: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Psychol. 2020;8:80.
- Nicholls AR, Perry JL, Jones L, Morley D, Carson F. Dispositional Coping, Coping Effectiveness, and Cognitive Social Maturity Among Adolescent Athletes. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2013;35:229–38.
- Ramirez-Granizo IA, Sánchez-Zafra M, Zurita-Ortega F, Puertas-Molero P, González-Valero G, Ubago-Jiménez JL. Multidimensional Self-Concept Depending on Levels of Resilience and the Motivational Climate Directed towards Sport in Schoolchildren. IJERPH. 2020;17:534.
- Zolkoski SM, Bullock LM. Resilience in children and youth: A review. Children and Youth Services Review. 2012;34:2295–303.
- Belcher BR, Zink J, Azad A, Campbell CE, Chakravartti SP, Herting MM. The Roles of Physical Activity, Exercise, and Fitness in Promoting Resilience During Adolescence: Effects on Mental Well-Being and Brain Development. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging. 2021;6:225–37.
- Finklestein M, Pagorek-Eshel S, Laufer A. Adolescents’ individual resilience and its association with security threats, anxiety and family resilience. Journal of Family Studies. 2020;:1–17.
- Galli N, Vealey RS. “Bouncing Back” from Adversity: Athletes’ Experiences of Resilience. The Sport Psychologist. 2008;22:316–35.
- Chandler GE, Kalmakis KA, Chiodo L, Helling J. The Efficacy of a Resilience Intervention Among Diverse, At-Risk, College Athletes: A Mixed-Methods Study. J Am Psychiatr Nurses Assoc. 2020;26:269–81.
- Scholten EWM, Simon JDHP, van Diemen T, Hillebregt CF, Ketelaar M, Woldendorp KH, et al. Appraisals and coping mediate the relationship between resilience and distress among significant others of persons with spinal cord injury or acquired brain injury: a cross-sectional study. BMC Psychol. 2020;8:51.
- Al Eid NA, Alqahtani MM, Marwa K, Arnout BA, Alswailem HS, Al Toaimi AA. Religiosity, Psychological Resilience, and Mental Health Among Breast Cancer Patients in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Breast Cancer�(Auckl). 2020;14:117822342090305.
- Turner M, Holdsworth S, Scott-Young CM. Resilience at University: the development and testing of a new measure. Higher Education Research & Development. 2017;36:386–400.
- Lee K, Kang S, Kim I. Relationships Among Stress, Burnout, Athletic Identity, and Athlete Satisfaction in Students at Korea’s Physical Education High Schools: Validating Differences Between Pathways According to Ego Resilience. Psychol Rep. 2017;120:585–608.
- Yu X, Lau JTF, Mak WWS, Zhang J, Lui WWS, Zhang J. Factor structure and psychometric properties of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale among Chinese adolescents. Comprehensive Psychiatry. 2011;52:218–24.
- Sagone E, Caroli MED. Relationships between Resilience, Self-Efficacy, and Thinking Styles in Italian Middle Adolescents. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2013;92:838–45.
- Satapathy S, Dang S, Sagar R, Dwivedi SN. Resilience in Children and Adolescents Survived Psychologically Traumatic Life Events: A Critical Review of Application of Resilience Assessment Tools for Clinical Referral and Intervention. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 2020;:152483802093912.
- Gómez-López M, Chicau Borrego C, Marques da Silva C, Granero-Gallegos A, González-Hernández J. Effects of Motivational Climate on Fear of Failure and Anxiety in Teen Handball Players. IJERPH. 2020;17:592.
- White RL, Bennie A. Resilience in Youth Sport: A Qualitative Investigation of Gymnastics Coach and Athlete Perceptions. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching. 2015;10:379–93.
- Geard A, Kirkevold M, Løvstad M, Schanke A-K. Exploring narratives of resilience among seven males living with spinal cord injury: a qualitative study. BMC Psychol. 2018;6:1.
