629971

research-article2016
JAPXXX10.1177/1078390316629971Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses AssociationAloba et al.

Research Paper
Journal of the American Psychiatric

The 10-Item Connor–Davidson

Nurses Association
2016, Vol. 22(1) 43­–51
© The Author(s) 2016
Resilience Scale: Factorial Structure, Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Reliability, Validity, and Correlates DOI: 10.1177/1078390316629971

jap.sagepub.com

Among Student Nurses in Southwestern

Nigeria

Olutayo Aloba1, Oluseyi Olabisi2, and Tolulope Aloba3

Abstract
BACKGROUND: The 10-item Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) has demonstrated satisfactory
psychometric properties as a measure of resilience in all the previous studies conducted in developed countries.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to explore the psychometric characteristics of the 10-item CD-RISC
among students nurses in southwestern Nigeria. DESIGN: This descriptive cross-sectional study involved a total
of 449 student nurses who completed the 10-item CD-RISC in addition to measures of self-esteem, depression,
religiosity, and psychological distress. RESULTS: The scale demonstrated adequate reliability (Cronbach’s α =
.81) and satisfactory validity with significant correlations with the measures of self-esteem, depression, religiosity,
and psychological distress. Factor analyses revealed that resilience was best explained by a two-factor construct.
CONCLUSIONS: The scale is a valid measure of resilience among Nigerian student nurses.

Keywords
10-item Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale, CD-RISC, Nigerian student nurses, reliability, validity, factor analysis

Background circumstances (Luther, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000) and is

Students undergoing training in nursing are not immune
to the complex and difficult challenges associated with
medical education (Mehta, Robinson, & Hillegrass, 2008;
Norman, Beurhaus, Donelan, McCloskey, & Dittus,
2005). The ability to achieve an equilibrium regarding
their educational programs, home, and broader social life
can be quite demanding (Andrew, McGuiness, Reid, &
Corcoran, 2009). Certain stressors that are rather unique
to nursing education such as loss of a patient being cared
for, risk of contact with bodily fluids, and fear of clinical
proceedings have been described in relation to nursing
education students (Higginson, 2006). One factor that has
been recognized as protective and that improves the
adaptation and management of stress and thus enhances
student nurses’ academic performance and ability to cope
is resilience (Pines et al., 2012). Resilience has theoreti-
cally been described as an aggregation of individual attri-
butes that determines the ability to cope with demanding
life circumstances (Kaplan, 1999). Resilience has also
been defined as the process through which individuals
exhibit beneficial or favorable adaptive abilities despite
been confronted with significant adversity or traumatic
a reliable reflection of the capability to withstand stress
(Connor, 2006). Another widely accepted definition of
resilience is the ability to adequately adapt to and with-
stand adverse or stressful circumstances through the
application of certain resources (Windle, 2011). Previous
studies have suggested that individual resilience is deter-
mined by different factors such as biological (Charney,
2004), psychological (Campbell-Sills, Cohan, & Stein,
2006), genetic (Tannenbaum & Anisman, 2003), and
environmental (Haskett, Nears, Ward, & McPherson,
2006).
1
Olutayo Aloba, FWACPsych, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife,
Osun State, Nigeria
2
Oluseyi Olabisi, BNSc, Federal School of Nursing Sciences, Saki, Oyo
State, Nigeria
3
Tolulope Aloba, BNSc, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Osun
State, Nigeria
Corresponding Author:
Olutayo Aloba, Department of Mental Health, Faculty of Clinical
Sciences, Obafemi Awolowo University, Teaching Hospitals Complex,
Ile-Ife PMB 013, Osun State, Nigeria.
Email: alobatee2002@gmail.com

Downloaded from jap.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on March 9, 2016

