Canadian Journal of School Psychology

http://cjs.sagepub.com Translating Resiliency Theory for Assessment and Application in Schools

Sandra Prince-Embury Canadian Journal of School Psychology 2008; 23; 4 DOI: 10.1177/0829573508316560 The online version of this article can be found at: http://cjs.sagepub.com

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Canadian Association of School Psychologists

Additional services and information for Canadian Journal of School Psychology can be found at: Email Alerts: http://cjs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://cjs.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations (this article cites 33 articles hosted on the SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): http://cjs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/23/1/4

Downloaded from http://cjs.sagepub.com by iulia gavris on October 3, 2008

Introduction

Translating Resiliency Theory for Assessment and Application in Schools

Canadian Journal of School Psychology Volume 23 Number 1 June 2008 4-10 2008 Sage Publications 10.1177/0829573508316560 http://cjsp.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

esiliency, or the ability to bounce back in the face of adversity, has been a topic of investigation by developmental theorists for the past 50 years. Earlier researchers started by noticing that some youth managed to survive exposure to adversity, whereas others developed psychopathology. The field has gone through many rich phases of discovery, identifying aspects of both child and environment that appeared to serve as protective or mitigating variables to the impact of adversity. Several outstanding researchers and theorists have attempted to integrate the many research findings and their implications for practical application. Below is a brief mention of some of these researchers and theorists. Much of previous resilience research has examined the interaction of protective factors and risk in high-risk populations. The focus of this work has been the identification of factors that were present in the lives of those who thrived in the face of adversity as compared to those who did not (Garmezy, Masten, & Tellegen, 1984; Luthar, 1991, 2003; Masten, 2001; Rutter, Harrington, & Quinton, 1994; Werner & Smith, 1982, 1992, 2001). Protective factors identified in previous research include personal qualities of the child that may have allowed him or her to cope with various types of adversity. Personal qualities identified include intellectual ability (Baldwin et al., 1993; Brooks, 1994; Jacelon, 1997; Luthar & Zigler, 1991, 1992; Masten, Burt, & Coatsworth, 2006; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; Rutter, 1987; Wolff, 1995; Wright & Masten, 1997), easy temperament (Jacelon, 1997; Luthar & Zigler, 1991; Rende & Plomin, 1993; Werner & Smith, 1982; Wright & Masten, 1997; Wyman, Cowen, Work, & Parker, 1991), autonomy (Jacelon, 1997; Werner & Smith, 1982), self-reliance (Polk, 1997), sociability (Brooks, 1994; Luthar & Zigler, 1991), effective coping strategies (Brooks, 1994; Luthar & Zigler, 1991), and communication skills (Werner & Smith, 1982). Another group of protective factors identified in previous research pertains to the childs social environment, including family. Included in this group of factors are family warmth, cohesion, structure, emotional support, positive styles of attachment, and close bond with at least one caregiver (Baldwin et al., 1993; Brooks, 1994; Garmezy, 1991; Gribble et al., 1993; Luthar & Zelazo, 2003; Luthar & Zigler, 1991; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; Rutter, 1987; Werner & Smith, 1982; Wolff, 1995; Wright & Masten, 1997; Wyman, Cowen, Work, & Kerley, 1993; Wyman et al., 1991). Environmental protective factors outside the immediate family have been identified and include positive school experiences (Brooks, 1994; Rutter, 1987; Werner & Smith, 1982; Wright & Masten, 1997), good peer relations (Cowen & Work, 1988;
4
Downloaded from http://cjs.sagepub.com by iulia gavris on October 3, 2008

