Next Article in Journal
Persistent Symptoms among Frontline Health Workers Post-Acute COVID-19 Infection
Next Article in Special Issue
Types and Characteristics of Stress Coping in Women Undergoing Infertility Treatment in Korea
Previous Article in Journal
A Global Sharing Mechanism of Resources: Modeling a Crucial Step in the Fight against Pandemics
Previous Article in Special Issue
Impact of Stress and Financials on Romanian Infertile Women Accessing Assisted Reproductive Treatment
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 10
10.3390/ijerph19105932
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Resilience Scale in Portuguese Adults under Assisted Reproductive Techniques

by
Joana Romeiro
1,*,
Paulo Nogueira
2,
Jenny Hall
3 and
Sílvia Caldeira
1
1
Institute of Health Sciences, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, 1649-023 Lisbon, Portugal
2
Instituto de Medicina Preventiva e Saúde Pública, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, 1649-028 Lisboa, Portugal
3
Independent Researcher, Liverpool L17 7AQ, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(10), 5932; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19105932
Submission received: 2 April 2022 / Revised: 28 April 2022 / Accepted: 4 May 2022 / Published: 13 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Causes and Psychological Impact of Infertility)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Assessing resilience response to an adverse event such as infertility requires measuring the same construct adequately and accurately by nurses. The objective of this study was to explore the validity and reliability of the Portuguese version of the Resilience Scale for adults. A cross-sectional and methodological design was used, and factor analyses were performed. The sample comprised 140 adult Portuguese individuals under fertility treatment recruited from health-related websites. The findings yielded a bad fit of the hypothesized Resilience Scale structure with the observed data. Instead, a 21-item tool with a four-factor structure revealed high internal consistency (0.94). The tool correlated positively and significantly to the Portuguese version of the Spiritual Well-Being Questionnaire and was negatively associated and lacked correlation with the Fertility Adjustment Scale. The 21-item Resilience Scale is a reliable tool suitable to measure resilience in Portuguese adults under assisted reproductive techniques. This tool offers the opportunity of early recognition by health professionals aiming to enhance patients’ coping skills effectively and promote positive psychological and mental health outcomes.

1. Introduction

Resilience is a critical concept in healthcare and has been studied in a wide diversity of contexts across the lifespan [1,2]. Different perspectives and definitions of resilience are easily found in the literature [3]. For instance, resilience has been grounded in the psychological domain, in neuroscientific and physiologic disciplines [3,4], and related to a socio-ecological view in terms of personal characteristics, outcomes, or processes [3,4]. Resilience has also been associated with the interaction between risk factors and inner strength [4,5]. On the other hand, resilience reflects a dynamic process that derives and is influenced by context and human responses to life events [6]. Resilience has also been described to have a fundamental role in the quality of life [7] and wellbeing [5,8]. A synthesis of concept analysis studies identified resilience as an “ability to recover from perceived adverse or changing situations, through a dynamic process of adaptation, influenced by personal characteristics, family and social resources, and manifested by positive coping, control, and integration” [9]. Often, empirical evidence focused on an individual’s adaptation to bereavement [8,10] and illness, in particular, in chronically ill populations and adolescents [2,4]. Research has found a link between high levels of resilience and increased adherence to treatment, predisposition to self-care, and healthier behaviors.
Additionally, such positive adaptation benefits were associated with low psychological and mental manifestations such as anxiety and depression [5,11,12,13,14].
Shiner and Masten (2012) and McGowan and collaborators (2018) claimed that resilience improved with age and with recurrent and repeated experiences in handling aversive life events. This process seems to help individuals face emerging challenges and develop coping strategies and resources potentially useful in the future [15]. Interestingly, regardless of the relation between time having the experience and resilience, when time is lived with a diagnosis, such as patients with HIV, lower levels of resilience may be identified [15]. The same researchers stated that more extended exposition to illness led individuals to experience prolonged stress, which affected the resources necessary for positive mental development [15]. Similar results were found in an early study conducted on women with infertility [16].
In clinical terms, infertility is a reproductive health condition resulting from a failure to have a clinical pregnancy in one year of regular unprotected sexual intercourse or the impaired ability of a person and/or a couple to reproduce [17].
Previous works identified that reactions to fertility problems followed a biopsychosocial model [18] and that they happened at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and transpersonal levels simultaneously [19,20,21].
Just as resilience was described to function as a protective factor in a crisis [12], it also operated against the distress caused by infertility [22,23], but interestingly, also during pregnancy and puerperium [24]. Indeed, Li and collaborators [7] demonstrated that resilience played a determinant role between infertility-related stress and quality of living in a sample of 498 women [7]. Living longer with such a reproductive diagnosis reflected a declined ability to cope [16], and increased the levels of anxiety, depression, burden, and treatment withdrawal [25,26,27,28]. These effects were particularly relevant during assisted reproductive techniques (ARTs) [26,27,29]. Gameiro and collaborators (2016) predicted that one in every ten women living with such an infertility process had a compromised trajectory of adapting to stressors, which would be a cause for serious mental health impairment from 11 to 17 years after treatment.
Such undeniable and devastating consequences and responses are worth further research to raise awareness about human responses to infertility, conduct targeted individualized and person-centered interventions, and improve outcomes and quality in reproductive care.
Measurement tools have been developed to identify influencing factors in the perceived quality of living. Still, a thorough assessment of factors, like the case of a positive resource as resilience, depends on the accuracy and validity of instruments [3]. It is particularly evident concerning the Resilience Scale (RS) for adults that, despite receiving the best psychometric ratings by a methodological review of resilience measurement scales [3], it remains under-researched in adults, in a Portuguese population and in specific samples of individuals going through ART [30,31]. Hence, this study had the primary purpose of exploring the validity and reliability of the Portuguese version of the RS for adults. In addition, detailed discussions of the demographic and clinical characteristics of the sample and of the RS scores were performed.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design and Participants

A descriptive cross-sectional and methodological design was conducted. A non-probabilistic and convenience sample of people with internet access was included. Inclusion criteria were participants who were: (1) adult men and women (aged 18 years or older); (2) Portuguese nationality; (3) in the process of engaging or during any stage of a fertility treatment; (4) willing to participate in this study; (5) agreed to and signed electronic informed consent. Incomplete questionnaires were excluded.
Recruitment took place through online invitations in fertility-related websites. This involved the release of periodical advertisements with potential participants asked to access a web-based questionnaire by clicking on an electronic link which directed them to the informed consent of the study.
The final sample of this research comprised 104 individuals.