44 Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association 22(1)
It has also been suggested that self-esteem is essential
to one’s ability to successfully adapt during stressful situ-
ations (Wanberg, 1997). Different studies have also high-
lighted the protective effects of resilience against the
development of depression (Dowrick, Kokanovic,
Hegarty, Griffiths, & Gunn, 2008; Edward, 2005). Studies
have reported significant associations between the con-
struct of resilience and religiosity among young adults
(Gorbanalipoor, Marandi, & Zaree, 2011; Javanmard,
2013). Within the past decade, researchers in different
disciplines, nursing sciences inclusive, have demon-
strated increased interest in the construct of resilience by
exploring the association between the levels of resilience
and diverse consequences such as compassion, fatigue,
stress, and burnout (Garcia-Dia, DiNapoli, Garcia-Ona,
Jakubowski, & O’Flaherty, 2013).
A study in 2011 examined the psychometric character-
istics of several instruments developed for the measure-
ment of resilience by reviewing nearly 300 previously
published articles (Windle, Bennett, & Noyes, 2011).
According to the opinion of the authors of the review,
what prevails across the published articles is that the con-
struct of resilience is assessed from a multidimensional
approach that encompasses factors such as self-esteem,
hardiness, religiosity, and availability of social support
(Windle et al., 2011). One resilience scale that has gained
extensive attention from researchers is the Connor–
Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), and the original
self-administered scale consists of 25 items categorized
into 5 dimensions following exploratory factor analysis
by the authors of the scale (Connor & Davidson, 2003).
The scale was constructed such that it will be applicable
to different clinical and nonclinical sample populations
and also to measure the level to which resilience can be
altered and quantitatively assessed in response to treat-
ment (Connor & Davidson, 2003). The shorter 10-item
CD-RISC (Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007) was developed
in response to different studies across different popula-
tions with diverse sociodemographic and cultural differ-
ences reporting lack of consensus regarding the factor
structure of the 25-item version (Jorgensen & Seedat,
2008; Karairmak, 2010; Yu, Lau, Mak, Zhang, & Lui,
2011).
Satisfactory psychometric qualities in terms of reli-
ability and validity and a one-dimensional factorial model
structure of the 10-item CD-RISC has been described in
different studies conducted in developed countries
(Notario-Pacheco et al., 2011; Wang, Shi, Zhang, &
Zhang, 2010). An electronic literature search revealed
that no study has been conducted exploring the concept of
resilience among Nigerian student nurses. Therefore, the
aim of this study was to examine the factor structure, reli-
ability, and validity of the brief 10-item CD-RISC among
student nurses in southwestern Nigeria. We are of the
Downloaded from jap.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on March 9, 2016
opinion that the findings generated in this study will be
useful in identifying factors that could be screened for
among student nurses in our environment that could be
modified to improve their levels of resilience. We hypoth-
esized that the student nurses with higher self-esteem lev-
els, lower depression and psychological distress scores,
and those who reported themselves to be deeply religious
would have higher resilience score.
Method
Participants
This study is a cross-sectional descriptive study in which
student nurses were recruited from four schools of nurs-
ing in southwestern Nigeria. Each of the schools was
affiliated to a university teaching hospital. The duration
of the program is 3 years, excluding academic difficulties
that can result in references or the need to repeat a class.
During their first year, students take courses in basic
medical sciences (i.e., human anatomy and physiology)
and behavioral sciences. The curricula for the second
year consist of courses in medical and surgical special-
ties, mental health, primary health care, and family health.
During their third year, the students take courses that are
further extensions of those courses taught in the second
year. Intense lecture activities are intertwined with clini-
cal rotations in which students are exposed to the practi-
cal aspects of clinical nursing education in the different
wards of the affiliated university teaching hospitals.
The students were approached in their hostels located
within the hospitals, and the objectives of the study and
confidentiality of information they will be requested to
provide were explained to them. Afterward, those who
consented were given the study measures to complete.
Exclusion criteria include evidence of a diagnosed psy-
chiatric disorder either current or past and refusal to give
consent. Approval for the study was obtained from the
ethical and research committee of each of the affiliated
health institutions. A total of 512 students were recruited
to the study over a 6-month period (January to June
2015). We had to eliminate 63 of the respondents either
due to participants having incomplete data on one or
more items of the CD-RISC or fulfilling one of the exclu-
sion criteria, resulting in the final sample of 449.
Measures
The participants completed a research inventory com-
posed of a brief sociodemographic questionnaire, the
10-item CD-RISC, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
(RSE), Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9), General
Health Questionnaire–12 (GHQ-12), and the 6-item
Religiosity Orientation Test (ROT).