Prince-Embury / Translating Resiliency Theory 5

Jacelon, 1997; Werner & Smith, 1982; Wright & Masten, 1997), and positive relationships with other adults (Brooks, 1994; Conrad & Hammen, 1993; Garmezy, 1991; Werner, 1997; Wright & Masten, 1997). For an extensive review of research and findings pertaining to resilience, see Luthar (2003) and Luthar, Cicchetti, and Becker (2000). More recently, there has been a theoretical shift that questions the implication that resiliency is extraordinary. Resiliency has been identified as a characteristic of normal development and not applicable in adverse circumstances only (Masten, 2001; Masten & Powell, 2003). Masten suggested that fundamental systems, already identified as characteristic of human functioning, have great adaptive significance across diverse stressors and threatening situations. She recommended that these systems would include individual attributes, such as attachment, defined as systems underlying close relationships in development; mastery motivation, defined as pleasure from mastering developmental tasks and self-efficacy systems; self-regulation, defined as emotional and behavioral regulation and impulse control; and cognitive development and learning related to the neurobehavioral and information systems. The richness and complexity of this body of research have made the bridge from research and theory to practical application somewhat difficult to cross. Resilience has come to be defined as a complex interaction between the person and his or her environment that is highly contextual in nature. The list of protective or mitigating factors is long, and the interactive effects are in some cases complex. More recent studies have taken a contextual or case-by-case approach, which identifies salient variables within specific sets of circumstances. In many instances, those who work closely with children may not have the time to fully explore the rich literature on resiliency to translate the findings into practical applications. School psychologists are in a unique position to apply resiliency theory and methods for the benefit of children and adolescents. Access to and knowledge of the daily lives of children allow for the observation and assessment of personal resiliency and vulnerability in youth for the purpose of targeted preventive intervention. This issue presents compatible conceptual frameworks and methods for assessing and applying aspects of resiliency that are well grounded in previous research and theory and applicable at different levels of intervention. The first section of this issue addresses the construction of an instrument for assessing personal resiliency, and the second section presents three practical applications of this instrument. The Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents (RSCA; Prince-Embury, 2006, 2007) is an assessment tool designed to tap three constructs underlying personal resiliency. The selection of the three constructs of sense of mastery, sense of relatedness, and emotional reactivity was based on a comprehensive review of the literature on personal resiliency, the clinical experiences of the author, and previous research by the author and colleagues relating to psychological response in the face of technological disaster (Prince-Embury, 1992; Prince-Embury & Rooney, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1995).

Downloaded from http://cjs.sagepub.com by iulia gavris on October 3, 2008

6 Canadian Journal of School Psychology

The first article of section one describes confirmation of the three-factor structure of the RSCA (Prince-Embury & Courville, 2008a). The importance of this analysis is to provide support for the theory-based construction of the RSCA and support for the use of the three-pronged Resiliency Profile produced using this instrument. The second article in this section examines measurement invariance of the three-factor structure of the RSCA across gender and age band (Prince-Embury & Courville, 2008b). The importance of this analysis is confirming that the RSCA may be used as currently constructed across gender and across age band. The second section of this issue includes three articles using the RSCA to address three life circumstances for which personal resiliency is relevant. The first article in this section examines associations between RSCA scale scores and presence of psychological symptoms in a normative sample (Prince-Embury, 2008). This article also examines use of RSCA scale and index scores in accurately classifying clinical status of adolescents. Implications for mental health screening and prevention are discussed. The second article in this section, by Nelson (2008), describes the use of the RSCA in profiling a group of adolescent evacuees in the aftermath of the Katrina disaster. This article suggests that a preintervention resiliency profile may provide a benchmark against which the impact of various interventions may be gauged. Hypothetically, a postdisaster resiliency profile may have suggested the impact of the disaster had predisaster profiles on these youth been available. The third article in this section, by Montgomery et al. (2008), examines multiple aspects of emotional intelligence as they relate to measures of resiliency for a special population of teens diagnosed with Aspergers disorder. Findings suggest that ability-based emotional IQ was relatively intact, whereas implementation of this knowledge in trait-based emotional IQ was not. RSCA emotional reactivity was negatively related to traitbased emotional IQ, particularly ability to manage stress. Ability to manage stress in turn was associated with personal adjustment, interpersonal relations, and selfesteem for this group. Implications for intervention are discussed. The third section of this issue presents two models of educational consultation that apply principles of resiliency and a discussion by Weiss (2008), whose expertise spans issues of test development and school psychology. In the first article, Nickolite and Doll (2008) propose a population-based approach to fostering resiliency in the school environment that is consistent with the ecological model of development proposed by Bronfrenbrenner (2005). Their article describes the underpinnings of the ClassMaps Consultation method developed by Doll, Zucker, and Brehm (2004) and a case study applying this method. Implications are drawn for interventions that reduce the psychosocial risk and strengthen the protective factors that classrooms may provide. Assessment is based on the ClassMaps Survey, an anonymous, student-completed measure that assesses six characteristics of effective classrooms through aggregated student responses across an entire classroom. The purpose of this model is to inform consultation with teachers regarding relative strengths in the ecology of their classrooms and areas to target for preventive intervention.