2.2. Instrument

The online survey comprised demographic spiritual, religious, and clinical-health and treatment questions along with the Portuguese version of the RS for adults (previously translated and validated in a sample of 365 adults (students and church attendants) by Deep and Pereira (2012). This tool diverted from the original 25-item RS [2], which comprised five resilience factors: “Serenity”, “Perseverance”, “Self-confidence”, “The meaning of life”, and “Self-reliance”. The score of the original scale ranges from 25 to 175, and higher scores indicate higher degrees of resilience. The questions are answered on a Likert scale (from 1 to 7), which correspond to the lowest level of disagreement and the highest level of agreement [2]. Several studies have tested the original instrument in samples of caregivers of spouses with Alzheimer’s disease, graduate students, first-time mothers returning to work, residents in public housing, pregnant and postpartum women, and older adults. These results presented the acceptable internal consistency and reliability of the RS with a Cronbach’s alpha ranging between 0.76 and 0.91 [2].
Meanwhile, a remodeled version emerged with the same 25 original items and two subscales: “Personal Competence” (items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, and 24); and “Acceptance of Self and Life” (items 7, 8, 11, 12, 16, 21, 22, and 25) [2]. Nevertheless, the translated and validated Portuguese version [30] presented a shortened 23-item RS with four factors: “Perseverance” (known as Factor 1 including items 7, 12, 15, 16, 17, 21, and 22), “The meaning of life” (Factor 2 including items 3, 5, 8, 13, 14, and 19), “Serenity” (Factor 3 including items 6, 9, 10, 11, and 20) and “Self-reliance and self-confidence” (Factor 4 including items 1, 2, 4, 18, and 23) [28]. The total score in this adapted scale ranges between 25 and 161.

2.3. Data Collection

A web-based survey was designed and included information such as: demographic aspects; spiritual and religious beliefs; clinical-health data; and fertility treatments.
The length of time estimated for completion of the instrument was 10 to 15 min. The study adopted two phases. The first included a pilot study with previous review by three nursing experts. These experts were selected considering the following criteria: expertise on the method, expertise on the topic (spirituality or meaning), or expertise on the health condition. This was followed by a pretest with a sample of thirty respondents recruited by the same means. The pretest sample was composed mostly of females (97%) between 29 and 44 years old with a minimum of one year having an infertility diagnosis (17%). Most participants reported being married (60%) with higher degrees of study (47%) and employment (97%). The majority had no children of their own (93%) and reported the female factor as the main cause for their infertility (30%). Moreover, there was a predominance of persons waiting for the treatment to begin (57%). After the evaluation of the findings obtained in the prior test, along with suggestions made by the participants and experts, minor changes were made to the questionnaire as to provide clearer writing and understanding.
A final version of the survey was achieved and implemented in the second phase of the study. All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study.
The current study is part of the first author’s doctoral thesis.

2.4. Data Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS, version 26.0 [32]. The 23 items of the RS were checked to confirm suitability in further analysis. The variables were screened using skewness and kurtosis, to gather information about the normal distribution of data [33]. To detect differences in the RS means by groups, the independent sample t-tests and the One-Way ANOVA (Table 1) were used following the Pestana and Gageiro (2003) premise of data normality in samples with 30 or more respondents. As a measure of construct reliability, the internal consistency was calculated using Cronbach’s α (recommended value higher than 0.70) [34]. Suitability to perform a factor analysis was determined with Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (p < 0.05) [33] and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) sampling adequacy test (higher than 0.6) [35]. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using the AMOS SPSS program (Analysis of Moment Structures), version 26.0 [32] was previously conducted to test the four-factor structure and data fit of the 23-item RS. A good fit was achieved if goodness-of-fit indices presented the following recommended values: ratio of chi-square statistic to the respective degrees of freedom (X2/df) (lower than 3); the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) with a value of 0.01 (excellent fit), below 0.05 (good fit), lower than 0.08 (good fit), between 0.05 and 0.10 (moderate fit), and higher than 0.10 (bad fit); the incremental fit index (CFI) (greater than 0.90–0.95); Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) ranging between 0 and 1 with values greater than 0.90 indicating good fit; and Normed Fit Index (NFI) higher than 0.90 [36,37,38]. If a bad fit statistic was noted, in further examination of the Deep and Pereira (2012) model, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) would be conducted instead. Like Deep and Pereira (2012) and Wagnild and Young (1993), a Varimax rotation was performed. Items with communalities less than 0.2 were removed during this process. A principal component extraction was performed based on eigenvalues greater than one (Kaiser criterion or K1) [39]. Following previous RS studies, only factors with an explained variance above 5% were retained. Moreover, factors with at least three items and with a loading greater than 0.4 and low cross-loading were retained. The absolute values of factor loadings less than 0.3 were suppressed. Additional scree plot analysis was used to compare findings. After the solution stabilized, the total variance explained by the retained factors was at least 50% or higher, and acceptable correlations between factors were checked.
Lastly, the convergent and divergent validity of the final RS structure was further investigated using Pearson’s correlation coefficients between each variable of the RS and the Portuguese version of the Spiritual Well-Being Questionnaire (SWBQp) [40] and the Fertility Adjustment Scale (FAS) [41,42].
The SWBQp is a well-established tool for self-assessment of spiritual wellbeing in the Portuguese population [40]. It consists of 20 items and four subscales: personal (items 5, 9, 14, 16, and 18), communal (items 1, 3, 8, 17, and 19), environmental (items 4, 7, 10, 12, and 20), and transcendental (items 2, 6, 11, 13, and 15) [43]. This instrument and its construct fall within the spiritual domain, and the instrument was selected because of its hypothesized relationship with the resilience construct [5,8]. The FAS is a tool intended to measure specific psychological reactions to fertility problems and treatment outcomes [44]. It comprises 10 items and three subscales: “Centrality of parenting” (1, 3, 6, and 9); “Suspended life” (items 2, 5, and 8); “Acceptation of life without children” (Items 4, 7, and 10) [41,42]. The reliability of the RS was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha of the total scale and subscales (>0.7) [34].

3. Results

3.1. Sample Characteristics

One hundred and four participants were integrated in the sample of this study since there were no missing or incomplete answers. The sample included 102 women (98.1%) and 2 men (1.9%); their age ranged from 26 to 54 years with a mean of 35.4 (SD = 4.8; 95% CI = 34.49–36.34); the majority lived in the north region of Portugal (33.3%), were married (57.7%), and living together for a mean of 7.97 years (SD = 4.80; 95% CI = 7.03–8.91); most had a higher education level (65.4%), were employed (87.5%), and were intellectual and scientific experts (35.6%). The primary form of infertility predominated in the sample (86.5%). About 47.1% of the respondents were on the eminence of starting a new medical fertility procedure. In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) was the most common ART procedure (52.6%) (Table 1).