Aloba et al. 45
Sociodemographic Questionnaire. This questionnaire con-
sists of the variables: sex and age.
Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale 10-Item Version. Resil-
ience among the student nurses was measured with this
scale. The scale consists of 10 items and is structured as a
5-point Likert-type cumulative instrument (0 = never to 4
= almost always). The original version demonstrated a
one-dimensional factor structure (Campbell-Sills &
Stein, 2007). The respondents complete the scale based
on the degree to which they admit each item on the scale
was applicable to them in the preceding 1 month. A sum-
mation of the response to each scale’s item yields a score
that ranges from a minimum of 0 to a maximum of 40 that
signifies the highest level of resilience. Application of the
sale has indicated that reduced scores in individuals with
anxiety and depressive disorders (Connor & Davidson,
2003). Written permission to explore the psychometric
properties of the scale was obtained from the authors.
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.  Self-esteem among the stu-
dent nurses was measured with this 10-item scale, which
evaluates the respondent’s perception of his or her self-
worthiness. The individual completing the scale responds
to items measuring both appreciative and depreciative
feeling about them according to a 5-point Likert-type for-
mat. Five of the items are reversely scored. The total
score ranges from 0 to 30, with higher scores reflecting
higher self-esteem levels (Rosenberg, 1965). The RSE
has been used as a self-esteem measuring instrument
among diverse Nigerian populations (Adewuya et al.,
2009; Loto et al., 2010). Satisfactory psychometric char-
acteristics have been described among Nigerian adoles-
cents and young adults (Okoiye, Nwoga, & Onah, 2015).
Religious Orientation Test.  This is a 6-item scale that was
developed to measure religiosity levels (Idehen, 2001).
According to the author of the scale, psychometric explo-
ration of the scale among 736 Nigerian college students
reported an internal consistency coefficient of .80, while
the test–retest reliability over 6 weeks was .75 (p < .01).
Application of principal factor analysis on the items of
the ROT revealed one factor that accounted for 82% of
the variance. Each of the items is scored on a 5-point
Likert-type scale. Depending on the total scores, respon-
dents are categorized into deep and superficial religious
orientation with lower scores reflecting higher levels of
religiosity.
Patient Health Questionnaire–9.  This is a brief 9-item ques-
tionnaire developed from the interviewer-based PRIME-
MD (Spitzer et al., 1994). It is a self-administered scale
for screening and evaluating the severity of depressive
symptoms, with the respondents putting into perspective
Downloaded from jap.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on March 9, 2016
the preceding 2 weeks. Each item is scored on a 4-point
scale (0-3), with higher total scores signifying greater
severity of depressive symptoms. Adequate reliability
and validity of the PHQ-9 has been described among
Nigerian adolescents and young adults (Adewuya, Ola, &
Afolabi, 2006).
General Health Questionnaire–12. This is a brief and
widely applied nonspecific tool used for the evaluation of
mental health well-being and a screening instrument for
common psychiatric disorders (Goldberg et al., 1997).
The reliability, validity, and factor structure of the 12-item
GHQ have been described among the Nigerian popula-
tion (Gureje, 1991). The binary scoring system is applied
resulting in a score range of 0 to 12, with higher scores
indicating higher psychological distress.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was conducted with the 21st Version of
the IBM Statistical Product and Service Solutions soft-
ware. Descriptive statistics such as mean (standard
deviation) and frequency were used to describe the stu-
dent nurses’ sociodemographic details and scores on the
study measures. Global internal consistency of the
10-item CD-RISC was assessed by calculating
Cronbach’s alpha. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
applying principal component analysis with Oblimin
rotation was used to identify the numbers of latent fac-
tors underlying the scale. We applied Kaiser’s criteria of
retaining the factors with eigen values greater than 1
(Cattell, 1966). The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkins measure-
ment of sampling adequacy was used to test whether our
data were suitable for EFA (Field, 2009). The suitability
of the factor model extracted applying EFA was exam-
ined using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with
SPSS analysis of moment structure 20 software. The
goodness-of-fit indices of the hypothetical model sub-
jected to CFA were based on the Hu and Bentler criteria
(Hu & Bentler, 1999), in which acceptable model fit is
indicated by goodness of fit index (GFI) and compara-
tive fit index (CFI) values close to or greater than .95,
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) less
than .08, and standardized root mean square residual
(SRMR) less than .05. Construct validity of the 10-item
CD-RISC was examined through parametric correla-
tional analyses with the scores on the RSE, GHQ-12,
PHQ-9, and ROT scales. Linear regression applying
95% confidence interval was used to create a model of
the variables that significantly predicted the resilience
scores among the student nurses. The dependent vari-
able in the study was the CD-RISC score. All statistical
tests were two-tailed, and p value less than .05 was rec-
ognized as significant.
46 Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association 22(1)

