Examining the Validity of the Brief Resilience Scale in Canadian Undergraduate Students: Resilience as a Modifier of the Association Between Stressors and Mental Health Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the psychometric properties and factor structure of the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) among a cohort of first-year Canadian undergraduate students. A total of 2709 undergraduate students completed baseline surveys in fall 2021/2022; of these, 856 students completed follow-up surveys in spring 2022/2023. At baseline, most students identified as female (72.7%), White (60.3%) and Canadian (93.8%). The internal consistency and convergent and predictive validity of the BRS were explored and confirmatory factor analysis of three models was conducted. Multiple regression was used to examine if BRS scores modified the effect of stressors on depression and anxiety. In this cohort, the BRS had good internal consistency (α = 0.85) and a 2-factor structure based on positively and negatively worded items had the best fit. While higher BRS scores appeared to modify the negative effect of perceived stress on baseline depression and anxiety, there was insufficient evidence that BRS scores modified the effects of adverse childhood events on baseline anxiety scores. While the BRS is valid in this population, it may not fully capture student understanding of resilience.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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".