Downloaded from http://cjs.sagepub.com by iulia gavris on October 3, 2008

Prince-Embury / Translating Resiliency Theory 7

Although Nickolite and Dolls work represents an important shift from a focus on the individual to a focus on the school environment, there are important conceptual links between the ClassMaps Consultation model and the developmental constructs underlying the RSCA. Student expectations of self-efficacy and self-determination within a classroom are conceptually related to more general personal expectations of mastery and self-efficacy in the students. The underlying assumption here is that expectations of success are context specific and that by systematically modifying the classroom environment, these expectations can be raised for the purpose of enhanced learning. The importance of caring, authentic relationships between students and teachers and supportive and rewarding friendships with peers within the classroom is consistent with the general developmental importance of a sense of relatedness experienced by the individual child. Nickolite and Doll imply that sense of relatedness is to some extent context specific and may be modified for the purpose of increased learning within the classroom. Similarly, Nickolite and Doll imply that appropriate and self-controlled student behavior, which may reflect relative emotional reactivity experienced by individual children, is context specific and may be modified using the ClassMaps approach. The second article in this section, by Brooks and Goldstein (2008), reflects a consultation model that focuses on teaching teachers to have mind-sets capable of influencing the resiliency of their students. The underlying assumptions of the Brooks and Goldstein model are consistent with developmental constructs underlying the RSCA and the ClassMaps models. One assumption of these authors is that the resiliency of students is related to their expectations of personal success or efficacy. A second assumption is that these expectations of success may be modified within the context of relationships with significant others such as parents and teachers. The third assumption is that the mind-set of significant adults in the lives of children influences their behavior toward these children, which in turn may influence the personal expectations of these children. For example, if a teacher does not expect success for a student, these negative expectations may be transmitted to the student, who in turn will not anticipate success for himself or herself. Brooks and Goldstein recommend the identification of islands of competence for individual children as a way of recognizing and fostering expectations of success. Brooks and Goldstein suggest that teachers may not be aware of the significance of their relationships with their students. Suggestions for consultation include posing the question of whether developing positive relationships with their students enhances or detracts from teaching academic material. These authors also cite research findings regarding the significance of charismatic adults in the lives of resilient children as relevant to the potential positive influence of teachers. Brooks and Goldstein suggest that the desired impact is increased generalized expectations for success, which is potentially mediated by individual teachers who transmit an expectation of success for individual students in their classrooms.

Downloaded from http://cjs.sagepub.com by iulia gavris on October 3, 2008

8 Canadian Journal of School Psychology

In summary, this issue provides three frameworks for school psychologists to understand personal resiliency: a three-factor personal attribute model, a classroom ecological model, and a teacherstudent interactional model. Methods for assessment at the individual and classroom levels are provided, and applications of these principles through consultation are suggested. A three-factor model of personal resiliency discussed by Prince-Embury and Courville (2008a) supports the growing realization that sense of relationship in school and the ability to control emotional reactivity are distinctly significant and are related to mastery and achievement within the school setting. Access to the school environment allows for the creation and maintenance of resilient classrooms as described by Nickolite and Doll (2008). Access to teachers allows for training teachers to enhance resilient mind-sets in their students, as suggested by Brooks and Goldstein. One important implication here is that critical developmental constructs may be assessed at both the level of individual personal attributes and at an aggregate situational level. A second important implication is that systems or ecological models can employ assessments of and interventions targeted at related underlying core constructs operating at different levels of complexity. The level of assessment would be determined by the end goal. It is in the spirit of collaboration that we present this issue as a tool kit for school psychologists to use in enhancing the resiliency of children and adolescents and teachers in the school environment. Sandra Prince-Embury Resiliency Institute of Allenhurst LLC

References
Baldwin, A. L., Baldwin, C. P., Kasser, T., Zax, M., Sameroff, A., & Seifer, R. (1993). Contextual risk and resiliency during late adolescence. Development & Psychopathology, 5(4), 741-761. Bronfrenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Biological perspective on human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brooks, R. B. (1994). Children at risk: Fostering resilience and hope. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 64(4), 545-553. Brooks, R., & Goldstein, S. (2008). The mindset of teachers capable of fostering resilience in students. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 23(1), 114-126. Conrad, M., & Hammen, C. (1993). Protective and resource factors in high- and low-risk children: A comparison of children with unipolar, bipolar, medically ill and normal mothers. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 593-607. Cowen, E. L., & Work, W. C. (1988). Resilient children, psychological wellness, and primary prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 591-607. Doll, B., Zucker, S., & Brehm, K. (2004). Resilient classrooms: Creating healthy environments for learning. New York: Guilford . Garmezy, N. (1991). Resiliency and vulnerability to adverse developmental outcomes associated with poverty. American Behavioral Scientist, 34(4), 416-430.