Table 1.  Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Nursing Table 2.  Descriptive and Psychometric Characteristics
Students (n = 449). (Internal Consistency) of the 10-Item Connor–Davidson
Resilience Scale (n = 449).
Variable Frequency (%)
Corrected
Sex item–scale Cronbach’s α if
 Male 56 (12.5%) Item Mean (SD) correlations item is deleted
 Female 393 (87.5%)
  1. Adapt to 2.93 (1.01) .51 .79
Variable M (SD) [Range] change
Age (years) 20.29 (2.38) [17-40]   2. Deal with 2.71 (0.93) .53 .79
10-Item Connor–Davidson 27.64 (6.44) [9-40] whatever
Resilience Scale score comes my
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale score 20.68 (4.41) [10-30] way
Patient Health Questionnaire–9 6.14 (4.31) [0-24]   3. See 2.51 (0.94) .47 .80
score humorous
General Health Questionnaire–12 2.16 (2.19) [0-11] side of things
score   4. Stress makes 2.78 (1.07) .51 .79
Religious Orientation Test score 11.38 (2.92) [3-23] me stronger
  5. Bounce back 2.43 (1.31) .45 .81
after illness
or injury
Results   6. Believe I 3.44 (0.84) .55 .79
can achieve
Sociodemographic and Study Measure Details goals despite
of the Student Nurses obstacles
  7. Under 2.62 (1.12) .48 .79
The final sample was composed of 449 student nurses pressure I
with females constituting 87.5%. The mean age was stay focused
20.29 (SD = 2.38). Mean score on the 10-item CD-RISC   8. Not easily 2.65 (1.18) .49 .80
was 27.64 (SD = 6.44). In addition, the male students discouraged
(12.5% of the sample) had significantly higher mean by failure
scores (30.09) on the 10-item CD-RISC compared to   9. Think of 2.96 (1.01) .65 .78
their female counterparts (27.29; t = 3.074, p = .003). Our myself as
data were not influenced by floor or ceiling effects since a strong
person
the minimum score of 9 and the maximum score of 40
when facing
was obtained, respectively, by only 0.4% and 1.8% of our challenges
sample. The mean score on the RSE was 20.68 (SD = 10. Able to 2.61 (1.04) .50 .80
4.41), and the mean scores on the PHQ-9, GHQ-12, and handle
ROT scales were 6.14 (SD = 4.31), 2.16 (SD = 2.19), and unpleasant
11.38 (SD = 2.92), respectively (Table 1). feelings

