Child and Youth Resilience Measure & Adult Resilience Measure
The Child and Youth Resilience Measure and Adult Resilience Measure are measures of social-ecological resilience that have taken various forms since their initial development. After reviewing studies that have used the measures and further investigation of their psychometric properties, we now currently recommend the CYRM-R and ARM-R. These are revised versions of the measures and are suitable for children aged 5-9, youth aged 10-23, and adults aged 18 or older (depending on the focus of a study, young adults ages 18-23 can be administered either the CYRM-R or the ARM-R).
These revised versions of the measures typically consist of 17-items and can be scored on 3- or 5-point Likert scales. The items in the measures are all positively worded and therefore scoring involves simple summing of responses.
Validation of the CYRM/ARM
In the table below we share some of the studies that have validated the measures. Please see the user’s manual for further information on the validity and reliability of the measures.
|Jefferies, P., McGarrigle, L., & Ungar, M. (2018)||CYRM-R||Canada||689||Rasch validated
α = .82
|Daigneault, I., Dion, J., Hébert, M., McDuff, P., & Collin-Vézina, D. (2013)||CYRM-28 (French)||Canada||Study 1: 689
Study 2: 246
|Study 1: α = .88
Study 2: α = .87
|Liebenberg, L., Ungar, M., & Van de Vijver, F. (2012)||CYRM-28 (English)||Canada||T1=497; T2=410||α = .65 to .91|
|Liebenberg, L., Ungar, M., & LeBlanc, J. C. (2013)||CYRM-12 (English)||Canada||1,616||α = .84|
|Sanders, J., Munford, R., Thimasarn-Anwar, T., & Liebenberg, L (2015)||CYRM-28 (English)||New Zealand||593||α = .66 to .81|
|Mu, G.M., Hu, Y. (2016)||CYRM-12 (Chinese)||China||437||α = .92|
|Liebenberg, L., & Moore, J.C. (2016)||ARM-28 (English)||Ireland||105||α = .80 to .95|
If you would like to share your validation study with us, please get in touch.
Although the Resilience Research Centre does not officially offer the measures in any language other than English, many users have translated the measure for use in different contexts. We offer those versions on our download page for you to reference.
They are currently available in the following languages:
- Portuguese (Portugal)
- Portuguese (Brazil)
- Spanish (Spain)
- Spanish (Colombia)
These translations have been created by researchers who have worked with the RRC. However, each translation was done independently and, therefore, we cannot guarantee their accuracy. You can download these translations from our website.
If you would like to create your own translation, no special authorisation is required. We just ask that you share your translation with us so we can share it with others.
If you are considering a translation, we recommend a translation and back translation process to enhance the validity of the translated measure. For information on back translation, see guides by Brislin (1970) and van Ommeren and colleagues (1999).
The Child and Youth Resilience Measure and the Adult Resilience Measure were developed from the perspective that resilience is a social-ecological construct.
Most commonly, the term resilience has come to mean an individual’s ability to overcome adversity and continue his or her normal development. However, the RRC uses a more ecological and culturally sensitive definition. Dr. Michael Ungar, founder and Director of the RRC, has suggested that resilience is better understood as follows:
“In the context of exposure to significant adversity, resilience is both the capacity of individuals to navigate their way to the psychological, social, cultural, and physical resources that sustain their well-being, and their capacity individually and collectively to negotiate for these resources to be provided in culturally meaningful ways.”
This definition shifts our understanding of resilience from an individual concept, popular with western-trained researchers and human services providers, to a more relational understanding of well-being embedded in a social-ecological framework. Understood this way, resilience requires individuals to have the capacity to find resources that bolster well-being, while also emphasizing that it is up to families, communities, and governments to provide these resources in ways individuals value. In this sense, resilience is the result of both successful navigation to resources and negotiation for resources to be provided in meaningful ways.
You can read more about resilience from this perspective in the following:
- Ungar, M. (2008). Resilience across cultures. British Journal of Social Work, 38(2), 218-235.
- Ungar, M. (2011). The social ecology of resilience: Addressing contextual and cultural ambiguity of a nascent construct. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81(1), 1-17.
- Ungar, M. (2015). Varied patterns of family resilience in challenging contexts. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 42(1), 19-31.
- Ungar, M. (2017). Which counts more? The differential impact of the environment or the differential susceptibility of the individual? British Journal of Social Work, 47(5), 1279–1289.
- Ungar, M. (2018). Systemic resilience: Principles and processes for a science of change in contexts of adversity. Ecology & Society, 23(4), 34. DOI: 10.5751/ES-10385-230434.