Assessing resiliency in Canadians experiencing social vulnerability: Psychometric properties of the CUPS Resiliency Interview Schedule and Resiliency Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deficit models of care for clients experiencing social vulnerability have become increasingly unsustainable; and there is a shift towards models of care that promote and protect resiliency for lifelong health. We defined clients as socially vulnerable if they were living with poverty, mental health problems and addictions, disability, and social isolation. Scales to measure outcomes of resiliency-focused programming have limited reliability and have not been validated with vulnerable populations. The aim of this study was to develop and conduct preliminary psychometric assessment of two measures: CUPS (formerly Calgary Urban Project Society) Resiliency Interview Schedule (RIS) and Resiliency Questionnaire (RQ) for adults experiencing social vulnerability. To engage clients who were seeking integrated services at a social services agency, we developed the RIS and accessed data collected between April 2017 and December 2018. In a structured intake interview, the client and staff prioritised goals and identified resiliency in three domains: (a) economic, (b) social-emotional, and (c) health. On average, clients (N = 545) who completed the CUPS-RIS were 45.9 years old (SD = 12.62). For the CUPS-RIS, Cronbach's alphas at intake and outcome assessments were 0.80. Exploratory factor analysis demonstrated a four-factor solution with two unexpected results: executive functioning/self-regulation loaded with mental and physical health, and client education failed to load on any factor. We found significant improvements between client intake and outcome measurement points on eight of 12 sub-domains. As a brief self-report measure of resiliency, we developed the CUPS-RQ and accessed data collected between November 2018 and May 2019. Clients (N = 29) who completed the CUPS-RQ concurrently with the Resilience Research Centre-Adult Resilience Measure (RRC-ARM) were, on average, 42.46 years old (SD = 12.87). The CUPS-RQ was correlated with RRC-ARM, r = 0.819. In preliminary psychometric assessment, the CUPS-RIS and CUPS-RQ demonstrated satisfactory reliability and validity and show promise as measures of resiliency for agencies serving clients experiencing social vulnerability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".