Note. Cronbach’s α = .81.

Internal Consistency of the 10-Item CD-RISC
The scale demonstrated modestly satisfactory internal
consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha of .81, which did not
improve after eliminating any of the scale’s items. The
corrected item-to-scale correlations ranged from .35 to
.65 (Table 2).
Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses
As shown in Table 3, EFA applying principal component
analysis with Oblimin rotation revealed a two-factor
model, with Factors 1 (6 items) and 2 (4 items) accounting
for 38.94% and 10.35% of the total variance, respectively.
Eigen values were 3.89 and 1.04 for Factors 1 and 2,
respectively. The factor solution was adequate as reflected
by a Kaiser–Meyer–Olkins sampling adequacy of 0.89
with significant Bartlett’s sphericity test. Figure 1 depicts
the two-factor model for the 10-items CD-RISC subjected
to CFA after been generated with EFA. The goodness of
fitness was evaluated by applying several indices: χ2 =
87.5; CMIN/df (chi-square minimum/degree of freedom) =
2.74; CFI = .95; GFI = .96; SRMR = .046; RMSEA = .062.
According to these indices, the two factor model demon-
strated an acceptably good fit among the student nurses.
Construct Validity of the 10-Item CD-RISC
Table 4 reports the construct validity of the scale based on
its correlations with the scores on the RSE, GHQ-12,

Downloaded from jap.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on March 9, 2016

