Temperament factors predict resilience in a non-clinical kindergarten population

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2563963/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Temperament factors predict resilience in a non-clinical kindergarten population

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2563963/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background

The aim of our study was to investigate the relationship between resilience and temperament dimensions of emotionality, activity, sociability, and shyness in a sample of Hungarian kindergarten aged children (N=166). Since self-reported measures of resilience and temperament dimensions of emotionality, activity, sociability, and shyness does not exist in Hungarian language, we have developed parent-report questionnaires and assessed psychometric properties of these constructs.

Methods

The 10-item Hungarian Resilience Scale: Parental Ratings (HRS-P-10) was created based on the Hungarian adult resilience scale of Járai et al (2015). The 20-item EAS Temperament Survey for Children: Parental Ratings (EAS-P-20) was translated from English (Buss & Plomin, 1984). 166 parents filled out the above two questionnaires about their kindergarten-aged children and provided basic demographic information.

Results

Reliability analysis confirmed that both questionnaires show appropriate internal consistency. The single scale structure of resilience was confirmed by factor analysis, and this construct is significantly (p<0.01) correlated with all four EAS temperament dimensions: emotionality (r = – .29), activity (r = .35), sociability (r = .32) and shyness (r = – .44).

Conclusions

Results confirm that the HRS-P-10 and the EAS-P-20 are adequate parental questionnaires to be used in non-clinical studies with kindergarten-aged children. Results extend findings related to the link between childhood temperament and resilience and underline the importance of a multi-level, system-based approach to resilience.

resilience

temperament

kindergarden aged children

non-clinical sample

emotionality

activity

shyness

1.1 Resilience: a remarkable gift we all possess

The skill of adaptation is much needed for our constantly changing world. People meet adversities they must cope with every day, and according to Ann S. Masten (1) the ability to adapt well is not a unique and exceptional gift. ‘Ordinary Magic’ is indeed quite common, deriving from basic functioning of the human adaptational system. If these systems are operating well, the outcome of even adverse events may be positive and thus, they result in foreseeable development. On the other hand, if basic adaptive functioning is impaired, developmental problems are likely to occur.

Definitions of resilience show considerable differences across disciplines. As a prestigious panel of resilience researchers pointed out, it can be considered as a trait, a process, or an outcome (2, 3). They highlight that a complex, multi-level approach is inevitable to study resilience including insights from genetic, developmental, and social perspectives. Interestingly, the term is often handled in a binary ‘present’ or ‘absent’ manner, despite the fact that resilience is most likely a continuum (2, 3). Masten suggested an integrated, system-based approach and a broad conceptualization of resilience for the following reasons: First, it is a key concept in many disciplines from ecology, engineering, to the study of the healthcare system, child development or in understanding reactions to traumatic events. Thus, the term should be interpretable at various levels from molecular biology to various levels of human behavior. She defined resilience “as the capacity of a dynamic system to adapt successfully to disturbances that threaten system function, viability, or development” (p. 6 in 4). Others share this approach and conclude that resilience implies “a stable trajectory of healthy functioning after a highly adverse event; a conscious effort to move forward in an insightful and integrated positive manner as a result of lessons learned from an adverse experience; the capacity of a dynamic system to adapt successfully to disturbances that threaten the viability, function, and development of that system; and a process to harness resources in order to sustain well-being.” (p. 11 in 2)). Hungarian researchers also highlight that the complex phenomenon of resilience may be considered as a feature of complex adaptive systems (5).

1.2 What is the key to resilience?

Studies in the field revolved around three core questions, molding results of resilience research and their interpretations (6). First, it is important to define what life events may be considered as challenging. Studies to date included a wide range of risks, e.g. trauma, neglect, adverse childhood experiences, poverty, natural disaster, and war. Adverse childhood experiences most often imply multiple negative life events, thus most studies measure combined occurrence by cumulative risk scores. More severe and more frequent adversities result in lower adaptive success in general. On the other hand, individuals at similar level of risk show characteristically different degrees of successful adaptation. Timing is also a key component. For example, it seems to be crucial at which developmental stage do children meet with adversities or experience protective factors. The second question addresses the criteria for adaptive success. Successful completion of age-specific developmental tasks, mental and psychical health, and emotional well-being were typically studied. The third question investigates the “key to success” at various levels. Promotive or protective factors have been defined at neurobiological, behavioral, family, community, cultural and societal levels. Interestingly, systematic integration of these levels has only started recently (e.g. 7).

