Confirmatory factor analysis and rasch analysis of the Russian version of the ego resiliency scale revised

Andrew Denovan; Kenneth Drinkwater; Neil Dagnall; Elena Hill-Artamonova; Tamara Musienko

doi:10.37468/2307-1400-2022-1-82-96

UDC

327.7

CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS AND RASCH ANALYSIS OF THE RUSSIAN VERSION OF THE EGO RESILIENCY SCALE REVISED Confirmatory factor analysis and rasch analysis of the Russian version of the ego resiliency scale revised

АА Аа

Published in National Security and Strategic Planning · Pages 82–96 · Rubric: Social security

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37468/2307-1400-2022-1-82-96

Received: 18.12.2021 Accepted: 24.03.2022 Published: 20.05.2022 Language of publication: ENG

Authors

Andrew Denovan

Kenneth Drinkwater

Neil Dagnall

Elena Hill-Artamonova

Tamara Musienko

ORCID Scopus SPIN

Andrew Denovan

Manchester Metropolitan University United Kingdom · Manchester

Kenneth Drinkwater

Manchester Metropolitan University Russian Federation

Neil Dagnall

Manchester Metropolitan University United Kingdom · Manchester

Elena Hill-Artamonova

Manchester Metropolitan University United Kingdom · Manchester

Tamara Musienko

Academic degree: doctor of political sciences ; candidate of historical sciences

Science rang: docent

Saint Petersburg university of State fire service of EMERCOM of Russia professor · department of management and economics · Russian Federation · Saint-Petersburg

Federal research sociological center of the Russian academy of sciences of the Sociological institute of the Russian academy of sciences associate researcher · Russian Federation · Saint-Petersburg

Petrovsky academy of sciences and arts full member · Russian Federation · Saint-Petersburg

ORCID Scopus SPIN

ABSTRACT

The concept of sustainability is closely related to the security of the individual. The Ego Resiliency Scale Revised (ER89-R) is a brief, widely used scale that examines resilience as the ability to flexibly alter reactions in response to varying contextual demands. Consistent with contemporary evidence, the measure conceptualises ego resiliency as a higher-order construct comprising two factors denoting different behavioural and temperamental attributes that promote management of emotionality, Openness to Life Experiences (low negative) and Optimal Regulation (Positive orientation toward life). The present study translated the ER89-R into Russian, and evaluated its psychometric performance using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Rasch analysis (N = 1110 respondents: 426 males, 686 females). CFA supported a higher-order factor structure. Rasch analysis assessing Openness to Life Experiences and Optimal Regulation scales, reported good item/person reliability and item/person fit, gender invariance, and existence of unidimensionality. However, items appeared to be slightly easy to endorse overall, and developing the measure to incorporate more varied items in terms of difficulty would be beneficial. Overall, results supported a higher-order conceptualisation of the ER89-R and suggested that the Openness to Life Experiences and Optimal Regulation scales are appropriate measures of ego resiliency in a Russian sample.

KEYWORDS

personal security, Ego resiliency, Ego Resiliency Scale Revised (ER89-R), Rasch analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, dimensionality

Text

Text (PDF)

Read Download

1. Abramova, I., Ananyina, A., & Shishmolina, E. (2013). Challenges in teaching Russian students to speak English. American Journal of Educational Research, 1(3), 99-103. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-1-3-6

2. Alessandri, G., Vecchione, M., Caprara, G., & Letzring, T. D. (2011). The ego resiliency scale revised. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28(2), 139-146. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000102

3. Alessandri, G., Vecchio, G., Steca, P., Caprara, M. G., & Caprara, G. V. (2007). A revised version of Kremen and Block’s Ego-Resiliency Scale in an Italian sample. Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 14(3-4), 1-19.

4. Andrich, D. A. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43(4), 561-573. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02293814

5. Block, J. (2002). Personality as an affect-processing system: Toward an integrative theory. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410602466

6. Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the organization of behavior. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Development of cognition, affect, and social relations: The Minnesota symposia on child psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 39-101). Abingdon: CRC Press.

7. Block, J., & Kremen, A. M. (1996). IQ and ego-resiliency: conceptual and empirical connections and separateness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(2), 349-361. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.349

8. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301

9. Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models, pp. 136-162. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

10. Caprara, M., Steca, P., & De Leo, G. (2003). La misura dell'ego-resiliency [The measure of ego-resiliency]. Ricerche di Psicologia, 26(2), 7-23.