Aloba et al. 47

Table 3.  Exploratory Factor Analysis Applying Principal Discussion

Component Analysis (Oblimin Rotation With Kaiser
Normalization) Showing the Factorial Item Loadings. In this study, we explored the psychometric characteris-
tics of the 10-item CD-RISC among a sample of student
Factor Factor
nurses in southwestern Nigeria. We have been able to
Item 1—“Toughness” 2—“Motivation”
demonstrate that the scale possesses satisfactory reliabil-
  7. Under pressure .819 — ity and construct validity. The internal consistency
I stay focused (Cronbach’s alpha) of the items of the scale among our
  8. Not easily .764 — sample of student nurses was .81, a value that is compa-
discouraged by rable to what the authors of the original version reported
failure
(Cronbach’s α = .85) in their study involving undergradu-
  9. Think of .738 —
myself as a
ate students (Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007) and in
strong person another study (Cronbach’s α = .87) involving college stu-
when facing dents consecutively recruited from their lecture rooms
challenges (Hartley, 2012).
  6. Believe I .581 — Cronbach’s alpha of greater than .70 is generally recog-
can achieve nized as satisfactory (Gliner & Morgan, 2000). Among
goals despite our sample population, the 10-item CD-RISC also exhib-
obstacles
ited a modest level of construct validity. The mean score
  4. Stress makes .486 —
me stronger
on the scale correlated positively with the scores on the
10. Able to handle .457 — RSE scale, while there were negative correlations with
unpleasant scores on the GHQ-12 and PHQ-9 scales. In other words,
feelings Nigerian student nurses with higher psychological distress
  3. See humorous — .822 on the GHQ-12 and higher depressive symptomatology
side of things scores on the PHQ-9 reported lower resilience. The scale’s
  5. Bounce back — .644 original developers (Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007)
after illness or reported similar negative correlations between scores on
injury
the 10-item CD-RISC and depression scores as measured
  2. Deal with — .609
whatever
with the 18-item Brief Symptoms Inventory (Derogatis,
comes my way 2001). Among the Nigerian student nurses, those who per-
  1. Adapt to — .446 ceived themselves as worthy (i.e., higher self-esteem)
change reported higher levels of resilience. In addition, another
Eigen values 3.89 1.04 finding in our study supporting the construct validity of
Cronbach’s α .77 .62 the scale was the observation that higher levels of religios-
Percentage of total 38.94 10.35 ity were associated with higher levels of resilience; this
variance explained association has been reported among students who shared
Note. Kaiser–Meyer–Olkins measure of sampling adequacy 0.859.
similar sociodemographics in terms of age range with our
Bartlett’s test of sphericity χ2 = 1139.93, p < .001. sample population (Javanmard, 2013). Higher resilience
has also been reported to correlate positively with spiritu-
ality and negatively with psychological distress in a study
PHQ-9, and ROT scales. Resilience has significant posi-
involving low-income African American men (Coates,
tive correlations with scores on the RSE scale (r = .336, p
Phares, & Dedrick, 2014). Despite the evidence of the cor-
< .01) and significant negative correlations with the
relational analyses supporting the construct validity of the
GHQ-12 (r = −.242, p < .01), PHQ-9 (r = −.316, p < .01),
10-item CD-RISC, it is essential we point out that our
and ROT (r = −.184, p < .01) scales.
study was descriptive cross-sectional in design and the
causal direction between resilience and other variables
Linear Regression Model cannot be ascertained. Our linear regression model indi-
As shown in Table 5 the score on the 10-item CD-RISC was cated that only 14.1% of the variance in the 10-item
significantly predicted by the scores on the RSE, PHQ-9, CD-RISC was explained by a combination of three fac-
and ROT scales. The linear regression model predicting the tors. It thus appears that further studies are needed to iden-
CD-RISC score is as follows: −0.202 * PHQ-9 + 0.317 * tify other factors that influence the levels of resilience
RSE + (−0.303) * ROT score + 25.963 (Constant). The among student nurses in our environment.
standardized coefficients revealed that their combinations We can therefore infer that the scale has demonstrated
explained only 14.1% of the variance in the 10-item adequate reliability, and empirically, on the basis of the
CD-RISC. direction of the correlation patterns that confirmed our

Downloaded from jap.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on March 9, 2016

48 Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association 22(1)

Figure 1.  Confirmatory factor analysis showing the item loadings for the two-factor model of the 10-items CD-RISC.
Note. CD RISC = Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale. Total sample: n = 449; goodness-of-fit indices: χ2 = 74.9, df = 31, CMIN/df = 2.41, CFI = .96,
GFI = .97, SRMR = .044, RMSEA = .056.

Table 4.  Construct Validity (Correlational Analyses) of the 10-Item Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5
1. Connor–Davidson Resilience 1  
2. Rosenberg Self-Esteem .336** 1  
3.General Health Questionnaire–12 −.242** −.525** 1  
4. Patient Health Questionnaire–9 −.316** −.655** .610** 1  
5. Religiosity Orientation Test −.184** −.109* .116* .146** 1

*p < .05. **p < .01.

hypothesis, the scale appears to be a valid measure of
resilience among our participants.
Regarding the factorial structure of the 10-item
CD-RISC, EFA yielded a two-factor model among our
participants. Following careful examinations of the word-
ings of the individual items that made up each factors, we
labeled Factors 1 and 2 “toughness” and “motivation,”
respectively. Neither singularity nor multicollinearity
was observed among the scale’s 10 items; thus, we had no
reason to eliminate any of the items. Confirmatory factor
analysis produced acceptable goodness-of-fit indices
regarding the two-factor models produced with EFA.

