Reliability and validity of the RS14 in orphaned and separated adolescents and youths in western Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The 14-item Resilience Scale (RS14) is a tool designed to measure psychological resilience. It has been used effectively in diverse populations. However, its applicability is largely unknown for Sub-Saharan adolescent populations and completely unknown for orphaned and separated adolescents and youths (OSAY), a highly vulnerable population for whom resilience may be critical. This study assesses the RS14's psychometric properties for OSAY in Uasin Gishu County, Kenya. METHODS: Survey responses from a representative sample of 1016 OSAY (51.3% female) aged 10-25 (mean = 16; SD = 3.5) living in institutional and home-based environments in Uasin Gishu County were analyzed. The RS14's psychometric properties were assessed by examining internal consistency reliability, confirmatory factor analyses, and convergent validity using correlations between resilience and each of social support and depression. Sub-analyses were conducted by age and sex. RESULTS: Resilience scores ranged from 14-98 (mean = 66; SD = 19) with no sex-based significant difference. Resilience was higher for those aged ≥18 (mean = 69; range = 14-98) versus age <18 (mean = 65; range = 14-98). Internal consistency was good (Cronbach's α = .90). Confirmatory factor analysis indicated a 1-factor solution, though the model fit was only moderate. Resilience was positively correlated with social support in all ages (.22; p < .001) and negatively correlated with depression in individuals age <18 (-.22; p < .001). The relationship between resilience and depression in individuals age ≥18 was statistically significant only in females (-.17; p = .026). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates reasonable evidence that the RS14 is both valid and reliable for measuring psychological resilience in the population of OSAY in western Kenya.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".