3.2. Descriptive Analysis of RS

A significant association was found between resilience and: spiritual changes with diagnosis (p = 0.009); spiritual changes with treatment (p = 0.005); religion changes with treatment (p = 0.010); and cause of infertility (p = 0.014) (Table 1). Resilience was more relevant in people that reported: no change in their spirituality when diagnosed with infertility (M = 5.24; SD = 0.86) or during fertility treatment (M = 5.27; SD = 0.83); no change in religion during treatment (M = 5.24; SD = 0.87); both a female and male cause (M = 5.21; SD = 0.82). The highest mean scores of the scale were presented by plant and machine operators (M = 5.82; SD = 0.00); students (M = 5.54; SD = 0.03); people undergoing another type of fertility treatment (M = 5.50; SD = 1.13); and people who perceived spirituality as very important to them (M = 5.43; SD = 0.99) (Table 1).
The mean item scores ranged from 3.97 (SD = 1.97) (item 9) to 5.61 (SD = 1.47) (item 16) with a mean of items for the overall scale of 4.96 (SD = 1.05) (Table 2). The total score for the RS was 114.12 (SD = 24.25).
The Cronbach’s alpha indicated the high internal consistency or homogeneity of the RS (0.94) (Table 2). Before testing the factor structure of the RS [44], its appropriateness was confirmed to proceed with the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity ((χ2 = 1619.36, df = 253, p < 0.001) and with a KMO of 0.90).

3.3. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

The Kaiser-Guttman criterion (K1) (Table 3) (eigenvalue > 1) was used, and a Varimax rotation presented an initial scale structure with five factors (Table 4). Yet, a factor with two variables is only considered reliable when the correlation between variables is high (r > 0.70), and this did not happen between variables 10 and 11 in Factor 5 (r = 0.48) (Table 4). Following the procedure of the original scale and Deep and Pereira’s (2012) version, only three factors with an explained variance above 5% were retained, which explained 60.05% of the total variance (Table 3).
Additionally, communalities after extraction ranged between 0.29 and 0.80 (Table 5). As such, item 18 was eliminated since recommended values should be above 0.30.
The analyzed structure had satisfactory loadings of each item on their respective factors (>0.30) (Table 4). No cross-loadings were observed. These results, along with the scree plot (Figure 1), seemed to propose a four- or three-factor solution.
These solutions were further investigated when removing item 10 due to low pattern coefficients (<0.40) (Table 4) and led to the further analysis of the 21-item structure of the RS. The assessment of the KMO (0.90) and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (χ2 = 1514.725, df = 210, p < 0.001) allowed us to proceed with an EFA. A PCA with Varimax rotation and scree plot analysis presented a four-factor solution with a cumulative explained variance of 68.17%, which was higher than the percentage obtained with the previously analyzed structures (Table 3). At this stage, the 21-item scale included Factor 1 (items 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, and 19), Factor 2 (items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 11), Factor 3 (items 7, 8, 15, 16, 17, and 22), and Factor 4 (items 9, 20, 21, and 23) (Table 4). Factor 1 was labeled “The meaning of life”, Factor 2 “Self-reliance”, Factor 3 “Self-confidence”, and Factor 4 “Acceptance of Life circumstances”.
Internal consistency of the overall 21-item scale (0.95) would not significantly improve with the deletion of any observed variable, and as such no other item was deleted (Table 6).
Increased pattern coefficients (>0.40) and higher communalities were shown in the new solution (Table 5). Factor loadings ranged from 0.44 to 0.82 (Table 4), and the scree plot (Figure 2) confirmed the four-factor structure of the 21-item RS. Skewness and kurtosis values for these factors did not exceed the critical values of 1 and 2, respectively, which means that the normality was met for this sample (Table 6).
The correlations between Factor 1, Factor 2, Factor 3, and Factor 4 were significant, ranging between 0.538 and 0.799 (Pearson coefficient (r) ≥ 0.30) (Table 7).
On the other hand, the 21-item scale presented an overall mean of 104.06 (SD = 22.68) and an item’s mean of 4.95 (SD = 1.08).

3.4. Reliability

The final shortened RS version presented good reliability (0.94) as well as for all the subscales (0.76–0.90) (Table 6).

3.5. Convergent and Discriminant Validity

The convergent validity of the 21-item RS was further investigated by comparing it to the SWBQp and the FAS. Spiritual wellbeing and resilience were theoretically related, and the hypotheses of a strong and positive correlation between the two constructs was confirmed in this study (r = 0.412; p < 0.001) (Table 8).
On the other hand, correlations between RS and FAS indicated discriminant validity (r = −0.026; p = 0.790), with the majority of Pearson’s values indicating the uniqueness of the four RS factors with the exception of the fourth RS factor, which had a significant correlation with all FAS domains (r ranged between −0.249 and 0.290; p < 0.05). Finally, the last factor of the FAS (“Acceptation of life without children”) had a significant correlation with the overall RS (r = 0.227; p = 0.021) and with each of its subscales (Table 8).

4. Discussion

The aim of the present study was attained. It evaluated the psychometric properties of the Portuguese version of the RS [30] in a sample of adults going through fertility treatment. No other study has been found that has tested the factor structure in such a sample and environment. Indeed, the RS has been used in younger participants [45,46,47,48,49,50,51] although it was developed using older women [2,3]. Moreover, measurement instruments related to resilience are under-researched in settings such as ART [9,20,21,52], and this study expresses the utility of the RS in reproductive care as it facilitates the assessment of the impact of infertility and ART on being resilient and coping with such adversity.
The findings of the CFA yielded a bad fit of the hypothesized RS structure with the observed data. Instead, an EFA of the RS was conducted and revealed four factors (Factor 1 “The meaning of life”, Factor 2 “Self-reliance”, Factor 3 “Self-confidence”, and Factor 4 “Acceptance of Life Circumstances”). The number of extracted components resembled Deep and Pereira’s (2012) four-factor version, although with a shorter 21-item structure and a different item distribution. Therefore, the results of this study deviated from the original 25-item as earlier presented by Wagnild and Young (1993).
The 21-item RS indicated high internal consistency (0.94) and good reliability for all four subscales (0.76–0.90), higher than those obtained by Deep and Pereira (2012) but with similarities to Wagnild and Young’s (1993) study (0.76–0.91).
There were strong intercorrelations between all four factors of the RS. Additionally, the RS was positively and significantly related to SWBQp, but such a relationship is slightly limited between Factor 2 of the RS and the communal, environmental, and transcendental SWBQp subscales. Together, these results suggest that the two measurement tools evaluate different constructs yet with great resemblance. These are not surprising results, as they confirm the already-addressed association between resilience and spiritual wellbeing and the tendency of resilient individuals to manifest a higher sense of wellbeing [5,8]. Furthermore, spiritual wellbeing has been highlighted as a strong predictor of mental health [53].
On the other hand, the RS was negatively associated and lacked correlation to the FAS. Therefore, the results suggest that these tools evaluate different constructs which are structurally independent. Despite these findings, the last dimension of the FAS correlated positively to all the subscales of the RS. These findings were already expected as “Acceptation of life without children” embodies to a certain degree the resilience definition [9], because it relates to an existing adaptation to an adverse life event, in this case, adaptation to involuntary childlessness.
Meanwhile, a slightly high resilience level was found in the sample, which confirms an adaptive process emerged and prevailed in individuals facing infertility [2,10], and acted as a protective factor against such event [23].
Nevertheless, it must be recalled that most of the participants in our sample were at the initial stages of ART and waiting for it to begin, which might evoke increased levels of positive expectation in a successful pregnancy. In fact, the previous literature addressed the frequent emotional ride lived by individuals characterized by hope at the beginning of a cycle [20,21], and a study exploring how personality traits are related to resilience development indicated hope was a significant predictor of resilience [5]. Moreover, the positive association between resilience and engagement in action-focused coping behaviors [18] could also explain findings of increased resilience in individuals pursuing ART.
This study also pointed to a significant association between resilience and spirituality during infertility diagnosis and spirituality/religion during treatment. Both spirituality and religion have been recognized as sources of resilience and as means of supporting individuals in their path to recover or deal with a disease, mitigate the effects of such adversity and help regain and/or maintain health [54,55]. A correlation between spirituality and resilience has been highlighted before, with reports of a positive and dynamic link that occasioned the use of the term “spiritual resilience” [55].
Additionally, a significant association was also found between resilience and cause of infertility, with a higher resilience score when a female and male factor were responsible for couples’ infertility. Often, women have perceived themselves as responsible for raising a family and being accountable for becoming pregnant [56]. As such, a shared responsibility between partners in the cause of couples’ infertility might justify decreased levels of stress in women and higher levels of resilience in our sample, as most respondents were females.
Even though findings from this study add to the growing body of evidence, some limitations must be mentioned. First, the RS is a tool that was not specifically designed to assess peculiarities related to living with infertility and specifically designed to be applied in a sample under ART. Plus, women participated more than men, and having a convenience sample recruited through the web might have compromised the generalization of the results to the wider population due to its voluntary nature.