Is resilience a trait?

Certain personality characteristics have been highlighted as key factors of resilience (8). In fact, several researchers attempted to identify certain personality characteristics and abilities that are specific to those individuals who cope well with a highly stressful life events (9–11). Adult studies show that resilience is positively correlated with the temperament dimensions of reward dependence and persistence. On the other hand, there is negative correlation between resilience and harm avoidance (e.g. 12, 13, 14). Several results highlight that temperament is correlated with resilience not only in the adulthood but also in children. The role of the easy child temperament has been shown in the development of resilience (e.g. 15). A longitudinal study points to the role of childhood temperament on shaping resilience in adulthood (16). They assessed developmental trajectories of 205 young people from age 10 to age 30. When faced with adversities the high competence (resilient) group showed characteristically more conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness and lower neuroticism as compared to the low competence (maladaptive) group with adversities. The assessment of “turnaround cases” in the same study (those who were in the maladaptive group in early adulthood but changed to the resilient group in their young adulthood) highlight the importance of conscientiousness in early childhood. It is important to note, that although association of resilience and personality or temperament dimensions might seem evident, certain traits may serve as vulnerability or as a protective factor based on their interaction with individual or circumstantial differences at various levels. Research to date on differential susceptibility to the environment highlight that experience and context has a significant moderating power on the course from individual differences to adaptive functioning (4, 6).

In the last few decades, there has been a shift in the research of adaptation and development: while earlier deficit-based models focused on psychopathologies (e.g. PTSD), competence-based models underline prevention and building strengths, like resilience (2). Zolkoski and Bullock (17) summarized longitudinal studies about youth with learning disabilities and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Results show that resilient learning-disabled adolescents have certain characteristics in common. They look for personal control over their lives and they are willing to seek out and accept support. Furthermore, they set goals and possess a strong will to succeed. Finally, they demonstrate high levels of persistence.

1.3 Measuring resilience

A methodological review tested 19 resilience measurement scales (18) and concluded that three of these had the best psychometric ratings. These are the Connor-, the Resilience Scale for Adults, and the Brief Resilience Scale.

The 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (10-item CD-RISC) is the most often used self-assessment scale of resilience for adults. The tool has been developed from the original 25 item, 5-factor Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (19). The exploratory factor analysis of the 25-item version CD-RISC in large (ns > 500) undergraduate subsamples have shown that the original factor structure was not stable across the two subsamples from the same population. After several modifications a 10-item single-factor solution was developed which have demonstrated good internal consistency and construct validity on a third large sample of the undergraduates (20). The final 10-item CD-RISC explores persistence and hardiness: the ability to endure change, problems, stress, illness, pressure, failure, hardship, failure, and feelings of pain. Authors claim that these skills enable “bouncing back” from everyday challenges. The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale has been translated to many languages. Reliability and validity studies review psychometric properties of these foreign language versions including clinical and non-clinical populations (e.g. 21, 22–26). A German study (27) used the Brief Resilient Coping Scale in a non-clinical population and their results highlight relevance of age differences and the need for normative data in investigating resilience.

For measuring resilience in Hungarian, Járai and colleagues have complied a 10-item adult questionnaire (28) and have tested reliability and validity of this measure on a sample of 1459 participants. Their results indicated adequate reliability of their single-scale resilience measure (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.85).

A methodological review of different resilience measurement scales emphasized that self-rated scales are adequate for adolescents and adults (18), but not for younger children. For the assessment of resilience in young children, LeBuffe and Naglieri (29) developed the Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA), which can be filled out by preschool program directors or teachers. Different age-specific versions of this assessment tool have been developed. There are other tools for measuring children’s resilience-related variables (8), however these are relatively long: consisting of 37–67 items. Hungarian versions of the above resilience measures for children do not exist.

1.4 Temperament and resilience

According to the traditional definition temperament is an independent psychological attribute which contains inherited personality traits appearing in early life and it is a response to the external stimulus (30). On the other hand, Shiner and colleges (31) emphasize that recent progress on temperament research provided an alternative definition: “Temperament traits are early emerging basic dispositions in the domains of activity, affectivity, attention, and self-regulation, and these dispositions are the product of complex interactions among genetic, biological, and environmental factors across time.” (p. 437).

Most researchers exploring links between resilience and temperament have used the Big Five traits: extraversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness to experience. A recent meta-analysis (9) investigated the relationship of resilience and Big5 personality traits on 30 studies of children and adults and confirmed positive correlation ranging from r = 0.31 to r = 0.42 in all Big 5 traits, except for Neuroticism, which was negatively correlated with resilience (r = − 0.46). On the other hand, the widely accepted emotionality, activity, sociability dimensions have not been investigated systematically with relation to resilience.

