3Revista de cercetare i intervenie social [625153]

3Revista de cercetare [i interven]ie social\
ISSN: 1583-3410 (print), ISSN: 1584-5397 (electronic)
Selected by coverage in Social Sciences Citation Index, ISI databases
STRESS, RESILIENCE AND LIFE SATISFACTION
IN COLLEGE STUDENTS
Ana-Maria CAZAN, Camelia TRU}A
Revista de cercetare [i interven]ie social\, 2015, vol. 48, pp. 95-108
The online version of this article can be found at:
www.rcis.ro , www.doaj.org and www.scopus.com
Published by:
Expert Projects Publishing House
On behalf of:
„Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University,
Department of Sociology and Social Work
and
Holt Romania Foundation
REVISTA DE CERCETARE SI INTERVENTIE SOCIALA
is indexed by ISI Thomson Reuters – Social Sciences Citation Index
(Sociology and Social Work Domains)
Working together
www.rcis.ro

expert projects
publishing

95REALITIES IN A KALEIDOSCOPE
Stress, Resilience and Life Satisfaction
in College Students
Ana-Maria CAZAN1, Camelia TRU}A2
Abstract
The current study aims to assess the construct validity of the Adolescent
Resilience Scale and its psychometric properties in order to determine its re-levance when used within the Romanian context. The second aim of the study isto investigate the associations between resilience, perceived stress and life sa-
tisfaction. A number of 341 Romanian students from several faculties were re-
cruited. The results suggest that the Adolescent Resilience Scale has good psycho-metric properties after its translation into Romanian, which is an argument for itsfuture use in Romanian settings. The confirmatory factor analysis supports theconstruct of adolescent resilience even after the Romanian translation. Consistentwith previous studies, the path analyses shows that stressors function as a mediator
between resilience, reactions to stress and life satisfaction.
Keywords : life satisfaction, perceived stress, reaction to stress, resilience,
stressors.
Introduction
The term resilience has gained great popularity during last decade as the
necessity for predicting the ability to tolerate stress and negative events has
increased not only in clinical settings but also in organizational and educational
ones (Hjemdal, Friborg, Stiles, & Martinuss, 2006). The ability to recover fromnegative emotional experiences and to flexibly adapt to stressful events is essentialto individual’s well-being and life satisfaction (Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004).
1 Transilvania University of Braov, Psychology and Training in Education, Braov, România,
ana.cazan @unitbv.ro
2 Transilvania University of Braov, Psychology and Training in Education, Braov, România,
camitruta @unitbv.ro
Working together
www.rcis.ro

96REVISTA DE CERCETARE {I INTERVEN}IE SOCIAL| – VOLUMUL 48/2015
Yet, the dynamic interplay between stressful experiences, well-being and succes-
sful adaptation is still under debate. It is known that those low in psychological
resilience exhibit higher reactivity to daily stressful events, while those who scorehigh in psychological resilience rebound more easily from adversity (Ong, Ber-geman, Bisconti, & Wallace, 2006) and are more satisfied with their life (Tugade& Fredrickson, 2004), but the underlying mechanisms are not very clear.
Psychological resilience has been approached from three different perspectives,
as an outcome of effective coping to stress, as the process of successful adaptationdespite adversity, or as a psychological ability to successful recover from negativeemotional experiences.
Conceptualized as an outcome, resilience implies a pattern of effective be-
haviours in individuals exposed to risk (Olsson, Bond, Burns, Vella-Brodick, &
Sawyer, 2003). In this perspective, resilience is defined in terms of competenciesunder stress, several studies showing that young people functioning efficientlydespite stressful events demonstrate a high form of resilience (Ong et al. , 2006).
In particular, resilience has been studied in relation with academic stress, viewedas a risk factor. If the academic related demands exceed an individual’s adaptive
resources, then several health symptoms may appear (Wilks, 2008). For example,
Zalenski, Levey-Thors and Schiaffino (1998) found a strong association betweenthe number of stressful life events and physical symptoms in college students.
Resilience is also seen as a dynamic process that modifies the impact of
significant negative events and leads to successful adaptation to adversity (Olsson
et al. , 2003). Process- focused research assesses both risk factors and protective
mechanisms (resources on the individual, social or family level). Competencies,skills, peer-support or family support are considered to be protective factors asthey moderate risk and reduce the negative impact of risk on resilience (Wilks,2008). The process-focused perspective aims at developing interventions to im-
prove psychological and physical health by enhancing resilience and decreasing
high-risk behaviours (Ahern, Kiehl, Sole, & Byers, 2006).
The third research approach implies that resilience is a personality trait. Re-
silience has been repeatedly associated with the Big Five personality factors, allstudies showing evidence that a high resilient personality is characterized by high
score on all factors (emotional stability, extraversion, openness, agreeableness
and consciousness) (Hjemdal et al. , 2006). Defining features of highly resilient
individuals are positive social orientation towards other, the achievement orien-tation (Werner & Smith, 1992), optimistic and energetic approach to life and thepositive emotionality (Cohn, Fredrickson, Brown, Mikels, & Conway, 2009;Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004). In a longitudinal study, Asendorpf and van Aken
(1999) associated resilience with the three personality types derived from J.H.
Block and J. Block theory on ego-control and ego-resilience. Their findings show

97that resilience is best conceptualized as a continuous trait that reflects an individual’s
ability to adapt to changing environments.
Successful adaptation is the core element of each conceptualization of re-
silience. Highly resilient people have adaptive coping skills and perform better inspecific task, such as academic ones (Wilks, 2008). Resilience does not imply alow vulnerability to stress, but rather the ability to effectively recover from
negative events (Garmezy, 1981). Most often, trait resilience is considered a
personality characteristic that moderates the relation between stress and adaptationor health outcome (Ahern et al. , 2006).
Previous studies on the relationships between resilience and life satisfaction
show that change in resilience over time predicted change in life satisfaction
(Cohn et al. , 2009). Resilience acts not only as a predictor, but also mediates the
relationship between positive emotions and life satisfaction. Also, in a longitudinalstudy on Norwegian medical students, (Kjeldstadli et al. , 2006) was found that
not only resilience but also perceived stress differentiate those with high levels oflife satisfaction from students with low or fluctuating levels of life satisfaction.Most of the previous research approached resilience and perceived stress as
predictors of life satisfaction, as already shown (Abolghasemi & Varaniyab, 2010;
Kjeldstadli et al. , 2006).
Even though much research on resilience used samples of students due to
convenience, Oshio, Kaneko, Nagamine, and Nakaya (2003) argue that the mea-
surement of resilience during adolescence is justified by the significant psycho-
logical and social changes an individual must face during this stage. Resilience isconceptualized as a key factor in coping with these changes and the associateddifficulties. Another argument is the high prevalence of risk behaviours in ado-lescence, such as alcohol or drug use, sexual behaviours, eating behaviours,behaviours leading to injury (Ahern et al. , 2006). All these behaviours may have
a high impact on adolescents’ mental health, functional capacity or social com-
petence (Olsson et al. , 2003).
Method
The current study aims to assess the construct validity of the Adolescent
Resilience Scale (Oshio et al. , 2003) and its psychometric properties in order to
determine its relevance when used within the Romanian context. Thus, one pur-pose of this paper is to propose an instrument to measure resilience, for the use ofeducators and researchers, which is valid and easy to administer. Another aim isto investigate the associations between resilience, perceived stress and life sa-tisfaction.REALITIES IN A KALEIDOSCOPE

98REVISTA DE CERCETARE {I INTERVEN}IE SOCIAL| – VOLUMUL 48/2015
Participants
A convenience sampling procedure was used. A number of 341 Romanian
students from several faculties were recruited, 260 female, 81 male, with a meanage of 20.65.
Measures
The Adolescent Resilience Scale (Oshio et al. , 2002) consists of 21 items
covering three factors: Novelty Seeking, Emotional Regulation, and Positive
Future Orientation. Novelty seeking refers to the ability to show interest in andconcern about a wide variety of events. Emotional regulation is a trait of indi-viduals who exhibit composure and control their internal emotions. Positive futureorientation concerns the approach to goals in the future (Nakaya, Oshio, &Kaneko, 2006). The scale was translated and adapted for the Romanian population
and the psychometric analysis revealed high reliability coefficients for all the
dimensions: .76 for Novelty Seeking, .70 for Emotional Regulation, .82 forPositive Future Orientation and .81 for the entire scale.
The Student-life Stress Inventory (SSI) (Gadzella, 1994) measures academic
stressors and reactions to stressors. The academic stressors subscale assesses five
stressor categories: frustrations, conflicts, pressures, changes, and self-imposed.
Reactions to stressors refer to four categories describing reactions to physio-logical, emotional, behavioural, and cognitive stressors. The 51 items require a 5-point Likert-type response format. The Alfa Cronbach coefficient shows goodpsychometric properties, ranging between .70 and .84.
The Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) is
one of the most widely used scales for the measurement of subjective well –being. The scale includes five items rated on a seven – point Likert scale (1 =
Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree). The Satisfaction with Life Scale was
developed to assess satisfaction with the respondents’ life as a whole. Accordingto the SWLS, higher scores indicate greater life satisfaction. Previous studies
using the Romanian version of SWLS reported good psychometric properties, the
Alfa Cronbach coefficient obtained for the entire scale being .82 (Cazan, 2014).
Procedure
The participants were informed about the study aims and its confidentiality.
Participants responded to the questionnaires in large-group settings, after com-pleting the informed consent forms. Participants were compensated with extracredits.

99Results
Reliability and construct validity of the Adolescent Resilience Scale – the
Romanian Version
The first phase of the study aimed to assess the construct validity of the
Adolescent Resilience Scale (Oshio et al. , 2003) and its psychometric properties.
The Alfa Cronbach coefficient for the entire scale was .81, highlighting a high
internal consistency of the scale, although inferior to the original version with an
Alfa Cronbach of .85, reported by Oshio and his colleagues (2003). For the threesubscales, the Alfa Cronbach coefficients were similar to those reported in pre-vious research for the Romanian version: .76 for Novelty Seeking, .70 for Emo-tional Regulation, .82 for Positive Future Orientation. Similar to the findings ofOshio and his colleagues (2003), significant positive inter correlations among all
factors of the Adolescent Resilience Scale were found.
Table 1. Person correlation coefficients among the resilience subscales
Note. **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). N = 341
Assessment of normality and outliers suggests that there were no multivariate
outliers, Mahalanobis distance showing minimal evidence of multivariate outliers.The authors of the instrument suggested that a total score of the scale can be
computed and given the significant correlations between the subscales and the
total score, we tested two second order models, the first model without correlatederrors and the second one, with correlated errors. The last model seemed to be themost efficient ( Table 2 ).REALITIES IN A KALEIDOSCOPE
1 2 3 4 M SD
1. Total resilience 1 78.27 8.88
2. Novelty seeking .756** 1 28.88 3.88
3. Emotion regulation .767** .311** 1 28.93 4.82
4. Positive orientation .675** .401** .233** 1 20.45 3.31

100REVISTA DE CERCETARE {I INTERVEN}IE SOCIAL| – VOLUMUL 48/2015
Figure 1. Confirmatory Factor Model of the Adolescent Resilience Scale

101Table 2. Goodness-of-fit measures for the tested models – First order and second
order CF A for the Adolescent Resilience Scale
Note. GFI: Goodness-of-Fit Index, CFI: Comparative Fit Index, AIC: Akaike
Information Criterion, RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, 90% CI:
90% confidence interval for RMSEA .
Based on the initially hypothesized model (Model 1), the modification indexes
related to the covariances showed evidence of misspecification associated withthe pairing of error terms of the items 6 and 7 (err6 ↔err7; MI = 57.80), the items
8 and 9 (err8 ↔err9; MI = 71.47) and with items 20 and 21 (err20 ↔err21; MI =
32.27). Thus, the second model included the correlated errors. As the model fit
was better than for the first model, we considered model 2 to represent the final
best-fitting and most parsimonious model to represent the data (Figure 1).
The results suggest that the Adolescent Resilience Scale has good psychometric
properties after its translation into Romanian, which is an argument for its futureuse in Romanian settings. Although previous studies argued that very little the-
oretical rationale is presented for the scale, and that the manner in which the
psychological characteristics were chosen to represent resilience is unclear (Win-dle, Bennett, & Noyes, 2011), the present study demonstrated acceptable reli-ability and validity.
Resilience, stress, and life satisfaction
The second objective of the study was to investigate the associations between
resilience, perceived stress and life satisfaction. Our hypothesis was that stressors
mediate the relationship between resilience, reactions to stress and life satis-
faction. Results showed moderate but significant correlation coefficients betweenresilient personality, academic stress dimensions and life satisfaction (Table 3).REALITIES IN A KALEIDOSCOPE
Model Correlated
errors χ2(df) GFI CFI AIC RMSEA (90%
CI)
1. Second order – uncorrelated errors – 633.228
(186)
p < .001 .825 .776 732.228 .084
(.077-.091)
2. Second order – correlated
errors err6
err7
err8err9
err20err21 541.336
(183)
p < .001 .876 .866 547.336 .066
(.058-.073)

102REVISTA DE CERCETARE {I INTERVEN}IE SOCIAL| – VOLUMUL 48/2015
Note. **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). N = 340.Table 3. Means, standard deviations (SD), and zero-order correlations for all study variables
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1. Novelty
seeking 28.87 3.89 1
2.Emotion
regulation 28.92 4.83 .31** 1
3.Positive future
orientation 20.46 3.31 .40** .23** 1
4.Resilience
overall score 78.27 8.89 .75** .76** .67** 1
5.Satisfaction
with life 25 5.51 .27** .25** .34** .38** 1
6. Frustrations 13.82 4.36 –
.19**-
.35** -.22** -.36**-
.49**1
7. Conflicts 6.45 2.59 .01 –
.28** -.12* -.19**-
.22**.44** 1
8. Pressure 12.72 3.38 -.03 –
.34** -.10 -.24**-
.27**.51** .35** 1
9. Change 7.75 2.93 -.12* –
.36** -.12* -.29**-
.33**.57** .33** .51** 1
10. Self –
imposed 21.24 3.64 .08 –
.29** .03 -.11* -.02 .23** .13* .42** .22** 1
11. Stressors 61.99 12.06 -.08 –
.46** -.15** -.34**-
.37**.81** .59** .79** .73** .58** 1
12.Physiological
reactions 28.07 8.17 -.09 –
.32** -.17** -.28**-
.24**.48** .28** .50** .49** .33** .60** 1
13. Emotional
reactions 10.88 3.67 –
.16**-
.37** -.18** -.34**-
.33**.54** .30** .57** .47** .40** .65** .63** 1
14. Behavioural
reactions 13.87 4.23 –
.19**-
.44** -.12* -.37**-
.34**.48** .35** .41** .42** .31** .56** .49** .58** 1
15. Cognitive
reactions 6.77 1.93 .15** -.05 .10 .07 -.02 .30** .18** .34** .26** .29** .39** .33** .34** .26** 1
16. Reactions 58.91 14.57 -.12* –
.41** –
.169**-
,346**-
.32**.59** .36** .59** .55** .42** .72** .90** .82** .74** .48** 1

103Given the significant correlations between the stressors and between the reactions
to stress, we used in the structural model the overall scores to avoid the over-
lapping. In order to test the mediation hypothesis we tested two alternative
structural models: a full versus a partial mediation model. The models included asendogenous variable the overall score for the stressors scale, the score for the lifesatisfaction scale and the overall score for the reactions to stress scale (Figure 1).
Figure 2. The structural equation model regarding the mediating effect of stressors on
the association between resilient personality, academic stress reactions and satisfactionwith life
REALITIES IN A KALEIDOSCOPE

104REVISTA DE CERCETARE {I INTERVEN}IE SOCIAL| – VOLUMUL 48/2015
Compared to the partial mediation model, the full mediating model was tested
with the direct paths from the three dimensions of the resilient personality to the
satisfaction with life and to the reactions to stressors dimension. The differences
between the two models regarding the fit indices led to the conclusion that the fullmediation model was the best model (Table 3). According to Hu & Bentler (1999)and Kline (2011), the goodness-of-fit criteria were used in the current studyacknowledged the potential for acceptable ( λ
2/df ratio <3, CFI and TLI >.90,
SRMR <.10, RMSEA <.08) and excellent fit ( λ2/df ratio <2, CFI and TLI >.95,
SRMR <.08, RMSEA <.06).
Table 3. Goodness-of-fit measures for the tested models – First order and second
order CF A for the Adolescent Resilience Scale
Note. GFI: Goodness-of-Fit Index, CFI: Comparative Fit Index, AIC: Akaike In-
formation Criterion, RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, 90% CI: 90%confidence interval for RMSEA .
The significance of the mediating effect of stressors was tested using the
Bootstrap estimation procedure in AMOS. The standardized path coefficients andstandardized indirect effect of stressors and its associated 95% confidence inter-vals are displayed in Table 4.
Table 4. Direct, indirect and total effects (Standardized estimates) for the structural
model
Note. * p<.05, ** p<.01.
According to the results, Novelty seeking has a positive direct effect on Satis-
faction with life, Emotion regulation has a negative direct effect on Perceived
stressors, an indirect positive effect on Satisfaction with life, and an indirect
negative effect on Reactions to stress, Positive future orientation has only a
positive direct effect on Satisfaction with life. As expected, Perceived stressorsModel χ2(df) CFI TLI AIC RMSEA (90% CI)
1. Partial
mediation model 51.14 (7)
p < .001 .916 .820 91.141 .136
(.103-.173)
2. Full mediation model .838 (1)
p = .360 1.000 1.000 40.838 < .001
(.000-.139)

Variables Stressors Satisfaction with life Reactions to stressors
EFFECTS Direct/Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total
Novelty seeking .10 .16* -.03 .13* -.04 .07 .03
Emotion regulation -.48** -.01 .16* .15* -.08 -.32** -.40**
Positive future orientation -.08 .23** .03 .26** -.03 -.06 -.09
Stressors – -.33** – -.33** .67** – .67**

105have negative indirect effects on Satisfaction with life and positive direct effects
on Reactions to stress. Thus, the hypothesis concerning the mediating effect of
stressors is confirmed.
Discussion
The primary aim of our study was to examine the factor structure of the
Adolescent Resilience Scale and to analyse the mediating effect of stressors onthe associations between resilient trait, satisfaction with life and reactions tostress. The present study confirmed acceptable reliability and validity for theRomanian version of the scale. The results support the construct of adolescentresilience even after the translation, which lead to the idea that the findings
obtained through the Adolescent Resilience Scale could be generalized to other
populations than Japanese, contrary to other results reported in the literature(Ahern et al. , 2006). As previous studies highlighted, adolescent resilience mea-
sures are reliable and valid across diverse youth populations (Connor & Davidson,2003; Smith-Osborne & Bolton, 2013).
The associations between resilience and other psychological aspects were also
investigated: negative life events and resilience have significant influences onmental health problems (Peng et al. , 2012); resilience predicts successful adap-
tation (Ahem et al. , 2006); positive emotions play a mediating role between
psychological resilience and stress recovery (Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004); re-silience is positively related to life satisfaction (Abolghasemi & Varaniyab, 2010;
Cohn et al. , 2009). In the current study, as expected and consistent with previous
results, the path analyses showed that stressors functioned as a mediator betweenresilience and reactions to stress and life satisfaction.
An important implication of the study concerns the possibility to design inter-
ventions aiming to help resilient individuals to recover from stressful situations
and to increase their life satisfaction, contributing to a successful adaptation. The
main conclusion of the study is that individuals with high resilience are expectedto cope well with adverse events and to adapt more successfully. Another contri-bution of the study regards the use on a Romanian sample of a relatively short andeasy to administer instrument but with good psychometric properties assessingresilience, given the lack of measurement tools in resilience research for ado-
lescents. However, some limitations of the present study should be noted. The
convenience sample used in this research imposes the need to replicate and toverify the psychometric properties of the Adolescent Resilience Scale in otherpopulations. There are also many variables related to the resilience which werenot included in the research, the study being limited to the academic environmentand to the academic stressors and reactions to stressors. Lately, the study of
resilience in adolescence focused on topics such as teenagers’ pregnancy (BlackREALITIES IN A KALEIDOSCOPE

106REVISTA DE CERCETARE {I INTERVEN}IE SOCIAL| – VOLUMUL 48/2015
& Ford-Gilboe, 2004), prediction of psychiatric symptoms (Hjemdal et al. , 2006),
health problems (PrinceEmbury, 2008; Tian & Hong, 2013), adjustment diffi-
culties (Ungar & Liebenberg, 2009), suicide risk among depressed adolescents(Nrugham, Holen, & Sund, 2010). A longitudinal design would also demonstratethe stability or the changes regarding the level of resilience during attendinguniversity.
Conclusions
The results showed that the Adolescent Resilience Scale is a valid measure for
the assessment of resilience in Romanian college students. The reliability and theconstruct validity of the scale proved that it is an efficient instrument, the results
being important for the Romanian context given the fact that there are no other
similar scales used in the recent research in the field. Although several scalesreported in the international literature are in the early stages of development, thevalidation studies are very important, given the increasing interest in resilience.In order to extend the validation work, further research will intend to identify ifthe measurement parameters are invariant across gender, age and cultural origin
groups. Studies with different subjects as discussed in the previous section are
also necessary to better understand these results and to understand the factorstructure of the scale.
The appropriate values of the fit indices and the high reliability of the scales
included in the study represented the starting point for demonstrating that stressors
mediate the relationship between resilience, reactions to stress and life satis-
faction. The results showed that emotion regulation has the most significantmediated effects on reactions to stress, highlighting the fact that the stressorscould activate the emotional resources necessary to a successful adjustment. Onthe other hand, positive future orientation had the most significant mediatedeffects on satisfaction with life, showing that stressors could set the subjective
perception of individuals regarding their own life.
The results sustain, therefore, further investigation of resilience as a personality
trait and that individual differences in psychological resilience may constitute thekey towards a better understanding of adolescents’ and students’ reactions tostress within Romanian academic context. Highly resilient students are more
likely to perceive stressors as less demanding and, therefore, to better cope with
them and to adapt more efficiently to academic requirements. In addition toevidencing greater emotional regulation skills, highly resilient students seem tomaster their competencies and internal and external resources to face challengingcircumstances, which, in turn, leads to higher levels of satisfaction with life.

107References
Abolghasemi, A., & Varaniyab, S. (2010). Resilience and perceived stress: predictors of
life satisfaction in the students of success and failure. Procedia Social and Be-
havioral Sciences, 5, 748-752.
Ahern, N. R., Kiehl, E. M., Sole, M. L., & Byers, J. (2006). A review of instruments
measuring resilience. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 29 , 103-125.
Asendorpf, J., & van Aken, M. (1999). Resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled
personality prototypes in childhood: Replicability, predictive power, and the trait-
type issue. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 , 815-832.
Cazan, A.-M. (2014). The Romanian version of the Satisfaction with Life Scale. Romanian
Journal of Experimental Applied Psychology, 5 (1), 42-47.
Black, C., & Ford-Gilboe, M. (2004). Adolescent mothers: Resilience, family health
work and health-promoting factors. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48 (4), 351-360.
Cohn, M., F. B., Brown, S., Mikels, J., & Conway, A. (2009). Happiness unpacked:
positive emotions increase life satisfaction by building resilience. Emotion, 9 ,
361-368.
Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The
Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18 (2),
76-82.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life
Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49 , 71-75.
Friborg, O., Barlaug, D., Martinussen, M., Rosenvinge, J., & Hjemdal, O. (2005). Resi-
lience in relation to personality and intellingence . International Journal of Methods
in Psychiatric Research, 14, 29-42.
Gadzella, B. M. (1994). Student-life Stress Inventory: Identification of and reaction to
stressors. Psychological Reports, 74, 395-490.
Garmezy, N. (1981). Children under stress: perspectives on antecedents and correlates of
vulnerability and resistance to pathology. In A. I. Rabin, J. Arnoff, A. M. Barclay,
& R. A. Zuckers (eds.), Further Explorations in Personality (p. 196- 269) . New
York: Wiley Interscience.
Hjemdal, O., Friborg, O., Stiles, T. C., & Martinuss, M. (2006). Resilience predicting
psychiatric symptoms: A prospective study of protective factors and their role in
adjustment to stressful life events. Child Psychology and Psychotherapy, 13 , 194-
201.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Mode-
ling, 6, 1-55.
Kjeldstadli, K., Tyssen, R., Finset, A., Hem, E., Gude, T., Gronvold, N., et al. (2006). Life
satisfaction and resilience in medical school – a six-year longitudinal, nation wide
and comparative study. BMC Medical education , 6-48.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Nrugham, L., Holen, A., & Sund, A. (2010). Associations between attempted suicide,
violent life events, depressive symptoms, and resilience in adolescents and young
adults. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 198 (2), 131-136.REALITIES IN A KALEIDOSCOPE

108REVISTA DE CERCETARE {I INTERVEN}IE SOCIAL| – VOLUMUL 48/2015
Olsson, C., Bond, L., Burns, J., Vella-Brodick, D., & Sawyer, S. (2003). Adolescence
resilience: a concept analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 1-11.
Ong, A., Bergeman, C., Bisconti, T., & Wallace, K. (2006). Psychological resilience,
positive emotions, and successful adaptation to stress in later life. Personality
Processes and Individual Differences, 91, 730-749.
Oshio, A., Kaneko, H., Nagamine, S., & Nakaya, M. (2003). Construct validity of the
Adolescent Resilience Scale. Psychological Reports, 93 , 1217-1222.
Peng, L., Zhang, J., Li, M., Li, P., Zhang, Y ., Zuo, X., et al. (2012). Negative life events
and mental health of Chinese medical students: The effect of resilience, personality
and social support. Psychiatry Research, 196, 138–141.
Prince-Embury, S. (2008). The Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents, Psycho-
logical Symptoms, and Clinical Status in Adolescents. Canadian Journal of School
Psychology, 23 , 41-56.
Smith-Osborne, A., & Bolton, K. (2013). Assessing resilience: A review of measures
across the life course. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 10 (2), 111-126.
Tian, J., & Hong, J. (2013). Validation of the Chinese version of the Resilience Scale and
its cutoff score for detecting low resilience in Chinese cancer patients. Supportive
Care in Cancer, 21 (5), 1497-1502.
Tugade, M., & Fredrickson, B. (2004). Resilient individual use positive emotions to
bounce back from negative emotional experiences. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 86, 320-333.
Ungar, M., & Liebenberg, L. (2009). Cross-cultural consultation leading to the deve-
lopment of a valid measure of youth resilience: the international resilience project.
Studia Psychologica, 51 (2-3), 259-269.
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children from birth
to adulthood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Wilks, S. (2008). Resilience amid academic stress: The moderating impact of social
support among social work stduents. Advances in Social Work, 9, 106-125.
Windle, G., Bennett, K. M., & Noyes, J. (2011). A methodological review of resilience
measurement scales. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 9 (8), 1-18.
Zaleski, E. H., Levey-Thors, C., & Schiaffino, K. M. (1998). Coping mechanisms, stress,
social support, and health problems in college students. Applied Developmental
Science, 2 (3), 127-137.