5. Conclusions

Data showed the 21-item RS is a valid and reliable tool in this sample. Although aspects related to the sampling method and criteria were rigorous, it might be difficult to generalize the findings to the broader population of Portuguese individuals under fertility treatment. Moreover, it must be remembered that resilience has a subjective nature, and it is difficult to ascertain if different patients will respond to the same phenomenon in the same way as the sample. In addition, a predominance of women and scarcity of male participants might have introduced some bias, as resilience development and coping strategies towards infertility are known to happen in different ways according to gender [57]. The aforementioned aspects alert us to the need for further research in men and couples. It is crucial to understand how resilience evolves between partners and affect marital living and quality of life during different stages of ART. Since resilience was found to be affected by age, it would be interesting to explore how resilience evolves in time with ART and the increase in women’s age in treatment, and how personality traits influence adaptation to infertility and treatment. Comparison with other findings is crucial, and future research is advised to follow similar methodological procedures which would help prove the scientific robustness of the tool.
This work offers a new insight towards the measure of resilience and the potential of the RS to be used to increase desired patient outcomes in reproductive healthcare. Specific interventions of practitioners based on such assessments could be useful in clinical practice to help patients become more resilient when dealing with infertility and ART. Effective skills to cope with infertility enhance resilient behavior, prevent negative, devastating, and long-term effects in general and mental health, and positively impact the quality of life and wellbeing of individuals living in such circumstances.
This study demonstrates the crucial role researchers, practitioners, and policymakers have in measuring resilience, as it may provide more accurate health projections and the design of specific strategies towards the provision of a more patient-oriented and integrated care. Developing resilience-based programs to address and support patients with infertility may help enhance long-term resilience, facilitate self-confidence, self-efficacy, life transition, and prevent fertility treatment withdrawals.