The EAS Theory of Temperament (32) contains three distinct traits: emotionality, activity, and sociability. The acronym EAS replaced the original acronym EASI (emotionality, activity, sociability, and impulsivity) due to the author’s strict criteria for temperament based on both heredity and early appearance (33). Since impulsivity did not meet the criteria of early appearance this psychological trait was left out from the theory and the related self-report measurement. Due to the difficulty of measuring sociability of children, the child version of EAS includes both a sociability and a shyness scale. Thus, the EAS Temperament Survey for Children consists of four distinct scales: emotionality, activity, sociability and shyness. The assessment tool has two versions: the parental ratings and the teacher ratings. Stability of EAS temperament scales were confirmed in a sample of 3.5-6 years old children (34). Reliability analysis of the original scale (32) showed internal consistencies around 0.83 and the test-retest reliabilities were satisfactory (test-retest correlations were 0.72 for emotionality, 0.80 for activity and 0.58 for sociability/shyness). Adaptation of the EAS Temperament Survey to different languages resulted acceptable results with regards to psychometric assessment (35–37).

1.5 Summary and implications for the present research

Resilience has a crucial role in positive adaptation to challenges of our daily lives as well as for dealing with serious threats. Studies investigated various protective factors related to the ability to overcome difficulties. Competence-based approaches highlight the importance of developing and preserving the capacity for positive adaptation, fostering the virtue of resilience. Interestingly, most studies recruited adults or school age children, whereas research on resilience components in kindergarten aged children is scarce. English-language resilience measurement tools have been translated for adults to Hungarian, however, similar scales for kindergarten aged children are not available in Hungarian.

The aim of the present study was to investigate the relationship of resilience and temperament factors (emotionality, activity, sociability, and shyness) in children. We developed and tested psychometric properties of two Hungarian parental report tools for both of these constructs. The Hungarian resilience scale for kindergarten-aged children was based on an existing adult resilience scale of Járai and colleagues (28). We have translated the parental rating for the EAS Temperament Survey for Children: Parental Ratings (32) from English.

3.1 Participants and procedure

Recruitment took place in two Hungarian kindergartens. Parents of 166 kindergarten-aged children signed informed consents and have completed questionnaires (a short demographic information survey and the EAS and Resilience questionnaires). The data collection was anonym, parents placed the completed questionnaires with a specific identifier in locked boxes in front of the kindergarten rooms.

3.2 Measures

The Hungarian Resilience Scale: Parental Version (HRS-P-10) was adapted based on the adult resilience scale of Járai et al. (28). We changed instructions from self-report to the report on the child’s behavior: ‘think about your child and rate how characteristic were the following statements of him or her in the last month’. Parents rated the HRS-P-10 questionnaire items about their young children on a five-point Likert scale (1= ‘not typical’; 5= ‘very typical’). The scale contained no reversed items and was calculated by the sum of all items. The Hungarian Resilience Scale: Parental Version (HRS-P-10) is presented in Appendix 1.

The EAS Temperament Survey for Children explores the children’s temperament based on Parental Ratings (32). This questionnaire was translated from English to Hungarian using the ‘forward-backward’ procedure (38). It consists of 20 items belonging into 4 subscales: Emotionality (2, 6, 11, 15, 19) Activity (4, 7, 9, 13, 17), Sociability (3, 5, 10, 16, 18) and Shyness (1, 8, 12, 14, 20). Bold numbers show reversed items. Parents rate their children’s temperament on a five-point Likert scale (1= ‘not typical’; 5= ‘very typical’). Summary scores for each subscale were calculated. The Hungarian EAS Temperament Survey for Children - Parental Ratings is presented in Appendix 2.

Missing items from both scales were substituted by the means of the appropriate scale. For the HRS-P-10 the missing item-answers were less than 5%. For the EAS the missing item-answers were less than 15%.

3.3 Ethical statement

The study protocol was designed in accordance with guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Eötvös Loránd University Faculty of Education and Psychology Research Ethics Committee (2018/218).

3.4 Data analysis

Data analyses (descriptive statistics, reliability analysis using Cronbach alpha and item total statistics, confirmatory factor analyses and linear regression) were carried out in SPSS.

3.5 Data availability

The database, the Hungarian Resilience Scale: Parental Version (HRS-P-10) and the Hungarian version of the EAS Temperament Survey for Children (H-EAS for Children) are available at: https://osf.io/sj25p/?view_only=8c24090ba2f54b628fdbc77affe6bddb

4.1 Descriptive statistics

Mean age of the sample was 4.58 years (SD = 1.06), 83 boys and 83 girls participated in the study. Mean score on the total HRS-P-10 was 35.71 (SD = 5.90). Mean scores were 15.00 (SD= 3.50), 18.45 (SD = 3.56), 17.46 (SD = 3.21), 12.15 (SD = 4.70) for the Emotionality, Activity, Sociability and Shyness EAS subscales. There were no significant differences between the mean scores of the kindergarten-aged girls and boys neither in resilience nor in any of the temperament subscales. Table 1 presents the mean scores based on gender and age groups.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the Hungarian Resilience Scale: Parental Version and the EAS Temperament Survey for Children: Parental Ratings by groups.

2-4 years old

5-7 years old

Total sample (N=166)

boys

(N=43)

girls

(N=48)

boys

(N=40)

girls

(N=35)

HRS-P-10

M=36.8 (±5.2)

Range: 25-46

M= 36.1

(±5.2)

Range: 24-48

M= 33.9

(±7.2)

Range: 19-49

M= 35.8

(±5.8)

Range: 22-45

M= 35.7
(±5.9)

Range: 19-49

EAS Emotionality

M= 15.6

(±3.3)

Range: 7-23

M= 14.8

(±3.8)

Range: 8-25

M= 14.5

(±3.7)

Range: 7-24

M= 15.1

(±3.0)

Range: 8-21

M= 14.9
(±3.5)

Range:7-25

EAS Activity

M= 19.3

(±2.9)

Range: 13-25

M=18.0

(±3.3)

Range: 10-24

M=18.1

(±4.3)

Range: 5-25

M= 18.4

(±3.6)

Range: 11-24

M= 18.4
(±3.6)

Range:5-25

EAS Sociability

M= 17.7

(±3.6)

Range: 8-25

M= 17.9

(±2.9)

Range: 12-25

M=17.0

(±3.1)

Range: 10-23

M= 17.1

(±3.1)

Range: 12-24

M= 17.5
(±3.2)

Range:8-25

EAS Shyness

M= 11.3

(±4.3)

Range: 5-22

M= 12.4

(±4.2)

Range: 5-25

M= 11.4

(±5.0)

Range: 5-23

M= 13.8

(±5.2)

Range: 5-23

M= 12.14
(±4.7)

Range:5-25

4.2 Psychometric properties of the EAS subscales and HRS-P-10

Internal consistency was calculated for the Hungarian Resilience Scale: Parental Version (Table 2). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.820. The overall reliability would not change significantly with leaving out any of the items. Internal consistency was also calculated for the EAS Temperament Survey for Children: Parental Ratings (Table 3). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient showed moderately good reliability (α=0.441).

Table 2 Internal consistency of the Hungarian Resilience Scale: Parental Version

Items of the Hungarian* Resilience Scale – Parental Version		Cronbach's alpha if item is deleted	Cronbach's alpha for the scale
REZ01	My child is able to adapt easily tot he changes. Gyermekem könnyen alkalmazkodik a változásokhoz.	.820	.820
REZ02	Coping with stressful situations has a positive effect on my child. Gyermekem a stresszes helyzetek leküzdése pozitív hatással van rá.	.816
REZ03	My child always acts with the greatest effort, no matter what is it. Gyermekem mindig a legnagyobb erőbedobással cselekszik, mindegy, hogy miről van szó.	.814
REZ04	My child does not give up in case of difficulties, Gyermekem amikor nehézséggel találkozik, nem adja fel.	.792
REZ05	My child concentrates in case of difficult task instead of despair. Gyermekem amikor nehéz feladattal találkozik, nem esik kétségbe, hanem koncentrál.	.790
REZ06.	My child is mentally strong. Gyermekem lelkileg erős gyerek.	.790
REZ07	In a new situation my child doesnt wait for instructions, he/she invets himself/herself Gyermekem új szituációkban nem vár instrukciókra, feltalálja magát.	.790
REZ08	My child is very purposeful. Gyermekem nagyon céltudatos.	.790
REZ09	My child has a strong will, almost controls his/her life. Gyermekem határozott akarata van, szinte irányítja az életét.	.811
REZ10	My child is able to spend a longer time with one activity. Gyermekem képes egy tevékenységgel hosszabb időt eltölteni.	.814