Downloaded from jap.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on March 9, 2016

Aloba et al. 49
Table 5.  Predictors of Resilience According to Multiple Linear Regressions Analysis (n = 449).
Unstandardized coefficient
Variable  B
Constant 25.963
General Health Questionnaire–12 −0.088
Patient Health Questionnaire–9 −0.202
Rosenberg Self-Esteem 0.317
Religiosity Orientation Test −0.303
Note. R2 = .148; adjusted R2 = .141.
There is a lack of consensus concerning the factor struc-
ture of the original 25-item CD-RISC (Karairmak, 2010;
Lamond et al., 2009; Yu et al., 2011).
This has led to the development of a brief version of
the scale that essentially yields the same information as
the 25-item version; what the authors of the 10-item ver-
sion did was to eliminate the excessively correlated items
on the longer versions (Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007).
All the few previous studies that have examined the psy-
chometric properties of the shorter 10-item version, espe-
cially in terms of its factor structure applying both
exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, have all
confirmed that a single factor best explains the construct
of resilience as measured by the scale (Coates et al.,
2014; Goins, Gregg, & Fiske, 2013; Notario-Pacheco
et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2010). In contrast to the original
10-items version and what other authors have reported,
we were unable to confirm the one-dimensional construct
of resilience as measured with the scale. Among Nigerian
student nurses, resilience measured with the 10-item
CD-RISC was best explained by a two-factor model. The
reason for this observation is difficult to state categori-
cally, but we are of the opinion that the observation of an
entirely different factor model of resilience among our
sample population may be due to the concept of resilience
not been a unique construct. We believe that more studies
are needed among different populations to further exam-
ine the factor structure underlying the 10-item CD-RISC
in our environment.
One interesting observation is that in terms of norma-
tive data, the mean score on the scale among our partici-
pants was 27.64, a value that is comparable to the mean
score of 27.21 reported by the developers of the scale
(Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007) and 27.41 reported among
681 first-year university Spanish students (Notario-
Pacheco et al., 2011).
In addition, we were able to corroborate the gender dif-
ferences in relation to resilience among young adults that
has been reported in previous studies. Our male student
nurses who although constituted only 12.5% of our sam-
ple had significantly higher resilience scores (30.09) com-
pared to their female counterparts (27.29). Notario-Pacheco
Downloaded from jap.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on March 9, 2016
Standardized coefficient
SE B t p 95% confidence interval 
2.458 — 10.564 <.001 [21.133, 30.793]
0.166 −0.030 −0.532 .595 [−0.415, 0.238]
0.095 −0.135 −2.118 .035 [−0.389, −0.015]
0.087 0.217 3.660 <.001 [0.147, 0.487]
0.098 −0.137 0.002 −3.093 [−0.495, −0.110]
and colleagues in their study involving university students
reported that the female undergraduate students had sig-
nificantly lower 10-items CD-RISC scores (26.49) com-
pared to the males (29.47; Notario-Pacheco et al., 2011).
We would like to point out that the findings in this study
need to be cautiously interpreted due to some limitations.
The cross-sectional nature of our study does not reflect the
true direction of the relationship between resilience and
the other study measures such as self-esteem, depression,
and psychological distress. For example, the student
nurses who were currently experiencing significant
depressive symptoms may perceive themselves as less
resilient since they might view themselves in a less posi-
tive manner. Another limitation is that the study was con-
ducted by recruiting student nurses from institutions in
southwestern Nigeria; thus, caution must be exercised in
generalizing our findings to other regions of the country or
the general population. In addition, due to the confidenti-
ality clause attached to the study, we are not able to iden-
tify those who reported higher levels of psychological
distress and depressive symptoms and refer them for treat-
ment. Nonetheless, despite these limitations this is the
first study that has explored the psychometric characteris-
tics and correlates of the 10-item CD-RISC among
Nigerian student nurses; thus, we have contributed to the
few available international studies regarding the psycho-
metric features of this scale. We believe the scale is reli-
able and valid enough to measure the essential features of
resilience among our sample population, despite the
observation that we were not able to confirm the scale as a
one-dimensional scale. We have also been able to generate
some basic information regarding the correlates of resil-
ience among Nigerian student nurses. But we are of the
opinion that more studies are needed to explore the psy-
chometric characteristics of this scale and to further iden-
tify other determinants of resilience among other Nigerian
population.
Conclusion
The 10-item CD-RISC despite exhibiting a different fac-
torial structure is a useful scale for measuring resilience
50 Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association 22(1)
among Nigerian student nurses. We believe that other
researchers in Nigerian and sub-Saharan Africa will be
compelled to further examine the qualities of this scale.
Acknowledgments
We express our sincere gratitude and appreciations to the stu-
dent nurses who agreed to participate in this study. We also
want to thank Miss Esther Atanda for her assistance during the
preparation of this article.
Author Roles Dowrick, C., Kokanovic, R., Hegarty, K., Griffiths, F., & Gunn,
OA conceived the study and together with OO designed the
study. OO and TA were involved with data collection. OA and
OO conducted the analysis of data and interpreted and discussed
the results. OA and OO wrote the manuscript. TA critically
reviewed the manuscript. All the authors read and gave their
approval for the final manuscript.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Adewuya, A. O., Afolabi, M. O., Ola, B. A., Ogundele, O. A.,
Ajibare, O. A., Oladipo, B. F., & Fakande, I. (2009). Post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after stigma related events
in HIV infected individuals in Nigeria. Social Psychiatry
and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 44, 761-766.
Adewuya, A. O., Ola, B. A., & Afolabi, O. O. (2006). Validity
of the patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) as a screening
tool for depression amongst Nigerian university students.
Journal of Affective Disorders, 96(1-2), 89-93.
Andrew, N., McGuiness, C., Reid, G., & Corcoran, T. (2009).
Greater than the sum of its parts: Transition into the
first year of undergraduate nursing. Nurse Education in
Practice, 9(1), 13-21.
Campbell-Sills, L., Cohan, S. L., & Stein, M. B. (2006).
Relationship of resilience to personality, coping and psy-
chiatric symptoms in young adults. Behaviour Research
and Therapy, 44, 585-599.
Campbell-Sills, L., & Stein, M. B. (2007). Psychometric analy-
sis and refinement of the Connor-Davidson Resilience
Scale (CD-RISC): Validation of a 10-item measure of resil-
ience. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20, 1019-1028.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the numbers of factors.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245-276.
Charney, D. S. (2004). Psychobiological mechanisms of resilience
and vulnerability: Implications for adaptations to extreme
stress. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161, 195-216.
Coates, E. E., Phares, V., & Dedrick, R. F. (2014). Psychometric
properties of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale 10
Downloaded from jap.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on March 9, 2016
among low income African American men. Psychological
Assessment, 25, 1349-1354.
Connor, K. M. (2006). Assessment of resilience in the after-
math of trauma. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 67(Suppl.
2), S46-S49.
Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2003). Development of
a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson Resilience
Scale (CDRISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18, 76-82.
Derogatis, L. R. (2001). Brief Symptoms Inventory 18:
Administration, scoring, and procedures manual. Minneapolis,
MN: NCS Pearson.
J. (2008). Resilience and depression: Perspectives from pri-
mary care. Health (London), 12, 439-452.
Edward, K. (2005). Resilience: A protector from depression.
Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association,
11, 241-243.
Field, A. (Ed.). (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Garcia-Dia, M. J., DiNapoli, J. M., Garcia-Ona, L., Jakubowski,
R., & O’Flaherty, D. (2013). Concept analysis: Resilience.
Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 27, 264-270.
Gliner, J. A., & Morgan, G. A. (2000). Research methods in
applied settings: An integrated approach to design and
analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Goins, R. T., Gregg, J. J., & Fiske, A. (2013). Psychometric
properties of the Connor-Davidson Resilience scale with
older American Indians. Research on Aging, 35, 123-143.
Goldberg, D. P., Gater, R., Sartorius, N., Ustun, T. B., Piccinelli,
M., Gureje, O., & Rutter, C. (1997). The validity of two
versions of the GHQ in the WHO study of mental illness in
general health care. Psychological Medicine, 27, 191-197.
Gorbanalipoor, M., Marandi, A., & Zaree, H. A. (2011).
The relationship between religiosity and psychological
hardiness. Biquarterly Journal of Studies in Islam and
Psychology, 4(6).
Gureje, O. (1991). Reliability and factor structure of the Yoruba
version of the 12-item General Health Questionnaire. Acta
Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 84, 125-129.
Hartley, M. T. (2012). Assessing and promoting resilience: An
additional tool to address the increasing number of college
students with psychological problems. Journal of College
Counseling, 15(1), 37-51.
Haskett, E., Nears, K., Ward, S., & McPherson, A. V. (2006).
Diversity in adjustment of maltreated children: Factors
associated with resilient functioning. Clinical Psychology
Review, 26, 796-812.
Higginson, R. (2006). Fears, worries and experiences of first-
year pre-registration nursing students: A qualitative study.
Nurse Researcher, 13(3), 32-49.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus
new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
Idehen, E. E. (2001). The development and evaluation of a reli-
giosity scale. IFE PsychologIA, 9(2), 58-69.
Javanmard, G. H. (2013). 3rd World Conference on Psychology,
Counseling and Guidance (WCPCG-2012): Religious
beliefs and resilience in academic students. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 84, 744-748.
Aloba et al. 51
Jorgensen, I. E., & Seedat, S. (2008). Factor structure of the
Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale in South African ado-
lescents. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and
Health, 20, 23-32.
Kaplan, H. B. (1999). Toward an understanding of resilience: A
critical review of definitions and model. In, M. D. Glantz &
J. L. Johnsons (Eds.), Resilience & development: Positive
life adaptations (pp. 17-83). New York, NY: Kluwer
Academic.
Karairmak, O. (2010). Establishing the psychometric qualities
of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) using
exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis in a trauma
survivor sample. Psychiatry Research, 179, 350-356.
Lamond, A. J., Depp, C. A., Langer, M. A., Reichstadt, R.,
Moore, D. J., Golshan, S., . . .Jeste, D. D. V. (2009).
Measurement and predictors of resilience among
community-dwelling older women. Journal of Psychiatric
Research, 43, 148-154.
Loto, O. M., Adewuya, A. O., Ajenifuja, O. K., Orji, E. O.,
Ayandiran, E. O., Owolabi, A. T., & Ade-Ojo, I. P. (2010).
Cesarean section in relation to self-esteem and parent-
ing among new mothers in south-western Nigeria. Acta
Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 89(1), 35-38.
Luther, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct
of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future
work. Child Development, 71, 543-562.
Mehta, H., Robinson, K., & Hillegrass, S. (2008). Expectations,
perceptions and experiences of first year students enrolled
in nursing and/or midwifery courses at three NSW univer-
sities. Focus on Health Professional Education: A Multi-
Disciplinary Journal, 10(1), 11-23.
Norman, L., Beurhaus, P. I., Donelan, K., McCloskey, B., &
Dittus, R. (2005). Nursing students assessing nursing
education. Journal of Professional Nursing, 21, 150-158.
Notario-Pacheco, B., Solera-Martinez, M., Serrano-Parra, M. D.,
Bartolome-Gutierrez, R., Garcia-Campayo, J., & Martínez-
Vizcaíno, V. (2011). Reliability and validity of the Spanish
version of the 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale
Downloaded from jap.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on March 9, 2016
(10-item CDRISC) in young adults. Health and Quality of
Life Outcomes, 9, 63.
Okoiye, O. E., Nwoga, A. N., & Onah, A. T. (2015). Moderating
effect of cyber bullying on the psychological well-being
of in-school adolescents in Benin, Edo State, Nigeria.
European Journal of Sustainable Development, 14,
109-118.
Pines, E. W., Rauschhuber, M. L., Norgan, G. H., Cook, J.
D., Canchola, L., Richardson, C., & Jones, M. E. (2012).
Stress resiliency, psychological empowerment and conflict
management styles among baccalaureate nursing students.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68, 1482-1493.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B., Kroenke, K., Linzer, M., deGruy,
F. V., 3rd, Hahn, S. R., . . .Johnson, J. G. (1994). Utility of a
new procedure for diagnosing mental disorders in primary
care: The PRIME-MD 1000 study. Journal of the American
Medical Association, 272, 1749-1756.
Tannenbaum, B., & Anisman, H. (2003). Impact of chronic
intermittent challenges in stressor-susceptible and resilient
strains of mice. Biological Psychiatry, 53, 292-303.
Wanberg, C. R. (1997). Antecedents and outcomes of coping
behaviour among unemployed and reemployed individuals.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 731-744.
Wang, L., Shi, Z., Zhang, Y., & Zhang, Z. (2010). Psychometric
properties of the 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience
Scale in Chinese earthquake victims. Psychiatry and
Clinical Neurosciences, 64, 499-504.
Windle, G. (2011). What is resilience? A review and concept
analysis. Review in Clinical Gerontology, 21, 152-169.
Windle, G., Bennett, K. M., & Noyes, J. (2011). A methodolog-
ical review of resilience measurement scales. Health and
Quality of Life Outcomes, 9(8). doi:10.1186/1477-7525-9-8
Yu, X. N., Lau, J. T., Mak, W. W., Zhang, J., & Lui, W. W.
(2011). Factor structure and psychometric properties of the
Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale among Chinese adoles-
cents. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 52, 218-224.