- Sarkar M, Fletcher D. How Should We Measure Psychological Resilience in Sport Performers? Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science. 2013;17:264–80.
- Secades XG, Molinero O, Salguero A, Barquín RR, de la Vega R, Márquez S. Relationship Between Resilience and Coping Strategies in Competitive Sport. Percept Mot Skills. 2016;122:336–49.
- Kowalski CM, Schermer JA. Hardiness, Perseverative Cognition, Anxiety, and Health-Related Outcomes: A Case for and Against Psychological Hardiness. Psychol Rep. 2019;122:2096–118.
- Kim J, Seok J-H, Choi K, Jon D-I, Hong HJ, Hong N, et al. The Protective Role of Resilience in Attenuating Emotional Distress and Aggression Associated with Early-life Stress in Young Enlisted Military Service Candidates. J Korean Med Sci. 2015;30:1667.
- Balyan KY, Tok S, Tatar A, Binboga E, Balyan M. The Relationship Among Personality, Cognitive Anxiety, Somatic Anxiety, Physiological Arousal, and Performance in Male Athletes. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology. 2016;10:48–58.
- Connor KM, Davidson JRT. Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depress Anxiety. 2003;18:76–82.
- Green KT, Hayward LC, Williams AM, Dennis PA, Bryan BC, Taber KH, et al. Examining the Factor Structure of the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) in a Post-9/11 U.S. Military Veteran Sample. Assessment. 2014;21:443–51.
- Yu X, Zhang J. Factor Analysis And Psychometric Evaluation Of The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (Cd-Risc) With Chinese People. soc behav pers. 2007;35:19–30.
- Wu L, Tan Y, Liu Y. Factor structure and psychometric evaluation of the Connor-Davidson resilience scale in a new employee population of China. BMC Psychiatry. 2017;17:49.
- Arias González VB, Crespo Sierra MT, Arias Martínez B, Martínez-Molina A, Ponce FP. An in-depth psychometric analysis of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale: calibration with Rasch-Andrich model. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:154.
- Burns RA, Anstey KJ. The Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): Testing the invariance of a uni-dimensional resilience measure that is independent of positive and negative affect. Personality and Individual Differences. 2010;48:527–31.
- Gonzalez SP, Moore EWG, Newton M, Galli NA. Validity and reliability of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) in competitive sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2016;23:31–9.
- Campbell-Sills L, Cohan SL, Stein MB. Relationship of resilience to personality, coping, and psychiatric symptoms in young adults. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2006;44:585–99.
- Notario-Pacheco B, Solera-Martínez M, Serrano-Parra MD, Bartolomé-Gutiérrez R, García-Campayo J, Martínez-Vizcaíno V. Reliability and validity of the Spanish version of the 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (10-item CD-RISC) in young adults. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;9:63.
- Baek H-S, Lee K-U, Joo E-J, Lee M-Y, Choi K-S. Reliability and Validity of the Korean Version of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale. Psychiatry Investig. 2010;7:109.
- Guihard G, Deumier L, Alliot-Licht B, Bouton-Kelly L, Michaut C, Quilliot F. Psychometric validation of the French version of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale. L’Encéphale. 2018;44:40–5.
- Faria Anjos J, Heitor dos Santos MJ, Ribeiro MT, Moreira S. Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale: validation study in a Portuguese sample. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e026836.
- Singh K, Yu X. Psychometric Evaluation of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) in a Sample of Indian Students. Journal of Psychology. 2010;1:23–30.
- Ye ZJ, Qiu HZ, Li PF, Chen P, Liang MZ, Liu ML, et al. Validation and application of the Chinese version of the 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10) among parents of children with cancer diagnosis. European Journal of Oncology Nursing. 2017;27:36–44.
- Khoshouei MS. Psychometric Evaluation of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) Using Iranian Students. International Journal of Testing. 2009;9:60–6.