Downloaded from http://cjs.sagepub.com by iulia gavris on October 3, 2008

Prince-Embury / Translating Resiliency Theory 9

Garmezy, N., Masten, A. S., & Tellegen, A. (1984). The study of stress and competence in children: A building block for developmental psychopathology. Child Development, 55, 97-111. Jacelon, C. S. (1997). The trait and process of resilience. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25, 123-129. Luthar, S. S. (1991). Vulnerability and resilience: A study of high-risk adolescents. Child Development, 62, 600-616. Luthar, S. S. (2003). Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D. C., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71, 543-562. Luthar, S. S., & Zelazo, L. B. (2003). Research on resilience: An integrative review. In S. S. Luthar (Ed.), Resillience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities (pp. 510-549). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Luthar, S. S., & Zigler, E. (1991). Vulnerability and competence: A review of the research on resilience in childhood. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61, 6-22. Luthar, S. S., & Zigler, E. (1992). Intelligence and social competence among high-risk adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 4, 287-299. Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56, 227-238. Masten, A. S., Burt, K., & Coatsworth, J. D. (2006). Competence and psychopathology in development. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology (2nd ed., pp. 696-738). New York: John Wiley. Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environments: Lessons from research on successful children. American Psychologist, 53(2), 205-220. Masten, A. S., & Powell, J. L. (2003). A resilience framework for research, policy, and practice. In S. S. Luthar (Ed.), Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities (pp. 1-25). New York: Cambridge University Press. Montgomery, J. M., Schwean, V. L., Burt, J. G., Dyke, D. I., Thorne, K. J., Hindes, Y. L., et al. (2008). Emotional intelligence and resiliency in young adults with Aspergers disorder: Challenges and opportunities. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 23(1), 70-93. Nelson, L. P. (2008). A resiliency profile of Hurricane Katrina adolescents: A psychosocial study of disaster. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 23(1), 57-69. Nickolite, A., & Doll, B. (2008). Resilience applied in school: Strengthening classroom environments for learning. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 23(1), 94-113. Polk, L. V. (1997). Toward a middle-range theory of resilience. Advances in Nursing Science, 19, 1-13. Prince-Embury, S. (1992). Psychological symptoms as related to cognitive appraisals and demographic differences among information seekers in the aftermath of technological disaster at Three Mile Island. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(1), 34-58. Prince-Embury, S. (2006). Resiliency Scales for Adolescents: Profiles of personal strengths. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessments. Prince-Embury, S. (2007). Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents: Profiles of personal strengths. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessments. Prince-Embury, S. (2008). The Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents, psychological symptoms, and clinical status in adolescents. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 23(1), 41-56. Prince-Embury, S., & Courville, T. (2008a). Comparison of one-, two-, and three-factor models of personal resiliency using the resiliency scales for children and adolescents. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 23(1), 11-25. Prince-Embury, S., & Courville, T. (2008b). Measurement invariance of the Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents with respect to sex and age cohorts. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 23(1), 26-40.

Downloaded from http://cjs.sagepub.com by iulia gavris on October 3, 2008

10 Canadian Journal of School Psychology

Prince-Embury, S., & Rooney, J. F. (1987). Perception of control and loss of faith in experts among residents in the vicinity of Three Mile Island. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 11. Prince-Embury, S., & Rooney, J. F. (1988). Psychological symptoms of residents in the aftermath of the Three Mile Island nuclear accident. Journal of Social Psychology, 128(6), 779-790. Prince-Embury, S., & Rooney, J. F. (1989). A comparison of residents who moved versus those who remained prior to restart of Three Mile Island. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 11. Prince-Embury, S., & Rooney, J. F. (1995). Psychological adaptation of residents following restart of Three Mile Island. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 8(1), 47-58. Rende, R., & Plomin, R. (1993). Families at risk for psychopathology: Who becomes affected and why? Development and Psychopathology, 5, 529-540. Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316-331. Rutter, M., Harrington, R., & Quinton, D. (1994). Adult outcome of conduct disorder in childhood. In R. D. Ketterlinus & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Adolescent problem behaviors: Issues and research (pp. 57-80). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Weiss, L. (2008). Toward the mastery of resiliency. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 23(1), 127-137. Werner, E. E. (1997). Vulnerable but invincible: High-risk children from birth to adulthood. Acta Paediatrica, 422(Suppl.), 103-105. Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A longitudinal study of resilient children and youth. New York: McGraw-Hill. Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children from birth to adulthood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (2001). Journeys from childhood to midlife: Risk, resilience, and recovery. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Wolff, S. (1995). The concept of resilience. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 29, 565-574. Wright, M. O., & Masten, A. S. (1997). Vulnerability and resilience in young children. In J. D. Noshpitz (Series Ed.) & S. Greenspan, S. Weider, & J. Osofsky (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child and adolescent psychiatry: Vol. 1. Infants and preschoolers: Development and syndromes (pp. 202-224). New York: John Wiley. Wyman, P. A., Cowen, E. L., Work, W. C., & Kerley, J. H. (1993). The role of childrens future expectations in self-esteem functioning and adjustment to life stress: A prospective study of urban at-risk children. Development and Psychopathology, 5(4), 649-661. Wyman, P. A., Cowen, E. L., Work, W. C., & Parker, G. R. (1991). Developmental and family milieu correlates of resilience in urban children who have experienced major life stress. American Journal of Community Psychology, 19(3), 405-426.

Downloaded from http://cjs.sagepub.com by iulia gavris on October 3, 2008