* Hungarian version was used in the study, the backward translation to English is also provided in the table

Table 3 Internal consistency of the H-EAS Temperament Survey for Children: Parental Ratings

Items of the Hungarian* EAS Temperament Survey for Children
			Cronbach's alpha if item is deleted	Cronbach's alpha for the subscale
Emotionality (N = 166)	EAS02	Child cries easily A gyermekem könnyen sírva fakad	.545	.640
	EAS06	Child tends to be somewhat emotional A gyermekem néha érzelgős.	.677
	EAS11	Child often fusses and cries A gyermekem gyakran nyugtalan és sír.	.548
	EAS15	Child gets upset easily A gyermekem könnyen mérges lesz.	.581
	EAS19	Child reacts intensely when upset A gyermekem hevesen reagál amikor zaklatott.	.563
Activity (N = 166)	EAS04	Child is always on the go A gyermekemnek folyamatosan mehetnékje van.	.510	.621
	EAS07	When child moves about, he usually moves slowly A gyermekem ha valamibe belekezd, általában lassan indul neki.	.641
	EAS09	Child is off and running as soon as he wakes up in the morning A gyemekem amint felkel, rohan.	.603
	EAS13	Child is very energetic A gyermekem nagyon energikus.	.459
	EAS17	Child prefers quiet, inactive games to more active ones A gyermekem inkább a csendes játékokat preferálja, a hangos, aktív játékokkal szemben.	.609
Sociability (N = 166)	EAS03	Child likes to be with people A gyermekem szeret másokkal lenni.	.419	.543
	EAS05	Child prefers playing with others rather than alone A gyermekem szívesebben játszik másokkal, mint önmagában.	.412
	EAS10	Child finds people more stimulating than anything else A gyermekem az embereket jobban stimulálónak éli meg, mint bármi mást.	.407
	EAS16	Child is something of a loner A gyermekem néha kicsit magának való.	.477
	EAS18	When alone, child feels isolated A gyermekem amikor egyedül van, izoláltnak érzi magát.	.678
Shyness (N = 166)	EAS01	Child tends to be shy A gyermekem félénk.	.831	.838
	EAS08	Child makes friends easily A gyermekem könnyen barátkozik.	.755
	EAS12	Child is very sociable A gyermekem nagyon társas lény.	.815
	EAS14	Child takes a long time to warm up to strangers A gyermekemnek általában sok időbe telik míg másokkal megbarátkozik.	.787
	EAS20	Child is very friendly with strangers A gyermekem nagyon barátságos idegenekkel.	.827

* Hungarian version was used in the study, the backward translation to English is also provided in the table

Confirmatory factor analysis was carried out for the newly developed Hungarian Resilience Scale to test if original one factor structure of the questionnaire (28) for the Hungarian version. All items of the Hungarian Resilience Scale: Parental Version loaded on one factor. The factor loading values were higher than 0.3 in case of all items (values are listed in Table 4). Maximum Likelihood estimation for the one factor model was χ²(35)=161.187, p<0.001.

Table 4 Confirmatory factor analysis based on the Hungarian Resilience Scale: Parental Version

4.3 Correlation analysis of resilience and temperament dimensions

The relationship between the HRS-P-10 and the H-EAS temperament questionnaire was tested (Table 5). According to the correlation analysis the HRS-P-10 total score significantly correlated with the four EAS temperament scales. There was a significantly negative correlation between the total score of HRS-P-10 and two H-EAS temperament scales: Emotionality (-.290**), Shyness (-.441**). Furthermore, the HRS-P-10 correlated positively with Activity (.348**) and Sociability (.319**).

Table 5 Correlation analysis of HRS-P-10 and EAS

4.4 Predicting resilience from demographic data and temperament characteristics

Based on the significant correlations, linear regressions were performed to determine which demographic and temperament characteristics predict an influence on resilience. The analyzed model was found to be significant (F(6, 159) = 11.871, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.309) with EAS Shyness (β = -0.254, t(159) = -2.869, p = 0.005) and Emotionality (β = -0.255, t(159) = 3.656, p = 0.0004) having the highest explained variance for resilience (Table 6).