Author Contributions

J.R., S.C.: Conceptualization; data curation; formal analysis; funding acquisition; methodology; supervision; investigation; project administration; resources; writing—original draft; J.R., P.N., J.H., S.C.: validation; J.R., P.N., J.H., S.C.: writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the NANDA-International, Inc. through a Foundation Grant Award granted to the first author’s doctoral project. This work was financially supported by National Funds through FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., under the project UIDB/04279/2020.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of The Institute of Health Sciences of Universidade Católica Portuguesa. The research ethics clearance certificate is dated 13 March 2019.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data analyzed in the study are available upon request to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We appreciate all respondents who took the time to participate in the research and also the online fertility groups, in particular The Portuguese Fertility Association (Associação Portuguesa de Fertilidade) for collaboration and advertisement of the survey. This paper was written based on findings from the first author’s Ph.D. thesis, and official support of the university is hereby acknowledged (The Institute of Health Sciences of Universidade Católica Portuguesa).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Windle, G.; Bennett, K.M.; Noyes, J. A Methodological Review of Resilience Measurement Scales. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2011, 9, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Wagnild, G.M.; Young, H.M. Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the Resilience Scale. J. Nurs. Meas. 1993, 1, 165–178. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  3. Windle, G. What Is Resilience? A Review and Concept Analysis. Rev. Clin. Gerontol. 2011, 21, 152–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ahern, N.; Kiehl, E.; Lou Sole, M.; Byers, J. A Review of Instruments Measuring Resilience. Compr. Child Adolesc. Nurs. 2006, 29, 103–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Goodman, F.R.; Disabato, D.J.; Kashdan, T.B.; Machell, K.A. Personality Strengths as Resilience: A One-Year Multiwave Study. J. Personal. 2017, 85, 423–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Shiner, R.L.; Masten, A.S. Childhood Personality as a Harbinger of Competence and Resilience in Adulthood. Dev. Psychopathol. 2012, 24, 507–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Li, Y.; Zhang, X.; Shi, M.; Guo, S.; Wang, L. Resilience Acts as a Moderator in the Relationship between Infertility-Related Stress and Fertility Quality of Life among Women with Infertility: A Cross-Sectional Study. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2019, 17, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mancini, A.D.; Bonanno, G.A. Predictors and Parameters of Resilience to Loss: Toward an Individual Differences Model. J. Personal. 2009, 77, 1805–1832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Caldeira, S.; Timmins, F. Resilience: Synthesis of Concept Analyses and Contribution to Nursing Classifications. Int. Nurs. Rev. 2016, 63, 191–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bonanno, G.A. Loss, Trauma, and Human Resilience: Have We Underestimated the Human Capacity to Thrive after Extremely Aversive Events? Am. Psychol. 2004, 59, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Rooney, K.L.; Domar, A.D. The Relationship between Stress and Infertility. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 2018, 20, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Kim, J.H.; Shin, H.S.; Yun, E.K. A Dyadic Approach to Infertility Stress, Marital Adjustment, and Depression on Quality of Life in Infertile Couples. J. Holist. Nurs. 2016, 36, 6–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Smith, P.R. Resilience: Resistance Factor for Depressive Symptom. J. Psychiatr. Ment. Health Nurs. 2009, 16, 829–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Malina, A.; Suwalska-Barancewicz, D. Comparison of Early-Stage Mothers and Childless Women Seeking Pregnancy: Experienced Stress, Resilience and Satisfaction with Relationship with the Partner. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. McGowan, J.A.; Brown, J.; Lampe, F.C.; Lipman, M.; Smith, C.; Rodger, A. Resilience and Physical and Mental Well-Being in Adults with and Without HIV. AIDS Behav. 2018, 22, 1688–1698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Zurlo, M.C.; Cattaneo Della Volta, M.F.; Vallone, F. Predictors of Quality of Life and Psychological Health in Infertile Couples: The Moderating Role of Duration of Infertility. Qual. Life Res. 2018, 27, 945–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zegers-Hochschild, F.; Adamson, G.D.; Dyer, S.; Racowsky, C.; de Mouzon, J.; Sokol, R.; Rienzi, L.; Sunde, A.; Schmidt, L.; Cooke, I.D.; et al. The International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care, 2017. Fertil. Steril. 2017, 108, 393–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Sexton, M.B.; Byrd, M.R.; von Kluge, S. Measuring Resilience in Women Experiencing Infertility Using the CD-RISC: Examining Infertility-Related Stress, General Distress, and Coping Styles. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2010, 44, 236–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mahajan, N.N.; Turnbull, D.A.; Davies, M.J.; Jindal, U.N.; Briggs, N.E.; Taplin, J.E. Adjustment to Infertility: The Role of Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Resources/Vulnerabilities. Hum. Reprod. 2009, 24, 906–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Romeiro, J.; Caldeira, S.; Brady, V.; Timmins, F.; Hall, J. Spiritual Aspects of Living with Infertility: A Synthesis of Qualitative Studies. J. Clin. Nurs. 2017, 26, 3917–3935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Romeiro, J.; Caldeira, S. The Human Responses and Nursing Diagnoses of Those Living With Infertility: A Qualitative Systematic Review. Int. J. Nurs. Knowl. 2019, 30, 173–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Vatanparast, M.; Yasini Ardekani, S.M.; Anvari, M.; Kalantari, A.; Yaghmaie, F.; Royani, Z. Resilience as the Predictor of Quality of Life in the Infertile Couples as the Most Neglected and Silent Minorities. J. Reprod. Infant Psychol. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Herrmann, D.; Scherg, H.; Verres, R.; Von Hagens, C.; Strowitzki, T.; Wischmann, T. Resilience in Infertile Couples Acts as a Protective Factor against Infertility-Specific Distress and Impaired Quality of Life. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2011, 28, 1111–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. García-León, M.Á.; Caparrós-González, R.A.; Romero-González, B.; González-Perez, R.; Peralta-Ramírez, I. Resilience as a Protective Factor in Pregnancy and Puerperium: Its Relationship with the Psychological State, and with Hair Cortisol Concentrations. Midwifery 2019, 75, 138–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Van Den Broeck, U.; Holvoet, L.; Enzlin, P.; Bakelants, E.; Demyttenaere, K.; D’Hooghe, T. Reasons for Dropout in Infertility Treatment. Gynecol. Obstet. Investig. 