- Ni Q, Lu X, Chen C, Du H, Zhang R. Risk factors for the development of hyperuricemia: A STROBE-compliant cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Medicine. 2019;98:e17597.
- Feldman G, Hayes A, Kumar S, Greeson J, Laurenceau J-P. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2007;29:177–90.
- Mohsenabadi H, Shabani MJ, Zanjani Z. Factor Structure and Reliability of the Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale for Adolescents and the Relationship Between Mindfulness and Anxiety in Adolescents. Iran J Psychiatry Behav Sci. 2018;In Press In Press.
- Chang S-H, Crogan NL, Wung S-F. The Self-Care Self-Efficacy Enhancement Program for Chinese Nursing Home Elders. Geriatric Nursing. 2007;28:31–6.
- Moeini B, Shafii F, Hidarnia A, Babaii GR, Birashk B, Allahverdipour H. Perceived Stress, Self-Efficacy And Its Relations To Psychological Well-Being Status In Iranian Male High School Students. soc behav pers. 2008;36:257–66.
- Bagby RM, Parker JDA, Taylor GJ. The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia scale—I. Item selection and cross-validation of the factor structure. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 1994;38:23–32.
- Khosravani V, Alvani A, Sharifi Bastan F, Jamaati Ardakani R, Akbari H. The alexithymia, cognitive emotion regulation, and physical symptoms in Iranian asthmatic patients. Personality and Individual Differences. 2016;101:214–9.
- Orpinas P, Frankowski R. The Aggression Scale:: A Self-Report Measure of Aggressive Behavior for Young Adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence. 2001;21:50–67.
- Samadifard HR, Sadri Damirchi E. The relationship between perception of social interaction, perceived social support and social acceptance with aggression among adolescents. J Research Health. 2018;8:38–46.
- Hambleton RK, de Jong JHAL. Advances in translating and adapting educational and psychological tests. Language Testing. 2003;20:127–34.
- Ryu E. Effects of skewness and kurtosis on normal-theory based maximum likelihood test statistic in multilevel structural equation modeling. Behav Res. 2011;43:1066–74.
- Marsh HW, Balla JR, McDonald RP. Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin. 1988;103:391–410.
- Colton D, Covert RW. Designing and constructing instruments for social research and evaluation. John Wiley & Sons; 2007.
- Lawshe CH. a Quantitative Approach To Content Validity. Personnel Psychology. 1975;28:563–75.
- Waltz C, Strickland OL, Lenz E. Measurement in Nursing and Health Research. Springer Publishing Company. New York, NY. 2010.
- Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing research. 1986;35:382—385.
- Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in nursing & health. 2006;29:489–97.
- Yusoff MSB. ABC of Content Validation and Content Validity Index Calculation. Education in Medicine Journal. 2019;11.
- Desimone LM, Le Floch KC. Are We Asking the Right Questions? Using Cognitive Interviews to Improve Surveys in Education Research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2004;26:1–22.
- Cosco TD, Kaushal A, Richards M, Kuh D, Stafford M. Resilience measurement in later life: a systematic review and psychometric analysis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14:16.
- Martinez I. Becoming Transnational Youth Workers: Independent Mexican Teenage Migrants and Pathways of Survival and Social Mobility. Rutgers University Press; 2019.
- Jung Y-E, Min J-A, Shin AY, Han SY, Lee K-U, Kim T-S, et al. The Korean Version of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale: An Extended Validation: Validation of K-CD-RISC. Stress and Health. 2012;28:319–26.
- Giurcă I-C, Baban A, Pintea S, Macavei B. Psychometric Properties of the 25-Item Connor-Davison Resilience Scale: Preliminary Data for a Romanian Military Population. Land Forces Academy Review. 2021;26:31–8.
- Velickovic K, Rahm Hallberg I, Axelsson U, Borrebaeck CAK, Rydén L, Johnsson P, et al. Psychometric properties of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) in a non-clinical population in Sweden. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18:132.