Table 6 Linear regression for resilience based on demographic data and temperament characteristics as predictors

Predictor	B	t	Sig.	β
(Constant)	37.471	8.196	<.000
Gender	.994	1.232	.220	.084
Age	-.606	-1.650	.101	-.110
Shyness (EAS)	-.319	-2.869	.005	-.254
Emotionality (EAS)	-.430	-3.656	.0004	-.255
Sociability (EAS)	.219	.119	.149	.119
Activity (EAS)	.326	.196	.011	.196

As part of the present study, a parental version of the Hungarian Resilience scale (28) was adapted to assess resilience in kindergarten aged children with modifying the instruction of the questionnaire to suit the purpose of parental instead of self report. The single-factor structure was confirmed using the Hungarian Resilience Scale: Parental Version (HRS-P-10). We translated the EAS Temperament Survey for Children (32) and confirmed sufficient reliability validity of all four subscales. Our results compare well to a previous Hungarian version (37) of the EAS Temperament Survey for Children, however this study have used a 7-14 years old clinical sample (children with major depressive disorder).

Interestingly, the widely accepted emotionality, activity, sociability dimensions as measured by EAS have not been investigated with relation to resilience. We tested the correlation of the four temperament scales and the HRS-P-10 total score. Resilience correlated positively with the Sociability and Activity subscales and negatively with the Shyness and Emotionality subscales.

There was one study by Mathiesen and Prior (39) investigating resilience process form infancy to school age focusing on the impact of temperament and family functioning. In this study they used the EAS Temperament Survey for Children: Parental Ratings, however they did not administer resilience scales, instead they assigned “Resilient” and Vulnerable” group status according to the children’s social competence (positive child outcome) and problem behavior (negative child outcome). Similarly to our findings, they found that higher social competence predicted lower emotionality, while behavioral problems predicted high emotionality.

Some further studies are also available exploring the possible protective role of specific temperament dimensions in resilience of kindergarten-aged children, although with different measurement tools. For example, Oades-Sese and Esquivel (40) was the first study examining factors of resilience in economically disadvantaged Hispanic American preschool children. They examined temperament factors like inhibition, negative emotionality and activity level using rating scales completed by teachers. In concordance with our findings of negative correlation between EAS emotionality and resilience, their results showed that highly resilient preschoolers have the lowest mean score on the inhibition and negative emotionality. Another study (41) investigated the role of temperament in relation to children’s vulnerable or resilient responses to cumulative risk factors (e.g. single parent status, negative life events etc.). Their findings have shown that high frustration, low fear, and low delay ability confer particular vulnerability for children in high-risk contexts. In conclusion, there studies focusing on the relationship between temperament traits and resilience seems to confirm that personality traits related to negative emotions or stress are in association with low resilience.

We also carried out regression analysis to investigate the role of demographic factors (gender, age) and temperament characteristics using EAS subscales (Emotionality, Activity, Sociability, Shyness) on resilience. A significant regression equation was found with an R square change of 0.309. According to the linear regression results it can be concluded that demographic data and the four temperament scales explained over 30% of the variance in resilience.

The literature of resilience highlights the importance of studying resilience not only in the adulthood but also at early childhood. There can be several challenging life events, like traumatic experiences, neglect, pandemics or natural disasters (4, 6) which affect children as well, and they need to adapt successfully. According to a current review it is possible to improve protective factors of young children in order to help them adapt successfully (17). This review article summarizes the resilience literature form the 1950s to the 2000s and focused - among others – to the definitions, protective factors and resilience-based interventions. It highlights that resilience-based interventions have 3 important levels: individual-level intervention, family-level intervention and social environment intervention. Although most of these interventions were worked out to the adolescents.

5.1 Strengths, limitations, and future research

Our study has some limitations. One is the convenience nature of the sample, which decreases the generalizability of the results. It should be noted that the sample size is relatively small to test age and gender differences. Replication studies preferably on representative samples are needed to confirm the factor structure and validity of the Hungarian Resilience Scale: Parental Version (HRS-P-10). Furthermore, we targeted a very specific age group, thus generalizations should be handled with caution, and further studies are needed to confirm the reliability of the Hungarian Resilience Scale: Parental Version on younger and older children as well. Another interesting direction for future research would be to compare ratings of parents and kindergarten caretakers of the same children.

Our future goal is to explore the possible relationship between resilience and further objective psychological constructs measures such as electrodermal activity, and novel objective methods investigating kindergarten-aged children’s free play behavior in an unintrusive, objective manner.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Availability of data and materials

Competing interest:

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

This work was supported by the Loránd Eötvös Research Network (project number: LP-2018-21/2018). Eszter Kotyuk was supported by the Bolyai János research fellowship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences BO/00099/21.