2009, 68, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Pedro, J.; Sobral, M.P.; Mesquita-Guimarães, J.; Leal, C.; Costa, M.E.; Martins, M.V. Couples’ Discontinuation of Fertility Treatments: A Longitudinal Study on Demographic, Biomedical, and Psychosocial Risk Factors. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2017, 34, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gameiro, S.; Van Den Belt-Dusebout, A.W.; Smeenk, J.M.J.; Braat, D.D.M.; Van Leeuwen, F.E.; Verhaak, C.M. Women’s Adjustment Trajectories during IVF and Impact on Mental Health 11-17 Years Later. Hum. Reprod. 2016, 31, 1788–1798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Cabral, H.B.O.; Bucher-Maluschke, J.S.N.F. Desenvolvimento Dos Fatores de Resiliência No Contexto Da Infertilidade: Revisão. Psicol. Saúde Doença 2016, 17, 503–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. De Castro, M.H.M.; Mendonça, C.R.; Noll, M.; de Abreu Tacon, F.S.; do Amaral, W.N. Psychosocial Aspects of Gestational Grief in Women Undergoing Infertility Treatment: A Systematic Review of Qualitative and Quantitative Evidence. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 13143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Deep, C.; Pereira, I. Adaptação Da “The Resilience Scale” Para a População Adulta Portuguesa. Psicol. USP 2012, 23, 417–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Romeiro, J.; Martins, H.; Pinto, S.; Caldeira, S. Review and Characterization of Portuguese Theses, Dissertations, and Papers about Spirituality in Health. Religions 2018, 9, 271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. IBM SPSS Version 26.0. Available online: https://www.ibm.com/us-en/ (accessed on 9 August 2020).
  33. Hair, J.F. Multivariate Data Analysis; Pearson Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006; ISBN 978-0-13-032929-5. [Google Scholar]
  34. Nunnally, J.C.; Bernstein, I.H. The Assessment of Reliability. In Psychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1994; Volume 3, pp. 248–292. ISBN 978-0-07-047849-7. [Google Scholar]
  35. Tabachnick, B.G.; Fidell, L.S. Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed.; Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education: Boston, MA, USA, 2007; ISBN 978-0-205-45938-4. [Google Scholar]
  36. Awang, Z. The second order Confirmatory Factor Analysis. In A Handbook on SEM; MPWS Publisher: Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia, 2012; pp. 163–181. [Google Scholar]
  37. Hooper, D.; Coughlan, J.; Mullen, M. Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit. Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods 2008, 6, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Fit Indices in Covariance Structure Modeling: Sensitivity to Underparameterized Model Misspecification. Psychol. Methods 1998, 3, 424–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hayton, J.C.; Allen, D.G.; Scarpello, V. Factor Retention Decisions in Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Tutorial on Parallel Analysis. Organ. Res. Methods 2004, 7, 191–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gouveia, M.J.; Marques, M.; Ribeiro, J.L.P. Versão Portuguesa Do Questionário de Bem-Estar Espiritual (SWBQ): Análise Confirmatória Da Sua Estrutura Factorial. Psicol. Saúde Doenças 2009, 10, 285–293. [Google Scholar]
  41. Lopes, V.M.S. Personalidade e Ajustamento Emocional na Infertilidade; Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada: Lisboa, Portugal, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  42. Lopes, V.; Leal, I. Avaliação em Sexualidade e Parentalidade—Escala de Ajustamento à Fertilidade (EAF); Isabel Leal e João Maroco: LivPsic, Porto, 2010; ISBN 978-989-8148-32-2. [Google Scholar]
  43. Fisher, J. Development and Application of a Spiritual Well-Being Questionnaire Called SHALOM. Religions 2010, 1, 105–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Glover, L.; Hunter, M.; Richards, J.M.; Katz, M.; Abel, P.D. Development of the Fertility Adjustment Scale. Fertil. Steril. 1999, 72, 623–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Fernandes, A.; Skotnes, L.-L.; Major, M.; Falcão, P.F. Clinicians’ Perceptions of Norwegian Women’s Experiences of Infertility Diseases. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Oliveira, A.; Matos, A.P.; Pinheiro, M.d.R.; Oliveira, S. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Resilience Scale Short Form in a Portuguese Adolescent Sample. Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 165, 260–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Gonçalves, A.; Camarneiro, A. Validation of the Wagnild and Young’s Resilience Scale in Adolescents in Residential Care. Rev. Enferm. Ref. 2018, IV Série, 107–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pinheiro, M.d.R. Exploring the Construct Validity of the Two Versions of the Resilience Scale in an Portuguese Adolescent Sample. Eur. J. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 2, 178–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dias, P.C.; Cadime, I.; Perim, P.C. Further Evidence for the Structure of the Resilience Scale in Portuguese Language Countries: An Invariance Study with Brazilian and Portuguese Adolescents. Psicologia 2016, 30, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Dias, P.C.A.; Rodriguez, J.A.G.d.C.; López-Sánchez, C. Adaptação Da Escala de Estratégias de Coping Na Adolescência Numa Amostra Portuguesa. Estud. Psicol. 2015, 20, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Felgueiras, M.C.; Festas, C.; Vieira, M. Adaptação e Validação Da Resilience Scale ® de Wagnild e Young Para a Cultura Portuguesa. Cad. Saúde 1993, 3, 73–80. [Google Scholar]
  52. Lubián-López, D.M.; Moya-Bejarano, D.; Butrón-Hinojo, C.A.; Marín-Sánchez, P.; Blasco-Alonso, M.; Jiménez-López, J.S.; Villegas-Muñoz, E.; González-Mesa, E. Measuring Resilience in Women with Endometriosis. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 5942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Martínez, B.B.; Custódio, R.P. Relação Entre Saúde Mental e Bem-Estar Espiritual Em Pacientes de Hemodiálise: Um Estudo Correlacional. Sao Paulo Med. J. 2014, 132, 23–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Pargament, K.I.; Cummings, J. Anchored by Faith: Religion as a Resilience Factor. In Handbook of Adult Resilience; Reich, J.W., Zautra, A.J., Hall, J.S., Eds.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 193–210. [Google Scholar]
  55. Manning, L.; Ferris, M.; Narvaez Rosario, C.; Prues, M.; Bouchard, L. Spiritual Resilience: Understanding the Protection and Promotion of Well-Being in the Later Life. J. Relig. Spiritual. Aging 2019, 31, 168–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. SIRC The Changing Face of Motherhood in Western Europe: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Available online: http://www.sirc.org/publik/motherhood_cross-cultural_perspectives.shtml (accessed on 2 March 2021).