- Arpaci I, Gundogan S. Mediating role of psychological resilience in the relationship between mindfulness and nomophobia. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling. 2020;:1–9.
- Musil CM, Wallace MK, Jeanblanc AB, Toly VB, Zauszniewski JA, Burant CJ. Theoretical and Operational Consideration of Mindfulness, Resilience, and Resourcefulness. West J Nurs Res. 2021;43:210–8.
- Thompson RW, Arnkoff DB, Glass CR. Conceptualizing Mindfulness and Acceptance as Components of Psychological Resilience to Trauma. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 2011;12:220–35.
- Morice-Ramat A, Goronflot L, Guihard G. Are alexithymia and empathy predicting factors of the resilience of medical residents in France? Int J Med Educ. 2018;9:122–8.
- Osimo SA, Aiello M, Gentili C, Ionta S, Cecchetto C. The Influence of Personality, Resilience, and Alexithymia on Mental Health During COVID-19 Pandemic. Front Psychol. 2021;12:630751.
- Honkalampi K, Hintikka J, Koivumaa-Honkanen H, Antikainen R, Haatainen K, Viinamäki H. Long-Term Alexithymic Features Indicate Poor Recovery from Depression and Psychopathology. Psychother Psychosom. 2007;76:312–4.
- Son S hwa, Jo H, Rim HD, Kim JH, Kim HW, Bae GY, et al. A Comparative Study on Alexithymia in Depressive, Somatoform, Anxiety, and Psychotic Disorders among Koreans. Psychiatry Investig. 2012;9:325.
- Orkaizagirre‐Gómara A, Sánchez De Miguel M, Ortiz de Elguea J, Ortiz de Elguea A. Testing general self‐efficacy, perceived competence, resilience, and stress among nursing students: An integrator evaluation. Nurs Health Sci. 2020;22:529–38.
- Tagay O, Karatas Z, Bayar O, Savi-Cakar F. Resilience and Life Satisfaction as the Predictors of General Self-Efficacy. GJGC. 2016;6:11–7.
- Fu C, Leoutsakos J-M, Underwood C. An examination of resilience cross-culturally in child and adolescent survivors of the 2008 China earthquake using the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Journal of Affective Disorders. 2014;155:149–53.
- Codonhato R, Rubio V, Oliveira PMP, Resende CF, Rosa BAM, Pujals C, et al. Resilience, stress and injuries in the context of the Brazilian elite rhythmic gymnastics. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0210174.
- Stick M. Conflicts in Sporting Masculinity: The Beliefs and Behaviors of Canadian Male Athletes. The Journal of Men’s Studies. 2021;:106082652110045.
- Mazerolle SM, Eason CM, Goodman A. Coping Behaviors of Collegiate Athletic Trainers and Their Causal Relationship to Career Intentions. International Journal of Athletic Therapy and Training. 2019;24:129–34.
- Sun J, Stewart D. Age and Gender Effects on Resilience in Children and Adolescents. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion. 2007;9:16–25.
- Hampel P, Petermann F. Age and Gender Effects on Coping in Children and Adolescents. J Youth Adolescence. 2005;34:73–83.
- Arslan G. Psychological maltreatment, emotional and behavioral problems in adolescents: The mediating role of resilience and self-esteem. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2016;52:200–9.
- Kassis W, Artz S, Scambor C, Scambor E, Moldenhauer S. Finding the way out: A non-dichotomous understanding of violence and depression resilience of adolescents who are exposed to family violence. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2013;37:181–99.
- Liddon L, Kingerlee R, Barry JA. Gender differences in preferences for psychological treatment, coping strategies, and triggers to help-seeking. Br J Clin Psychol. 2018;57:42–58.
- Steiner H, McQuivey RW, Pavelski R, Pitts T, Kraemer H. Adolescents and Sports: Risk or Benefit? Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2000;39:161–6.
No competing interests reported.