Author’s Contribution:

Study concept and design was defined by BG, EK. Methodological details were defined by BG, EK. Data collection was organized and carried out by BG. BG, HS, EK carried out the analysis and interpreted the data. The study and the preparation of the manuscript was supervised by EK.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the effort of all participants of the study and thank contribution of the participating kindergartens at XXII. Kerületi Egyesített Óvoda. We also thank support of the Faculty of Education and Psychology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University.

Masten AS. Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. Am Psychol. 2001;56(3):227.
Southwick SM, Bonanno GA, Masten AS, Panter-Brick C, Yehuda R. Resilience definitions, theory, and challenges: interdisciplinary perspectives. Eur J psychotraumatology. 2014;5. 10.3402/ejpt.v5.25338. PubMed PMID: 25317257. eng.
Pietrzak RH, Southwick SM. Psychological resilience in OEF-OIF Veterans: application of a novel classification approach and examination of demographic and psychosocial correlates. J Affect Disord. 2011 Oct;133(3):560–8. PubMed PMID: 21624683. Epub 2011/06/01. eng.
Masten AS. Global perspectives on resilience in children and youth. Child Dev. 2014;85(1):6–20.
Szokolszky Á, Palatinus K, Palatinus Z. A reziliencia mint a komplex dinamikus fejlődési rendszerek sajátossága. Alkalmazott Pszichológia. 2015;17(1):43–60.
Masten AS, Barnes AJ. Resilience in children: Developmental perspectives. Children. 2018;5(7):98.
Masten AS, Monn AR. Child and family resilience: A call for integrated science, practice, and professional training. Fam Relat. 2015;64(1):5–21.
Naglieri JA, LeBuffe PA, Ross KM. Measuring resilience in children: From theory to practice. Boston, MA: Springer; 2013.
Oshio A, Taku K, Hirano M, Saeed G. Resilience and Big Five personality traits: A meta-analysis. Pers Individ Dif. 2018;127:54–60.
Wagnild GM, Young HM. Development and psychometric. J Nurs Meas. 1993;1(2):165–7847.
Oshio A, Kaneko H, Nagamine S, Nakaya M. Construct validity of the adolescent resilience scale. Psychol Rep. 2003;93(3suppl):1217–22.
Eley DS, Cloninger CR, Walters L, Laurence C, Synnott R, Wilkinson D. The relationship between resilience and personality traits in doctors: implications for enhancing well being.PeerJ. 2013;1:e216. PubMed PMID: 24282675. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC3840414. Epub 2013/11/28. eng.
Kim JW, Lee HK, Lee K. Influence of temperament and character on resilience. Compr Psychiatry. 2013 Oct;54(7):1105–10. PubMed PMID: 23731898. Epub 2013/06/05. eng.
Simeon D, Yehuda R, Cunill R, Knutelska M, Putnam FW, Smith LM. Factors associated with resilience in healthy adults.Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2007 Sep-Nov;32(8–10):1149–52. PubMed PMID: 17913377. Epub 2007/10/05. eng.
Condly SJ. Resilience in Children: A Review of Literature With Implications for Education. Urban Educ. 2006;41:211–36.
Shiner RL, Masten AS. Childhood personality as a harbinger of competence and resilience in adulthood. Dev Psychopathol. 2012;24:507–28.
Zolkoski SM, Bullock LM. Resilience in children and youth: A review. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2012;34(12):2295–303.
Windle G, Bennett KM, Noyes J. A methodological review of resilience measurement scales. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011;2011/02(04):8.
Connor KM, Davidson JR. Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD‐RISC). Depress Anxiety. 2003;18(2):76–82.
Campbell-Sills L, Stein MB. Psychometric analysis and refinement of the Connor-davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): Validation of a 10-item measure of resilience. J Trauma Stress. 2007 Dec;20(6):1019–28. PubMed PMID: 18157881. Epub 2007/12/25. eng.
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 Jan28;14:16. PubMed PMID: 26821587. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC4730639. Epub 2016/01/30. eng.
López-Pina J-A, Meseguer-Henarejos A-B, Gascón-Cánovas J-J, Navarro-Villalba D-J, Sinclair VG, Wallston KA. Measurement properties of the brief resilient coping scale in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus using rasch analysis.Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2016 2016/09/13;14(1):128.
Notario-Pacheco B, Martínez-Vizcaíno V, Trillo-Calvo E, Pérez-Yus MC, Serrano-Parra D, García-Campayo J. Validity and reliability of the Spanish version of the 10-item CD-RISC in patients with fibromyalgia. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12(1):14. 2014/02/01.
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 Aug 5;9:63. PubMed PMID: 21819555. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC3173284. Epub 2011/08/09. eng.
González VBA, Sierra MTC, Martínez BA, 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 Sep 23;13:154. PubMed PMID: 26395870. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC4580216. Epub 2015/09/24. eng.
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 Sep 23;13:154. PubMed PMID: 26395870. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC4580216. Epub 2015/09/24. eng.
Kocalevent R-D, Zenger M, Hinz A, Klapp B, Brähler E. Resilient coping in the general population: standardization of the brief resilient coping scale (BRCS).Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2017 2017/12/28;15(1):251.
Járai R, Vajda D, Hargitai R, Nagy L, Csókási K, Kiss E. A Connor–Davidson Reziliencia Kérdőív 10 itemes változatának jellemzői. Alkalmazott Pszichológia. 2015;15(1):129–36.
LeBuffe PA, Naglieri JA. Devereux Early Childhood Assessment (DECA) assessment, technical manual, and user’s guide. Lewisville, NC: Kaplan; 1999.
Goldsmith HH, Buss AH, Plomin R, Rothbart MK, Thomas A, Chess S et al. Roundtable: What is temperament? Four approaches.Child Dev. 1987:505–29.
Shiner RL, Buss KA, McClowry SG, Putnam SP, Saudino KJ, Zentner M. What Is Temperament Now? Assessing Progress in Temperament Research on the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of Goldsmith. () Child Development Perspectives. 2012;6(4):436–44.
Buss AH, Plomin R. Heredity and the EAS Temperaments. Temperament: Early developing personality traits. New York, NY: Psychology Press; 1984. pp. 84–104.
Buss AH, Plomin R. A temperament theory of personality development. Wiley-Interscience; 1975.
Bould H, Joinson C, Sterne J, Araya R. The Emotionality Activity Sociability Temperament Survey: Factor analysis and temporal stability in a longitudinal cohort. Pers Individ Dif. 2013;54:628–33.
Boer F, Westenberg PM. The factor structure of the Buss and Plomin EAS Temperament Survey (parental ratings) in a Dutch sample of elementary school children. J Pers Assess. 1994 Jun;62(3):537–51. PubMed PMID: 8027916. Epub 1994/06/01. eng.
Mathiesen KS, Tambs K. The EAS Temperament Questionnaire—factor structure, age trends, reliability, and stability in a Norwegian sample. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1999;40:431–9.
Tamás Z, Kovacs M, Gentzler AL, Tepper P, Gádoros J, Kiss E et al. The relations of temperament and emotion self-regulation with suicidal behaviors in a clinical sample of depressed children in Hungary.J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2007Aug;35(4):640–52. PubMed PMID: 17530394. Epub 2007/05/29. eng.
Koller M, Kantzer V, Mear I, Zarzar K, Martin M, Greimel E, et al. The process of reconciliation: evaluation of guidelines for translating quality-of-life questionnaires. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2012;12(2):189–97.
Mathiesen KS, Prior M. The impact of temperament factors and family functioning on resilience processes from infancy to school age. Eur J Dev Psychol. 2006;3(4):357–87.
Oades-Sese G, Esquivel V. Resilience among At-Risk Hispanic American Preschool Children. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006;1094(1):335–9.
Moran L, Lengua LJ, Zalewski M, Ruberry E, Klein M, Thompson S et al. Variable- and person-centered approaches to examining temperament vulnerability and resilience to the effects of contextual risk.Journal of Research in Personality. 2017 2017/04/01/;67:61–74.

No competing interests reported.

Appendix1and2.docx

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Temperament factors predict resilience in a non-clinical kindergarten population

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

1 Background

1.1 Resilience: a remarkable gift we all possess

1.2 What is the key to resilience?

1.3 Measuring resilience

1.4 Temperament and resilience

1.5 Summary and implications for the present research

2 Goals And Hypothesis

3 Methods

3.1 Participants and procedure

3.2 Measures

3.3 Ethical statement

3.4 Data analysis

3.5 Data availability

4 Results

4.1 Descriptive statistics

4.2 Psychometric properties of the EAS subscales and HRS-P-10

4.3 Correlation analysis of resilience and temperament dimensions

4.4 Predicting resilience from demographic data and temperament characteristics

5 Discussion

5.1 Strengths, limitations, and future research

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1