  57. Alosaimi, F.D.; Bukhari, M.; Altuwirqi, M.; Habous, M.; Madbouly, K.; Abotalib, Z.; Binsaleh, S. Gender Differences in Perception of Psychosocial Distress and Coping Mechanisms among Infertile Men and Women in Saudi Arabia. Hum. Fertil. 2017, 20, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 19 05932 g001 550
Figure 1. Scree plot representing the eigenvalues (23-item Resilience Scale).
Figure 1. Scree plot representing the eigenvalues (23-item Resilience Scale).
Ijerph 19 05932 g001
Ijerph 19 05932 g002 550
Figure 2. Scree plot representing the eigenvalues (21-item Resilience Scale).
Figure 2. Scree plot representing the eigenvalues (21-item Resilience Scale).
Ijerph 19 05932 g002
Table
Table 1. Mean scores of the RS by characteristics of participants (n = 104).
Table 1. Mean scores of the RS by characteristics of participants (n = 104).
Resilience Scale (RS)
Variable Response Mean (SD)pTotal Mean (SD)
Social—Demographic
Gender 0.248 a
Female4.94 (1.05) 113.81 (24.35)
Male5.65 (0.84) 130.00 (11.31)
Age 0.807 b
≤344.78 (1.08) 110.08 (25.06)
35–405.09 (1.01) 117.21 (23.25)
41–515.03 (1.11) 115.90 (25.53)
≥525.69 (0.00) 131.00 (0.00)
Marital Status 0.360 b
Married4.94 (1.09) 113.83 (25.21)
Together4.97 (1.03) 114.44 (23.70)
Divorced/Separated4.75 (1.34) 109.33 (30.85)
Single5.24 (0.35) 120.66 (8.08)
Current relationship (years) 0.359 b
≤34.72 (1.17) 108.66 (27.01)
4–65.14 (1.16) 118.33 (26.76)
7–94.80 (0.84) 110.42 (19.47)
≥105.05 (1.08) 116.27 (24.91)
Education level 0.509 b
Middle school5.95 (0.00) 137.00 (0.00)
High school4.66 (1.10) 107.19 (25.31)
Professional course5.38 (0.90) 123.77 (20.83)
Bachelor/Graduation4.92 (1.07) 114.12 (24.82)
Master5.06 (1.02) 116.41 (23.49)
PhD5.42 (0.45) 124.66 (10.40)
Employment status 0.053 b
Employed5.00 (1.02) 115.01 (23.52)
Unemployed4.53 (1.32) 104.36 (30.46)
Student5.54 (0.03) 127.50 (0.70)
Occupation 0.806 b
Representatives of the legislative branch of executive bodies, officers, directors, and executive managers5.37 (1.46) 123.60 (33.65)
Experts from intellectual and scientific activities5.11 (0.97) 117.62 (22.46)
Intermediate level technicians and professions4.15 (1.33) 95.50 (30.68)
Administrative staff5.06 (1.01) 116.57 (23.36)
Personal service, security, and safety workers and salespeople4.79 (0.86) 110.22 (19.81)
Skilled workers in industry, construction, and craftsmen3.91 (0.00) 90.00 (0.00)
Plant and machine operators5.82 (0.00) 134.00 (0.00)
Spirituality—Religion
Spiritual person 0.659 a
No4.90 (1.06) 112.92 (24.40)
Yes4.97 (1.05) 114.50 (24.34)
Spiritual importance 0.940 b
Not important4.98 (1.03) 114.71 (23.85)
Little important4.74 (1.09) 109.08 (25.12)
Important4.93 (1.04) 113.42 (23.98)
Very important5.43 (0.99) 124.93 (22.91)
Spiritual changes with diagnosis 0.009 b
No change5.24 (0.86) 120.71 (19.94)
Less important4.43 (1.18) 102.05 (27.33)
More important4.79 (1.13) 110.20 (26.02)
Spiritual changes with treatment 0.005 b
No change5.27 (0.83) 121.30 (19.25)
Less important4.79 (1.31) 110.26 (30.27)
More important4.57 (1.10) 105.16 (25.40)
Religious person 0.888 a
No4.87 (1.02) 112.14 (23.64)
Yes5.00 (1.07) 115.08 (24.64)
Importance of religion 0.701 b
Not important5.16 (1.05) 118.72 (24.33)
Little important4.74 (1.16) 109.04 (26.85)
Important4.98 (1.00) 114.66 (23.16)
Very important5.16 (1.19) 118.71 (27.42)
Religion changes with diagnosis 0.239 b
No change5.15 (0.96) 118.61 (22.14)
Less important4.90 (1.21) 112.82 (27.96)
More Important4.66 (0.99) 107.33 (22.89)
Religion changes with treatment 0.010 b
No change5.24 (0.87) 120.54 (20.09)
Less important4.91 (1.34) 113.08 (30.83)
More important4.58 (0.97) 105.51 (22.49)
Clinical—Infertility
Type 0.090 a
Primary4.99 (1.02) 114.96 (23.55)
Secondary4.72 (1.24) 108.71 (28.69)
Nature 0.128 b
Never been pregnant4.94 (0.99) 113.84 (22.86)
Natural pregnancy without live birth5.15 (1.10) 118.55 (25.46)
Natural pregnancy, had child, not able to have another child 4.55 (1.44) 104.77 (33.27)
Pregnancy with treatment, did not have a child5.00 (1.09) 115.00 (25.18)
Pregnancy with treatment, had child, not able to have another child5.03 (0.83) 115.80 (19.11)
Cause 0.014 b
Female 5.05 (0.90) 116.36 (20.88)
Male 4.90 (1.34) 112.80 (30.96)
Mixed5.21 (0.82) 119.83 (19.02)
Unknown 4.73 (1.10) 108.94 (25.40)
Waiting for a diagnosis4.53 (1.46) 104.33 (33.67)
Diagnosis (years) 0.980 b
≤35.00 (1.08) 115.10 (24.98)
4–64.95 (1.02) 113.85 (23.55)
7–94.91 (1.05) 113.00 (24.26)
≥104.63 (1.05) 106.71 (24.87)
Consultation (years) 0.185 b
≤35.04 (1.05) 116.04 (24.26)
4–64.83 (0.93) 111.21 (21.48)
7–94.81 (0.97) 110.70 (22.46)
≥104.51 (1.64) 103.80 (37.91)
Treatments
Previous treatments 0.923 a
No5.11 (1.06) 117.70 (24.42)
Yes4.83 (1.03) 111.17 (23.90)
Time in current treatment (months)
≤34.21 (1.54) 97.00 (35.53)
4–64.25 (1.16) 97.75 (26.84)
7–124.91 (1.07) 112.93 (24.79)
13–245.23 (0.91) 120.46 (21.00)
24–364.76 (1.06) 109.60 (24.60)
≥374.71 (0.98) 108.37 (22.71)
Current treatment 0.343 b
Previous tests4.87 (1.24) 112.15 (28.60)
Waiting to start4.98 (0.96) 114.65 (22.22)
In cycle4.84 (0.98) 111.47 (22.67)
   OI5.30 (0.00)0.589 b122.00 (0.00)
   IUI4.47 (1.78) 103.00 (41.01)
   IVF4.72 (0.97) 108.70 (22.51)
   ICSI4.89 (0.98) 112.50 (22.63)
   Other 5.50 (1.13) 126.50 (26.16)
Tests after cycle5.13 (1.05) 118.12 (27.75)
Legend: a = Independent sample T —Student’s Test (Levene’s Test); b = One Way ANOVA test; SD = Standard Deviation; OI—Ovulation Induction; IUI—Intrauterine Insemination; IVF—In Vitro Fertilization; ICSI—Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection.
Table
Table 2. Descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of RS, and EFA assessment of normality of items.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of RS, and EFA assessment of normality of items.
ItemMeanSDSkewnessSEKurtosisSECronbach’s Alpha (without Item)
1.5.431.41−0.740.23−0.450.46(0.94)
2.5.171.41−0.600.23−0.380.46(0.94)
3.5.281.43−0.780.23−0.020.46(0.94)
4.5.021.49−0.600.23−0.250.46(0.94)
5.5.171.62−0.710.23−0.310.46(0.94)
6.5.001.65−0.720.23−0.280.46(0.94)
7.5.251.53−1.010.230.320.46(0.94)
8.5.321.50−0.800.23−0.130.46(0.94)
9.3.971.87−0.090.23−1.150.46(0.94)
10.5.101.46−0.620.230.010.46(0.94)
11.4.681.63−0.400.23−0.600.46(0.94)
12.4.621.49−0.280.23−1.000.46(0.94)
13.4.811.50−0.430.23−0.760.46(0.94)
14.4.881.49−0.460.23−0.810.46(0.94)
15.4.951.53−0.490.23−0.730.46(0.94)
16.5.611.47−1.130.230.790.46(0.94)
17.5.231.43−0.750.23−0.040.46(0.94)
18.4.971.47−0.540.23−0.430.46(0.94)
19.5.061.61−0.470.23−0.730.46(0.94)
20.4.331.62−0.170.23−0.690.46(0.94)
21.4.861.41−0.520.23−0.490.46(0.94)
22.4.581.63−0.250.23−0.860.46(0.94)
23.4.851.81−0.600.23−0.740.46(0.94)
Total4.961.05−0.530.23−0.540.460.94
CI = Confidence Interval; SD = Standard Deviation; SE = Standard Error.
Table
Table 3. Components’ extraction from data based on K1 criterion and total variance explained for RS factor structure.
Table 3. Components’ extraction from data based on K1 criterion and total variance explained for RS factor structure.
Components’ Extraction Based on K1 Criterion and Percentage (%) of Variance