11. Chen, X., He, J., & Fan, X. (2020). Applicability of the Ego-Resilience Scale (ER89) in the Chinese Cultural Context: A Validation Study. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 38(6), 675-691. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282919889242

12. Denovan, A., Dagnall, N., Hill-Artamonova, E., & Musienko, T.V. (2021). Mental Toughness Questionnaire (MTQ18): A Russian version. Strategy of the Future in National Security and Strategic Planning, 2(35). https://doi.org/10.37468/2307-1400-2021-3-47-59.

13. Dept, S., Ferrari, A., & Halleux, B. (2017). Translation and cultural appropriateness of survey material in large-scale assessments. Implementation of Large-Scale Education Assessments, 168-192. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118762462.ch6

14. Douglas, S. P., & Craig, C. S. (2007). Collaborative and iterative translation: An alternative approach to back translation. Journal of International Marketing, 15(1), 30-43. https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.15.1.030

15. Farkas, D., & Orosz, G. (2015). Ego-resiliency reloaded: a three-component model of general resiliency. PloS one, 10(3), e0120883. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120883

16. Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., & Larkin, G. R. (2003). What good are positive emotions in crisis? A prospective study of resilience and emotions following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 365-376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.365

17. Gliner, J. A., Morgan, G. A., & Leech, N. L. (2016). Research methods in applied settings: An integrated approach to design and analysis. New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315723082

18. Harkness, J. A., Villar, A., & Edwards, B. (2010). Translation, adaptation, and design. Survey methods in multinational, multiregional, and multicultural contexts, 115-140. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470609927.ch7

19. Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (2012). Differential item functioning. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203357811

20. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

21. Kees, J., Berry, C., Burton, S., & Sheehan, K. (2017). An analysis of data quality: Professional panels, student subject pools, and Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Journal of Advertising, 46(1), 141-155. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2016.1269304

22. Kopf, J., Zeileis, A., & Strobl, C. (2015). Anchor selection strategies for DIF analysis: Review, assessment, and new approaches. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 75(1), 22-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164414529792

23. Letzring, T. D., Block, J., & Funder, D. C. (2005). Ego-control and ego-resiliency: Generalization of self-report scales based on personality descriptions from acquaintances, clinicians, and the self. Journal of Research in Personality, 39(4), 395-422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2004.06.003

24. Linacre, J. M. (2012). Dimensionality: Contrasts & variances. Retrieved from http://www.winsteps.com/winman/index.htm?principalcomponents.htm.

25. Linacre, J. M. (2018). WINSTEPS (Version 3.81) [Computer Software]. Beaverton, OR: Winsteps.com.

26. Ludlow, L. H., Enterline, S. E., & Cochran-Smith, M. (2008). Learning to teach for social justice-beliefs scale: An application of Rasch measurement principles. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 40(4), 194-214. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2008.11909815

27. Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543-562. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00164

28. Magno, C. (2009). Demonstrating the difference between classical test theory and item response theory using derived test data. The international Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 1(1), 1-11.

29. Maltby, J., Day, L., & Hall, S. (2015). Refining trait resilience: Identifying engineering, ecological, and adaptive facets from extant measures of resilience. PloS one, 10(7), e0131826. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131826

30. Menesini, E., & Fonzi, A. (2005). Strategie di coping e caratteristiche di resilienza in adolescenza [Coping strategies and resiliency characteristics during adolescence]. Psicologia Clinica Dello Sviluppo, 3, 437-456.

31. Mills, R. J., Young, C. A., Nicholas, R. S., Pallant, J. F., & Tennant, A. (2009). Rasch analysis of the Fatigue Severity Scale in multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis Journal, 15(1), 81-87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458508096215

32. Papageorgiou, K. A., Denovan, A., Dagnall, N., & Artamonova, E. (2021). A Cross-Cultural Investigation of the Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory Short Form: Narcissism as a Multidimensional Trait in the United Kingdom and Russia. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2021.1929263

33. Royal, K. D., & Elahi, F. (2011). Psychometric properties of the Death Anxiety Scale (DAS) among terminally ill cancer patients. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 29(4), 359-371. https://doi.org/10.1080/07347332.2011.582639

34. Souza, M. A. P., Coster, W. J., Mancini, M. C., Dutra, F. C. M. S., Kramer, J., & Sampaio, R. F. (2017). Rasch analysis of the participation scale (P-scale): usefulness of the P-scale to a rehabilitation services network. BMC Public Health, 17(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-017-4945-9

35. Stelmack, J., Szlyk, J. P., Stelmack, T., Babcock-Parziale, J., Demers-Turco, P., Williams, R. T., & Massof, R. W. (2004). Use of Rasch person-item map in exploratory data analysis: a clinical perspective. Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development, 41(2), 233-241. https://doi.org/10.1682/jrrd.2004.02.0233

36. Stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

37. Strobl, C., Kopf, J., & Zeileis, A. (2015). Rasch trees: A new method for detecting differential item functioning in the Rasch model. Psychometrika, 80(2), 289-316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-013-9388-3

38. Tennant, A., Penta, M., Tesio, L., Grimby, G., Thonnard, J.L., Slade, A., Lawton, G., Simone, A., Carter, J., Lundgren-Nilsson, Å., & Tripolski, M. (2004). Assessing and adjusting for cross-cultural validity of impairment and activity limitation scales through differential item functioning within the framework of the Rasch model: The PRO-ESOR project. Medical Care, 42(1), I37-I48. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000103529.63132.77

39. Tinsley, H., & Dawis, R. V. (1975). An investigation of the Rasch simple logistic model: sample free item and test calibration. Educational Psychological Measurement, 35(2), 325-339. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001316447503500211

40. Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 320-333. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.320

41. Ushio, H., & Atsuko, O. (2013). Development and Validation of a Japanese Version of the Ego-Resiliency Scale (ER89). Japanese Journal of Personality, 22(1), 37-47. https://doi.org/10.2132/personality.22.37

42. Vecchione, M., Alessandri, G., Barbaranelli, C., & Gerbino, M. (2010). Stability and change of ego resiliency from late adolescence to young adulthood: A multiperspective study using the ER89-R Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(3), 212-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891003670166

43. Westfall, P. H., & Henning, K. S. S. (2013). Texts in statistical science: Understanding advanced statistical methods. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1201/b14398

44. Wolfe, E. W., & Smith, E. V. (2007). Understanding Rasch measurement: Instrument development tools and activities for measure validation using Rasch models: Part II-Validation activities. Journal of Applied Measurement, 8(2), 204-234.

45. Wright, B. D., & Linacre, J. M. (1989). Observations are always ordinal; measurements, however, must be interval. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 70(12), 857-860.

46. Wright, B. D., & Linacre, J. M. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8(3), 370-371.

PDF Text JATS XML

Chairman of editorial board

Vladimir Matveev

070355mvv@gmail.com +7(911)791-08-80

5361

downloads

GOST

Denovan A., Drinkwater K., Dagnall N., Hill-Artamonova E., Musienko T. V. Confirmatory factor analysis and rasch analysis of the Russian version of the ego resiliency scale revised // National Security and Strategic Planning. 2022. no. 1. pp. 82-96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37468/2307-1400-2022-1-82-96. (Date of access 11.09.2026).

MLA

Andrew Denovan, Drinkwater K., Dagnall N., Hill-Artamonova E., Musienko T. V.. "Confirmatory factor analysis and rasch analysis of the Russian version of the ego resiliency scale revised." National Security and Strategic Planning 2022.1 (2022): 82-96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37468/2307-1400-2022-1-82-96.

APA

Denovan A., Drinkwater K., Dagnall N., Hill-Artamonova E., Musienko T. V. (2022). Confirmatory factor analysis and rasch analysis of the Russian version of the ego resiliency scale revised. National Security and Strategic Planning, 2022(1), 82-96. https://doi.org/10.37468/2307-1400-2022-1-82-96

Chicago

Andrew Denovan, Drinkwater K., Dagnall N., Hill-Artamonova E., Musienko T. V.. "Confirmatory factor analysis and rasch analysis of the Russian version of the ego resiliency scale revised." National Security and Strategic Planning 2022, no. 1 (2022): 82-96. https://doi.org/10.37468/2307-1400-2022-1-82-96.

WIKI

{{cite journal | author = Denovan A., Drinkwater K., Dagnall N., Hill-Artamonova E., Musienko T. V. | title = Confirmatory factor analysis and rasch analysis of the Russian version of the ego resiliency scale revised | journal = National Security and Strategic Planning | year = 2022 | volume = 2022 | issue = 1 | pages = 82-96 | doi = 10.37468/2307-1400-2022-1-82-96 }}

Copy

Export: BibTeX EndNote RefMan RusMARC

CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS AND RASCH ANALYSIS OF THE RUSSIAN VERSION OF THE EGO RESILIENCY SCALE REVISED Confirmatory factor analysis and rasch analysis of the Russian version of the ego resiliency scale revised

Confirmation