Component23 Items22 Items21 Items
Total%
Variance		Cumulative
%		Total%
Variance		Cumulative
%		Total%
Variance		Cumulative
%
110.9647.6547.6510.4147.3447.349.7948.9948.99
21.516.5654.211.506.8654.201.487.4156.41
31.345.8360.051.356.1460.341.346.7063.11
4 1.135.1465.491.0115.0568.17
Table
Table 4. Value of Varimax rotation factor loading a.
Table 4. Value of Varimax rotation factor loading a.
Varimax Rotation Factor Loading
ItemFive-Factor
(23 Items)		 Four-Factor
(23 Items)		 Three-Factor
(23 Items)		Four-Factor
(22 Items)		Three-Factor
(21 Items)		Four-Factor
(21 Items)
12345123412312341231234
1. 0.65 0.67 0.69 0.69 0.72 0.69
2. 0.80 0.80 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.82
3. 0.66 0.54 0.58 0.57 0.63 0.62
4. 0.75 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.78
5.0.74 0.75 0.72 0.72 0.630.73
6.0.57 0.59 0.60 0.61 0.53 0.59
7. 0.56 0.54 0.60 0.60 0.64 0.56
8. 0.52 0.54 0.59 0.59 0.65 0.54
9. 0.65 0.630.55 0.56 0.53 0.67
10. 0.84 0.72 0.36 0.92
11. 0.66 0.55 0.44 0.46 0.45 0.44
12.0.62 0.64 0.64 0.65 0.580.64
13.0.79 0.79 0.81 0.82 0.740.81
14.0.73 0.74 0.76 0.76 0.690.74
15. 0.51 0.47 0.49 0.49 0.55 0.53
16. 0.80 0.76 0.66 0.67 0.69 0.80
17. 0.68 0.65 0.62 0.62 0.63 0.70
18. 0.34 0.36 0.36
19.0.67 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.670.66
20. 0.81 0.68 0.78 0.79 0.80 0.81
21. 0.53 0.63 0.66 0.66 0.68 0.53
22. 0.52 0.62 0.60 0.61 0.65 0.50
23. 0.51 0.48 0.58 0.57 0.59 0.53
a For clarity, pattern coefficients < 0.3 are not shown.
Table
Table 5. Communalities.
Table 5. Communalities.
Communalities
23-Items21-Items
ItemInitialExtractionExtraction
1. I usually manage one way or another1.0000.570.59
2. I am able to depend on myself more than anyone else1.0000.730.76
3. Keeping interested in things is important to me1.0000.560.64
4. I can be on my own if I have to1.0000.640.67
5. I feel proud that I have accomplished things in life1.0000.740.74
6. I am friends with myself1.0000.670.67
7. I feel that I can handle many things at a time1.0000.690.74
8. I am determined1.0000.660.74
9. I seldom wonder what the point of it all is1.0000.460.72
10. I take things one day at a time1.0000.30-
11. I can get through difficult times because I’ve experienced difficulty before1.0000.350.34
12. I have self-discipline1.0000.630.67
13. I keep interested in things1.0000.800.80
14. I can usually find something to laugh about1.0000.710.72
15. My belief in myself gets me through hard times1.0000.660.69
16. In an emergency, I’m someone people can generally rely on1.0000.530.73
17. I can usually look at a situation in a number of ways1.0000.700.75
18. Sometimes I make myself do things whether I want to or not1.0000.29-
19. My life has meaning1.0000.590.61
20. I do not dwell on things that I can’t do anything about1.0000.620.75
21. When I’m in a difficult situation, I can usually find my way out of it1.0000.640.66
22. I have enough energy to do what I have to do1.0000.660.68
23. It’s okay if there are people who don’t like me1.0000.510.54
Table
Table 6. Descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of RS models, and EFA assessment of normality of factors.
Table 6. Descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of RS models, and EFA assessment of normality of factors.
MIST
Structure		FactorMeanSDSkewnessStd. ErrorKurtosisStd. ErrorCronbach’s Alpha
23-item
5-factor		 4.961.05−0.5310.237−0.5470.4690.940
Factor 14.921.28−0.5850.237−0.4700.4690.905
Factor 25.171.08−0.5220.237−0.5220.4690.809
Factor 35.151.25−0.7960.237−0.7960.4690.904
Factor 44.501.28−0.1910.237−0.1910.4690.761
Factor 54.881.33−0.4000.237−0.4000.4690.646
23-item
4-factor
[44]		 4.961.05−0.5310.237−0.5470.4690.940
Factor 15.011.21−0.5470.237−0.4320.4690.909
Factor 25.081.22−0.6660.237−0.3530.4690.887
Factor 34.611.16−0.2340.237−0.7500.4690.741
Factor 45.081.10−0.5870.237−0.4570.4690.775
23-item
4-factor		 4.961.05−0.5310.237−0.5470.4690.940
Factor 14.921.26−0.5250.237−0.6860.4690.915
Factor 25.241.15−0.6280.237−0.4650.4690.876
Factor 34.901.21−0.4110.237−0.6050.4690.864
Factor 44.681.13−0.2270.237−0.8590.4690.657
23-item
3-factor		 4.961.05−0.5310.237−0.5470.4690.940
Factor 14.781.26−0.4380.237−0.6650.4690.895
Factor 25.111.08−0.5650.237−0.4350.4690.888
Factor 34.931.14−0.4150.237−0.6910.4690.858
22-item
4-factor		 4.961.06−0.5340.237−0.5920.4690.947
Factor 1 4.781.26−0.4380.237−0.6650.4690.895
Factor 25.131.12−0.5670.237−0.5120.4690.889
Factor 34.901.21−0.4110.237−0.6050.4690.864
Factor 45.091.46−0.6230.2370.0160.469--
21-item
3-factor		 4.951.08−0.5260.237−0.5990.4690.946
Factor 15.121.13−0.6780.237−0.4370.4690.903
Factor 24.901.21−0.4110.237−0.6050.4690.864
Factor 34.751.25−0.3910.237−0.8260.4690.873
21-item
4-factor		 4.951.08−0.5260.237−0.5990.4690.946
Factor 14.901.22−0.5690.237−0.5020.4690.905
Factor 25.111.11−0.3620.237−0.5760.4690.810
Factor 35.151.25−0.7960.2370.1460.4690.904
Factor 44.501.28−0.1910.237−1.0290.4690.761
Table
Table 7. Pearson correlations between extracted factors (n = 104).
Table 7. Pearson correlations between extracted factors (n = 104).
Pearson Correlation between Extracted Factors
Factor1234
11
20.682 **1
30.799 **0.704 **1
40.642 **0.538 **0.675 **1
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Table
Table 8. Discriminant validity of the reconfigured Resilience Scale factors using SWBQp and FAS variables.
Table 8. Discriminant validity of the reconfigured Resilience Scale factors using SWBQp and FAS variables.
Discriminant Validity of the Reconfigured Resilience Scale Factors
RS Total RS—Factor 1RS—Factor 2RS—Factor 3RS—Factor 4
Variablerprprprprp
SWBQp variables0.412 **<0.001
Personal 0.485 **<0.0010.547 **<0.0010.285 **0.0030.365 **<0.0010.418 **<0.001
Communal0.281 **0.0040.329 **<0.0010.1260.2010.225 *0.0220.228 *0.020
Environmental0.322 **<0.0010.444 **<0.0010.1190.2290.251 *0.0100.196 *0.047
Transcendental0.293 *0.0030.369 **<0.0010.0740.4530.231 *0.0180.243 *0.013
FAS variables−0.0260.790
Centrality of parenting−0.0260.790−0.1370.165−0.1490.132−0.0190.849−0.249 *0.011
Suspended Life−0.1050.287−0.0980.324−0.0650.506−0.0550.582−0.206 *0.036
Acceptation of life without children0.227 *0.0210.218 *0.0270.214 *0.0290.0660.5050.290 **0.003
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Romeiro, J.; Nogueira, P.; Hall, J.; Caldeira, S. The Resilience Scale in Portuguese Adults under Assisted Reproductive Techniques. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5932. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19105932

AMA Style

Romeiro J, Nogueira P, Hall J, Caldeira S. The Resilience Scale in Portuguese Adults under Assisted Reproductive Techniques. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(10):5932. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19105932

Chicago/Turabian Style

Romeiro, Joana, Paulo Nogueira, Jenny Hall, and Sílvia Caldeira. 2022. "The Resilience Scale in Portuguese Adults under Assisted Reproductive Techniques" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 10: 5932. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19105932

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop