Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12 (2011) 423e433

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Psychology of Sport and Exercise

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport

The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): Dimensionality and age-related

measurement invariance with Australian cricketersq
Daniel F. Gucciardi a, *, Ben Jackson b, Tristan J. Coulter a, Clifford J. Mallett a
a
b

School of Human Movement Studies, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia
School of Sport Science, Exercise & Health, The University of Western Australia, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 13 September 2010
Received in revised form
22 January 2011
Accepted 21 February 2011
Available online 1 March 2011

Objective: This study explored the dimensionality and measurement invariance of the 25-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC; Connor & Davidson, 2003) across samples of adult (n 321;
aged 20e36) and adolescent (n 199; aged 12e18) Australian cricketers.
Design: Cross-sectional, self-report survey.
Methods: An online, multi-section questionnaire.
Results: Conrmatory factor and item level analyses supported the psychometric superiority of a revised
10-item, unidimensional model of resilience over the original 25-item, ve-factor measurement model.
Positive and moderate correlations with hardiness as well as negative and moderate correlations with
burnout components were evidenced thereby providing support for the convergent validity of the
unidimensional model. Measurement invariance analyses of the unidimensional model across the two
age-group samples supported congural (i.e., same factor structure across groups), metric (i.e., same
pattern of factor loadings across the groups), and partial scalar invariance (i.e., mostly the same intercepts across the groups).
Conclusion: Evidence for a psychometrically sound measure of resilient qualities of the individual
provides an important foundation upon which researchers can identify the antecedents to and outcomes
of resilience in sport contexts.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
CD-RISC-10
Cricket
Multi-group conrmatory factor analysis
Personality
Psychological assessment

There is an abundance of potential risks or adversities that most

people will likely encounter during their lifetime. Such adversities
(or risks) typically encompass negative life circumstances that are
known to be statistically associated with adjustment difculties
(Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000, p. 858). However, exposure to one or
more of these events does not always dictate the occurrence of
negative outcomes; many people manage and adapt successfully in
the face of adversity thereby maintaining or regaining normal
levels of functioning. Although much research attention has been
devoted to understanding the negative impact of these life events
such as depression (e.g., Goldney, Exckert, Hawthorne, & Taylor,
2010; Sawyer et al., 2010) and post-traumatic stress (e.g., Jobson
& OKearney, 2008; Taylor & Sharpe, 2008), in recent times we
have witnessed considerable focus on the positive responses of
people to adverse or traumatic events, which is commonly classed
q Author note: Gucciardi is supported by a University of Queensland Postdoctoral
Research Fellowship. Appreciation is extended to the anonymous reviewers for
their feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 61 7 3346 9996; fax: 61 7 3365 6877.
E-mail address: d.gucciardi@uq.edu.au (D.F. Gucciardi).
1469-0292/$ e see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.02.005

under the umbrella term of resilience (e.g., Lee, Kwong, Cheung,

Ungar, & Cheung, 2010; Shepherd, Reynolds, & Moran, 2010).
Research on resilience: central features
Despite having been studied and described since the 1950s,
there is still considerable debate regarding denitions of resilience
(e.g., Davydov, Stewart, Ritchie, & Chaudieu, 2010). Most contemporary researchers agree that resilience pertains to an individuals
ability to maintain relatively stable, healthy levels of psychological
and physical functioning or competence, or experience positive
adaptations following exposure to signicant adversity (Luthar &
Cicchetti, 2000). Implicit within this conceptualization of resilience are two central conditions, namely exposure to signicant
risk or adversity and the attainment of positive adjustment or
competence. This conceptualization of resilience has important
implications for the ways in which researchers attempt to measure
this desirable construct.
The rst condition of resilience, adversity or risk, can refer to
a range of factors faced by individuals either in isolation (e.g.,
death of a loved one, illness) or as an accumulation of life events

424

D.F. Gucciardi et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12 (2011) 423e433

(e.g., poor socioeconomic circumstances) as well as factors that

may predispose potential maladjustment (e.g., disability). Adversity or risk is typically measured using one or more of three broad
categories (Luthar & Cushing, 1999). These categories include
checklists of a wide range of negative life events, both acute and
chronic forms of isolated and/or episodic stressors (e.g., parental
divorce, child abuse), and an aggregation of risk indices that are
specic and distinct (e.g., poverty status, family size) to form an
overall adversity estimate. Measurement issues associated with
the assessment of risk or adversity relate to the identication of an
absolute level of high risk within a sample (i.e., reference groups
from normative data), as well as the validity of measures,
measurement confounds (e.g., including both uncontrollable and
controllable events, or only uncontrollable), heterogeneity of risk
items, and the distinction between chronic and acute incidents
(Luthar & Cushing, 1999).
The second condition of resilience, positive adaptation or
competence, typically involves displaying normal functioning,
lacking negative symptoms or pathology associated with the
trauma or adversity, and/or reaching tasks that are developmentally or contextually salient (e.g., Luthar, 2006; Luthar & Cicchetti,
2000). As with the assessment of risk or adversity, there are three
broad categories of positive adaptation or competence indices
(Luthar & Cushing, 1999). These categories include multiple item
checklists of the mal/adjustment continuum, categorical assessments of the absence or presence of psychopathology, and
summative approaches involving the integration of multiple
indices of adjustment. In addition to determining the best indicators of resilience at various developmental stages or contexts (e.g.,
school, work), measurement issues associated with the assessment
of positive adaptation or competence are similar to those concerns
associated with the evaluation of risk or adversity (e.g., level of
competence or positive adaptation, validity of measures,
measurements confounds) (Luthar & Cushing, 1999).
Beyond the assessment of adversity or risk and positive adaptation or competence, resilience researchers are also concerned
with understanding the vulnerability factors that exacerbate the
negative effects of potential threats to ones functioning or development and protective factors that serve to buffer or ameliorate
these inuences thereby facilitating a positive outcome (Luthar,
2006). Examples of commonly reported vulnerability factors
include low socioeconomic status or poverty, parental psychopathology, family discord, gender, poor child-rearing conditions,
membership in a minority group, and the experience of a traumatic
event (e.g., Kraemer et al., 1997; Spencer, Cole, Dupree, Glymph, &
Pierre, 1993; Werner, 1993, 1995). Protective factors, on the other
hand, may include features of the individual (e.g., outgoing, active,
autonomous, bright, and possessing positive self-concepts in
middle childhood and adolescence), the family (e.g., close bonds
with at least one nurturing, competent, emotionally stable parent)
or the community (e.g., support and counsel from peers and elders
in the community) (e.g., Collishaw et al., 2007; Spencer et al., 1993;
Werner, 1993, 1995). Contemporary resilience research has progressed beyond these descriptive issues to focus on understanding
the underlying processes by which both vulnerability and protective factors exert their inuence. Although there are many ways in
which vulnerability and protective factors can exert their inuence,
some of the commonly reported mechanisms or processes include
self-regulatory systems for modulating emotion, arousal, and
behavior; the ability to identify and capitalize on support structures
in the environment; a reduction in the likelihood of responding to
potentially threatening situations as stressful; and early attachments setting the foundation upon which future interactions are
viewed (e.g., Masten et al., 1999; Werner, 1995; Wyman, Cowen,
Work, & Kerley, 1993).

Measurement research on resilience

Attempts to develop and validate formal, standardized
measures of resilience have focused primarily on important
protective factors or resources within the individual (i.e., a resilient
personality), rather than assessing resilience as a process involving
positive adaptation or competence to signicant adversity (Ahern,
Kiehl, Sole, & Byers, 2006). Indeed, there is considerable debate
about whether resilience is best conceptualized as a personality
trait (e.g., Connor & Davidson, 2003; Wagnild & Young, 1990) or
a dynamic developmental process (e.g., Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker,
2000; Rutter, 2000). Other researchers (e.g., Richardson, 2002)
view these opposing conceptualizations as a progression in the
eld whereby rst wave research focused broadly on identifying
resilient qualities or traits while second wave research focused
broadly on the resilience process (i.e., understanding mechanisms
by which individuals successfully adapt in the face of adversity). In
contrast to measures of resilient qualities or traits, therefore,
process oriented researchers consider a range of psycho-social
resources and capabilities required to negotiate adversity at the
individual, peer and family, and societal levels (Werner, 1995).
One measure that has received considerable research attention
since its development e more so than other scales e is the ConnorDavidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC; Connor & Davidson, 2003). As
with most measures purported to assess resilience, the focus of this
scale is on personal resources or qualities deemed appropriate for
positive adaptation to adversity. In developing the CD-RISC, Connor
and Davidson (2003) created items that were designed to tap into
features or characteristics of resilience commonly reported in the
available literature. These features included but were not limited to
control, commitment, challenge, adaptability, problem-solving, and
strengthening effect of stress. Using factor analysis on data
obtained from both clinical and general populations support was
revealed for a 25-item, ve-factor model comprising personal
competence, high standards, tenacity; trust in ones instincts,
tolerance of negative affect, strengthening effects of stress; positive
acceptance of change, secure relationships; control; and spiritual
inuences. Scores obtained using the CD-RISC also evidenced
positive correlations with hardiness and negative correlations with
perceived stress vulnerability thereby providing evidence for its
convergent validity.
Numerous studies involving the CD-RISC as a measure of resilient qualities with both clinical (e.g., Davidson et al., 2008;
Karairmak, 2010) and general populations (e.g., Brown, 2008;
Lamond et al., 2009; Sexton, Byrd, & von Kluge, 2010) have
appeared since its publication. However, psychometric examinations of the factor structure of the CD-RISC have failed to support
the originally hypothesized 25-item, ve-factor model (e.g., Burns
& Anstey, 2010; Sexton et al., 2010). Campbell-Sills and Stein
(2007), for example, factor analyzed the data from two independent samples of college students (n > 500 in both instances) and
found a four-factor model provided the best t. On the basis of
these initial analyses, troublesome items (i.e., inconsistent or nonsalient loadings, items loading on poorly dened factors) were
removed. Subsequent factor analyses using the original two
samples as well as a third independent sample of college students
(n > 500) revealed support for the presence of a 10-item, unidimensional factor structure. Using the unidimensional model, the
authors revealed a moderating effect of resilience on the relationship between childhood maltreatment and current psychiatric
symptoms thereby offering support for the construct validity of the
revised instrument. Support for the existence of a unidimensional
model was provided with a large sample of young Australian adults
aged 20e24 (Burns & Anstey, 2010). Clearly, there is a need to
further examine the factorial structure of this measure across other

D.F. Gucciardi et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12 (2011) 423e433

settings and with other age cohorts but also in more diverse populations (e.g., participants who have low levels of education and are
ethnically diverse). Despite the increasing interest and use of the
CD-RISC in resilience research, no studies have examined the
psychometric properties of this measure in athletic populations.
Broadly, an examination of the factorial validity of the CD-RISC in
a context not previously studied has implications for the robustness
of the resilient qualities it assesses. Specically for the sport
context, the availability of a psychometrically sound measure of
resilient qualities of the individual will provide a platform for
researchers to investigate other processes or mechanisms by which
athletes experience positive adaptation to adversity (e.g., injury,
de-selection, poor performance). As a result, practitioners will be
better positioned to enhance athletes ability to experience positive
outcomes in the face of adversity.
In addition to analyses of the factorial structure of an instrument, measurement invariance across theoretically relevant groups
is another important issue to consider when assessing the
psychometric robustness of a scale. That is, does the measurement
model measure the same construct the same way across different
groups? Invariance across age was considered important in this
study, because, to date, only adult samples have been employed in
the validation process, with most studies focusing specically on
young adults (e.g., Burns & Anstey, 2010; Campbell-Sills & Stein,
2007) or more broadly on a varied sample (e.g., Connor &
Davidson, 2003). Although the inclusion of varied samples that
are representative of the overall population is an important
consideration in the evaluation of the factorial validity of
a measure, inferences about invariant measurement properties for
subgroups of the population cannot always be guaranteed
(Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). Measurement invariance has both
methodological and conceptual implications for the study of
a psychological construct (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). For example,
demonstrations of measurement invariance are a necessary
prerequisite for making valid comparisons of group means or
pooling data across groups together. In contrast, failure to support
stable factor structure or interpretations of items can reect
substantive between-group differences that are of theoretical
interest. Previous research supports the factorial validity of resilience across the adolescent years (Prince-Embury & Courville,
2008) as well as the related construct of buoyancy (i.e., ability to
negotiate the ups and downs of everyday life, rather than major
adversities) across adult and adolescent participants (Martin &
Marsh, 2008). Support for measurement invariance would
present evidence for a measure of resilient qualities that has
a higher potential applicability for researchers and practitioners
working with athletes and sport teams than one that does not
remain invariant across age-groups.
Research on resilience in sport
Resilience has been widely researched in a variety of elds
including developmental and clinical psychology, yet in
comparison there have been relatively few investigations of this
desirable construct in sport settings. The lack of research is
surprising as adversity and stress (both acute and chronic forms)
are commonplace in the sporting context. Within sport, for
example, athletes commonly encounter a number of stressors
associated with competition (e.g., inadequate preparation,
injury, performance expectations of others) and the organization
(e.g., nances, travel, interpersonal relationships, weather
conditions) (Hanton, Fletcher, & Coughlan, 2005; Mellalieu, Neil,
Hanton, & Fletcher, 2009). Indeed, a signature strength of
Olympic champions is the ability to deal with setbacks, stress,
and adversity (Gould, Dieffenbach, & Moffett, 2002). Thus,

425

resilience appears to be an important construct to study in the

sport context, as athletes must continually navigate a variety of
competition and organizational stressors and adversities to
perform well.
The majority of resilience research in sport settings has focused
on athletes responses to adversity. Using an experimental
approach, for example, researchers have assessed athletes
explanatory styles following false feedback indicating that they had
failed the task (Martin-Kruum, Sarrazin, Peterson, & Famose, 2003).
Adopting a more ecologically valid approach, Mummery, Schoeld,
and Perry (2004) explored the impact of protective factors such as
self-concept, social support, and coping style against performancerelated outcomes (i.e., initially successful performance; resilient
performance involving an initial failure, followed by subsequent
success; non-resilient performance involving an initial failure followed by subsequent failure) in a National swimming competition.
In an attempt to translate empirical evidence into practice, others
(e.g., Schinke & Jerome, 2002; Schinke, Peterson, & Couture, 2004)
examined the effectiveness of training programs designed to
enhance elite athletes interpretations and responses to various
situations. A considerable body of research has also examined
athletes responses to serious injury in sport (e.g., Podlog & Eklund,
2006, 2009). Collectively, this research supports the protective
nature of a number of individual (e.g., self concept, coping style)
and social (e.g., social support) level factors for achieving positive
outcomes when faced with adversity.
More recently, Galli and Vealey (2008) interviewed ten
current or former college and professional athletes to ascertain
their perspectives on resilience in sport. Four major adversities
including injuries, performance-related setbacks, illness, and
transition were discussed by the athletes. The processes discussed by the athletes were categorized according to the breadth
and duration of the resilience process; the amount of emotional
agitation involved and associated cognitive-behavioral strategies
employed as coping mechanisms; inuential personal resources
(e.g., remaining positive, determined, passionate, committed,
competitive); socio-cultural factors (e.g., race, gender, social
support) that hindered and facilitated the process; and the
experience of a positive outcome (e.g., learned lessons, gained
perspective, realization of support) despite the exposure to
adversity. These qualitative ndings are encouraging as they
appear congruent with the broad conceptualization of resilience
generated from research in other settings in that resilience was
considered a process by which they achieved a positive outcome
following an adversity (Luthar & Cicchetti, 2000). Nevertheless,
differences between the sport context and previous research also
emerged. For example, although both individual and peer and
family level protective factors were discussed, societal level
resources did not surface as an important consideration unlike
other areas (cf. Werner, 1995). Moreover, in contrast to a growing
body of evidence supporting the conceptual distinction between
resilience and coping (e.g., Campbell-Sills, Cohan, & Stein, 2006;
Karoly & Ruehlman, 2006), the athletes in this study discussed
an intimate link between these two constructs.
Purposes of the current study
Despite receiving considerable empirical and theoretical attention in other areas such as developmental and clinical psychology,
formal investigations of resilient qualities within the context of
sport are rare. Given the potential importance of resilience for
physical and mental health (e.g., Burton, Pakenham, & Brown, 2010;
Yoo, Slack, & Holl, 2010) as well as the development of talent (e.g.,
Holt & Dunn, 2004) and athletic expertise (Weissensteiner,
Abernethy, & Farrow, 2009), we need to know more about this

426

D.F. Gucciardi et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12 (2011) 423e433

construct from a measurement perspective so as to adequately

inform conceptual and intervention considerations. Although there
appear to be a number of protective factors and capabilities
required to negotiate adversity at the individual, peer and family,
and societal levels (Werner, 1995), as a preliminary rst step we
focus our attention on understanding resilient qualities or attributes of the individual akin to the rst wave of resilience research
(cf. Richardson, 2002). Specically, the primary purpose of the
current study was to examine the factor structure of the CD-RISC in
a sample of Australian cricketers.
We rst aimed to investigate whether a sport sample
provided support for the 10-item unidimensional measurement
model (Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007) when compared with
alternative models (e.g., lower-order ve-factor, 25-item unidimensional; Connor & Davidson, 2003). Second, we sought to also
explore the relationship between the resilient qualities and
hypothesized key correlates to complement the analyses of its
factorial validity. Recognizing that Connor and Davidson drew
heavily on the hardiness construct in developing the CD-RISC,
we included a measure of this construct to ascertain the amount
of conceptual overlap between resilience and hardiness. Moreover, the inclusion of a measure of athlete burnout provided an
indication of the relationship between resilient qualities and
negative symptoms or pathology associated with chronic exposure to sport stressors and adversity. As resilient qualities are
hypothesized as being adaptive, and in light of previous research
(e.g., Connor & Davidson, 2003), we anticipated positive associations with hardiness and negative associations with burnout.
Our nal objective was to examine the age-related invariance of
the supported measurement model between adult and adolescent cricketers. Based on the results of previous research (e.g.,
Martin & Marsh, 2008; Prince-Embury & Courville, 2008), we
hypothesized that the measurement model would remain
invariant across the adult and adolescent groups.
Methods
Participants
Both samples included cricketers who were engaged in
competitive cricket in Australia at the time of completing the
survey.
Adult sample
Three hundred and twenty one cricketers (260 males, 61
females) from Australian competitions took part in this study. The
gender skew evident in this sample is typical of the population
being targeted. The age range of the participants was between 20
and 36 years (M 26.07, SD 6.81). At the time of data collection,
they had played cricket competitively for an average of 15 years.
Cricketers were predominantly playing at a club level (i.e., selection
is not based on ability), although national (7%) and state (23%)
levels were also represented.
Adolescent sample
One hundred and ninety-nine cricketers (153 males, 46
females) from Australian competitions took part in this study,
displaying a gender skew similar to the adult sample and the
typical population. The age range of the participants was between
12 and 18 years (M 16.89, SD 1.88). At the time of data
collection, they had played cricket competitively for an average of
eight years. Cricketers were predominantly playing at a club level
(i.e., selection is not based on ability), although state (12%) and
representative (under 19s 18%; under 17s 18%) levels were
also represented.

Measures
Connor-Davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC; Connor & Davidson,
2003)
The CD-RISC is a 25-item scale that measures ones ability to
cope with adversity. Respondents rate items on a scale from 1 (not
true at all) to 5 (true nearly all the time). Example items include: I
am able to adapt when changes occur, I can deal with whatever
comes my way and I tend to bounce back after illness, injury, or
other hardships. Preliminary research (Connor & Davidson, 2003)
involving the general population and patient samples provided
support for the reliability (e.g., internal consistency, test-retest) and
validity (e.g., convergent, divergent) of the ve-factor model
(personal competence, high standards, tenacity; trust in ones
instincts, tolerance of negative affect, strengthening effects of
stress; positive acceptance of change, secure relationships; control;
spiritual inuences). However, recent research involving college
students (Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007) and young adults (Burns &
Anstey, 2010) supports a unidimensional structure.
Personal views survey III-R (PVS; Maddi & Khoshaba, 2001)
The PVS contains 18 items designed to assess three subscales of
hardiness, namely control (e.g., Trying your best at what you do
usually pays off in the end), commitment (e.g., I often wake up
eager to take up life wherever it left off), and challenge (e.g.,
Changes in routine provoke me to learn). All items use a 4-point
Likert scale anchored by not at all true and very true. There is
evidence for the validity, reliability and psychometric structure of
the PVS (Maddi & Khoshaba, 2001). Although there is evidence to
support the internal reliability of the PVS with athlete samples (e.g.,
Sheard, 2009; Sheard & Golby, 2010), we observed inadequate
internal reliability estimates in the present study (a < .70; see
Table 1).
Athlete burnout questionnaire (ABQ; Raedeke & Smith, 2001)
The ABQ contains 15 items designed to assess three subscales of
athlete burnout (reduced sense of accomplishment, devaluation, and
emotional/physical exhaustion). Item examples include, for reduced
sense of accomplishment, I am not performing up to my ability in
sport, for devaluation, The effort I spend in sport would be better
spent doing other things, and for emotional/physical exhaustion, I
feel overly tired from my sport participation. All items use a 5point Likert scale anchored by almost never and almost always.
The ABQ has adequate internal consistency and there is evidence
for its factor structure as well as its convergent and divergent validity (Cresswell & Eklund, 2006). We observed adequate internal
reliability estimates for the ABQ in the present study (a > .70; see
Table 1).
Procedure
After receiving clearance from a University Human Ethics
Committee, an email containing an information sheet describing
the aims and procedures of the research was sent to coaches and
cricketers via key state and territory personnel (e.g., Chief Executive
Ofcer, High Performance Manager, Operations Manager, Head
Coach). These individuals then distributed invitations to cricketers
within their area of operation on behalf of the researchers. Thus, we
were not able to compute a response rate due to the method of
participant recruitment. All respondents were informed that the
survey examined psychological aspects of cricket, honesty in
responses was important, and all responses would be kept strictly
condential and used only for research purposes. Participants were
provided with a web link to a page containing a questionnaire
package made up of the inventories detailed in the methods

D.F. Gucciardi et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12 (2011) 423e433

427

Table 1
Means, standard deviations, alpha coefcients, and zero-order correlations for study variables.
Variables

10

11

12

13

14

15

1.CD-RISC_Factor 1a
2.CD-RISC_Factor 2b
3.CD-RISC_Factor 3c
4.CD-RISC_Factor 4d
5.CD-RISC_Factor 5e
6.CD-RISC_Global resilience_25 items
7.CD-RISC_Global resilience_22 items
8.CD-RISC_Global resilience_10 items
9.ABQ_Reduced accomplishment
10.ABQ_Emotional/physical exhaustion
11.ABQ_Devaluation
12.PVS_commitment
13.PVS_control
14.PVS_challenge
15.PVS_global hardiness

e
.59
.61
.66
.23
.87
.90
.79
.38
.25
.28
.52
.50
.36
.60

.56
e
.60
.47
.18
.81
.84
.83
.28
.22
.17
.32
.30
.42
.46

.63
.54
e
.61
.22
.81
.78
.80
.37
.21
.17
.49
.47
.45
.61

.70
.53
.65
e
.30
.78
.76
.61
.47
.20
.30
.57
.44
.33
.59

.17*
.07
.14*
.25
e
.43
.27
.24
.18
.06
.14*
.11
.01
.02
.06

.87
.79
.80
.83
.35
e
.98
.91
.44
.26
.28
.54
.47
.44
.63

.88
.82
.79
.82
.17*
.98
e
.93
.43
.27
.27
.54
.50
.46
.66

.77
.82
.78
.68
.10
.89
.92
e
.40
.29
.26
.48
.45
.47
.62

.43
.24
.45
.46
.08
.45
.44
.39
e
.31
.49
.43
.42
.25
.47

.38
.26
.30
.26
.14
.32
.36
.38
.43
e
.41
.21
.16
.24
.27

.53
.24
.41
.44
.05
.46
.47
.40
.48
.45
e
.23
.25
.09
.25

.54
.40
.54
.61
.06
.59
.60
.54
.47
.35
.38
e
.52
.35
.82

.48
.20
.47
.40
.07
.41
.44
.36
.52
.29
.31
.45
e
.25
.74

.32
.31
.40
.33
.04
.37
.38
.35
.10
.16*
.22
.36
.15*
e
.72

.60
.42
.64
.60
.02
.62
.64
.56
.48
.36
.41
.82
.70
.69
e

Madult
SDadult

25.41
3.96
.83

19.38
3.60
.70

15.57
2.43
.64

8.71
2.02
.66

4.08
1.91
.53

73.17
10.74
.88

65.83
9.71
.90

29.51
4.88
.83

11.28
3.19
.77

11.45
3.99
.89

10.05
4.12
.84

11.49
2.45
.28

12.57
2.45
.30

13.51
2.08
.28

37.57
5.33
.58

Madolescent
SDadolescent

25.66
3.85
.80

18.65
3.75
.67

15.41
2.65
.66

8.91
2.07
.65

4.32
2.01
.59

72.96
10.89
.87

65.35
9.98
.89

28.57
5.21
.82

10.89
3.19
.73

11.02
3.94
.87

8.34
3.67
.86

11.15
2.46
.20

12.59
2.46
.34

13.51
2.22
.24

37.26
5.29
.51

aadult

aadolescent

Note: Correlations for the adolescent and adult samples are above and below the diagonal, respectively; underlined correlations were not statistically signicant; *correlation
signicant at p < .05; all other correlations signicant at p < .01.
a
Factor 1: Personal competence, high standards, tenacity.
b
Factor 2: Trust in ones instincts, tolerance of negative affect, strengthening effects of stress.
c
Factor 3: Positive acceptance of change, secure relationships.
d
Factor 4: Control.
e
Factor 5: Spiritual inuences.

section. Instructions for completing each section of the questionnaire package were provided on the web page. Researchers have
shown that responses obtained via traditional paper-and-pencil
methods and online procedures do not vary signicantly as
a function of collection method (Meade, Michels, & Lautenschlager,
2007).
Data analysis
Analysis of moment structures (AMOS) statistical software
(Arbuckle, 2009) was employed to examine the measurement
model, whereas Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
was employed for all other analyses (e.g., descriptive statistics,
correlations, internal reliability estimates). Following preliminary
analyses for violations of statistical assumptions (i.e., univariate and
multivariate normality), a conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) with
maximum likelihood estimation was applied to examine the
measurement validity of the hypothesized models. A CFA was
chosen over an exploratory approach because it allows one to test
an a priori measurement model against that data (Hagger &
Chatzisarantis, 2009). Model t was assessed using a combination
of incremental and absolute indices that perform well with small
samples (Bentler, 1995): chi-square statistic (c2); the comparative
t index (CFI), the incremental t index (IFI), the Tucker-Lewis
Index (TLI), and the root-mean-square error of approximation,
(RMSEA). Acceptable t was considered to be indicated by c2/df
ratio < 3.00, RMSEA < .08, CFI > .90, TLI > .90, and IFI > .90 (Marsh,
Hau, & Wen, 2004).
Multiple-group CFA involving a sequential model testing
approach (e.g., Cheung & Rensvold, 2002) was used to test the
invariance of the CD-RISC measurement model across adult and
adolescent cricketers. First, we tested for congural invariance (i.e.,
the factor structure is the same across groups) by allowing the
intercepts, factor loadings, and residual variances to vary freely

across groups, with factor means set to zero. Second, we tested

metric invariance (i.e., items load on the factors in a similar manner
across groups) by constraining the factor loadings across the age
groups to be equal. Finally, we tested scalar invariance (i.e., intercepts are the same across groups) by constraining the intercepts to
be equal across groups. Although the c2 test is a relatively
straightforward means by which to examine differences between
nested models, its sensitivity to sample size (i.e., size of the calculated c2 is directly proportional to the size of the sample, independent of the strength of the effect) can lead one to make
erroneous conclusions such as implying a poor data-to-model t
with large samples (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). In the presence of
a signicant c2 test, relatively invariant t indices are considered
indicative of invariant factor structure with a change of more than
.01 in CFI between increasingly more constrained models gaining
the most emphasis (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). In cases where the
loadings are highly similar and the t indices reect this similarity
the c2 test would be considered overly sensitive.
Results
Descriptive statistics
Means, standard deviations, and internal reliability estimates of
all study variables for both samples of adult and adolescent cricketers are presented in Table 1. Preliminary analyses of skewness and
kurtosis statistics revealed that neither univariate nor multivariate
normality was violated (see Byrne, 2010). In terms of internal
reliability estimates, the global 25, 22, and 10 item subscales of
resilient qualities (i.e., unidimensional models), CD-RISC Factor 1 of
the ve-factor model, and all three subscales of the ABQ evidenced
adequate levels (Cronbachs as  .70) recommended for exploratory research (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994) across both samples. In
contrast, CD-RISC Factor 2 of the ve-factor model evidenced an

428

D.F. Gucciardi et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12 (2011) 423e433

adequate level of internal reliability for the adult sample but not for
the adolescents. All other subscales did not reach adequate levels of
internal reliability.
Within-network properties
Factor-level analyses
CFAs were run separately for the adult and adolescent samples of
cricketers. An overview of the results of factor-level analyses performed is detailed in Table 2. The original lower-order ve-factor
model (Connor & Davidson, 2003) did not receive support for both
groups of cricketers (Model 1). Similarly, there was a distinct lack of
model t for both samples when applying the higher-order vefactor model (Model 2), a 25-item unidimensional model (Model 3),
and a 22-item unidimensional model (Model 4; see Burns & Anstey,
2010). In contrast, the 10-item unidimensional model (CampbellSills & Stein, 2007) evidenced adequate levels of t with the data
for both samples (Model 5). An overview of the regression weights
for each of the respective models is detailed in Table 3.
Item-level analyses
Data pertaining to item means and variances, analysis of
distributional properties, corrected item-total correlations, and
reliability coefcients with respective deletion of items are presented in Table 4. Specically, item means ranged from 2.65 to 3.22
and 2.61 to 3.44 for the adult and adolescent samples, respectively;
with values close to zero and less than 1 (Meyers, Gamst, &
Guarino, 2006; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007), skew and kurtosis
statistics support the approximation of a normal distribution for
each item; corrected item-total correlations ranged from .30 to .69
and .30 to .66 for the adult and adolescent samples, respectively;
and the estimate of internal reliability remains consistent when
considering item deletion. Collectively, these data support the
validity of the 10-item unidimensional model from an item-level
perspective.

detailed separately above and below the diagonal, respectively.

Consistent with expectations, resilient qualities (10-item) evidenced positive and moderate correlations with global hardiness
(r .56 and .62) as well as negative and moderate correlations with
burnout components (r .26 to .40). However, we urge caution
when interpreting correlations involving the three hardiness
subscales because of the low internal reliability estimates (a .58
and .51). Finally, the relationship between the number of years
playing experience and CD-RISC-10 scores for both the adult
(r .11, p .06) and adolescent (r .11, p .13) samples was small
and non-signicant.
Measurement invariance
Independent CFA models specied for adult and adolescent
cricketers displayed good t to the data indicating that a multigroup analysis was appropriate. The results of the measurement
invariance analyses are presented in Table 5. The test of congural
and metric invariances revealed acceptable levels of t. The chi
square difference test between the congural and metric invariance
models was non-signicant [c2(9) 6.00, p .74] thereby supporting metric invariance between the age groups. However,
although the scalar invariance model evidenced adequate t
statistics, the chi square difference test comparing the metric
invariance and scalar invariance models was signicant
[c2(19) 60.07, p .001] and the change in CFI (.037) was larger
than the recommended .01 (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002) indicating
that full scalar invariance was not met; that is, the corresponding
factor loads for each item in each item set is not the same across age
groups. Partial scalar invariance was obtained by freeing three
items: coping with stress can strengthen me; can achieve goals
despite obstacles; and think of self as strong person. The chi square
difference test between the metric and partial scalar invariance
models was non-signicant [c2(16) 13.69, p .06].
Discussion

Between-network properties
Zero-order correlations between all study variables for both
samples are presented in Table 1, with adolescent and adult data

The purposes of this study were to examine the within-network

properties (i.e., dimensionality, internal reliability) of the CD-RISC
(Connor & Davidson, 2003) as well as assess the between-network

Table 2
Summary of t indices for measurement models examined with the adult (n 321) and adolescent (n 199) samples. Note: c2 chi square; df degrees of freedom;
CFI comparative t index; IFI e incremental t index; TLI Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA root mean square error of approximation.
Models
Model 1: Original 5-factora
Adult sample (n 321)
Adolescent sample (n 199)
Model 2: Higher-order, 5-factorb
Adult sample (n 321)
Adolescent sample (n 199)
Model 3: Unidimensional 25 itemsc
Adult sample (n 321)
Adolescent sample (n 199)
Model 4: Unidimensional 22 itemsd
Adult sample (n 321)
Adolescent sample (n 199)
Model 5: Unidimensional 10 itemse
Adult sample (n 321)
Adolescent sample (n 199)

c2

df

p/Bollen-Stine p

CFI

IFI

TLI

RMSEA

90% Condence
interval of RMSEA

916.09
601.63

265
265

.001/.005
.001/.005

.814
.777

.816
.782

.789
.747

.075
.080

.070e.081
.072e.089

785.27
611.10

270
270

.001/.005
.001/.005

.801
.774

.803
.778

.779
.749

.077
.080

.071e.084
.071e.088

913.66
681.03

275
275

.001/.005
.001/.005

.753
.731

.756
.735

.731
.706

.085
.086

.079e.091
.078e.095

699.98
482.39

209
209

.001/.005
.001/.005

.793
.797

.795
.800

.772
.775

.086
.081

.079e.093
.072e.091

80.10
61.34

35
35

.001/.015
.004/.149

.947
.948

.947
.949

.932
.934

.063
.062

.045e.082
.035e.087

Note: Residual error terms were not correlated.

a
Model 1: Original 5-factor model (Connor & Davidson, 2003).
b
Model 2: Original 5-factor model (Connor & Davidson, 2003) with a higher-order factor (i.e., the higher-order, latent general-factor represents the common cause of all
covariation among the ve lower-order constructs).
c
Model 3: Unidimensional model including all 25 of the original items (Connor & Davidson, 2003).
d
Model 4: Unidimensional model including 22 items (Burns & Anstey, 2010).
e
Model 5: Unidimensional model including 10 items (Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007).

D.F. Gucciardi et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12 (2011) 423e433

429

Table 3
Standardized factor loadings (l) and error terms () of the CD-RISC items for all models tested (Note: adult/adolescent sample).
CD-RISC Items

Model 1a

Model 2b

Model 3c

Model 4d

Model 5e

1. Adapt to change
2. Close and secure relationships
3. Sometimes fate or god can help
4. Can deal with whatever comes
5. Past success gives condence for new challenge
6. See the humorous side of things
7. Coping with stress strengthens
8. Tend to bounce back after illness or hardship
9. Things happen for a reason
10. Best effort no matter what
11. You can achieve your goals
12. When things look hopeless, I dont give up
13. Know where to turn for help
14. Under pressure, focus and think clearly
15. Prefer to take the lead in problem-solving
16. Not easily discouraged by failure
17. Think of self as strong person
18. Make unpopular or difcult decisions
19. Can handle unpleasant feelings
20. Have to act on a hunch
21. Strong sense of purpose
22. In control of your life
23. I like challenges
24. You work to attain your goals
25. Pride in your achievements

.51/.62
.30/.35
.39/.49
.64/.70
.61/.46
.32/.31
.54/.59
.58/.58
.91/.85
.50/.42
.71/.68
.64/.57
.36/.53
.64/.61
.52/.42
.61/.58
.73/.70
.51/.53
.59/.53
.35/.31
.88/.68
.74/.75
.64/.59
.65/.74
.46/.36

.32/.28
.92/.85
1.21/1.20
.24/.29
.31/.55
.72/.89
.49/.56
.36.42
.22/.35
.37/.32
.22/.24
.32/.35
.77/.64
.33/.40
.66/.78
.49/.61
.27/.35
.62/.68
.50/.58
.56/.73
.17/.44
.28/.33
.36/.40
.28/.22
.25/.34

.48/.60
.32/.37
.40/.35
.63/.69
.64/.48
.30/.31
.52/.59
.59/.60
.89/.93
.50/.42
.71/.67
.64/.57
.38/.53
.65/.59
.53/.44
.61/.59
.73/.71
.51/.54
.60/.52
.36/.34
.86/.67
.76/.76
.63/.59
.65/.74
.46/.35

.34/.30
.91/.85
1.20/1.37
.24/.30
.29/.53
.74/.90
.51/.56
.36/.41
.26/.34
.37/.32
.23/.24
.32/.35
.76/.65
.33/.41
.64/.76
.49/.61
.26/.34
.62/.67
.49/.59
.56/.71
.20/.44
.27/.31
.36/.40
.28/.22
.25/.34

.46/.57
.30/.34
.17/.08
.59/.66
.61/.46
.28/.27
.50/.54
.55/.56
.33/.25
.46/.37
.68/.64
.61/.53
.39/.53
.59/.56
.45/.38
.63/.60
.75/.72
.40/.45
.54/.44
.28/.28
.73/.63
.65/.71
.61/.57
.62/.69
.45/.32

.34/.31
.92/.86
1.39/1.58
.26/.32
.31/.55
.75/.92
.52/.61
.38/.44
1.13/1.20
.39/.34
.24/.26
.34/.37
.75/.64
.37/.44
.72/.81
.48/.60
.25/.32
.70/.75
.55/.65
.59/.74
.36/.48
.36/.36
.37/.42
.30/.26
.25/.35

.46/.57
e
e
.59/.66
.60/.46
.27/.26
.50/.54
.55/.55
e
.46/.37
.68/.63
.62/.53
.38/.51
.59/.56
.46/.39
.63/.60
.75/.73
.41/.46
.54/.45
.28/.27
.72/.63
.65/.72
.62/.57
.62/.69
.45/.32

.34/.31
e
e
.26/.32
.32/.55
.75/.92
.52/.61
.38/.44
e
.39/.34
.25/.26
.34/.38
.76/.66
.37/.44
.71/.80
.47/.59
.25/.32
.70/.74
.54/.64
.59/.75
.37/.48
.36/.36
.37/.42
.30/.26
.25/.35

.52/.60
e
e
.68/.74
e
.34/.31
.55/.55
.59/.54
e
e
.56/.51
e
e
.59/.57
e
.64/.64
.77/.74
e
.58/.55
e
e
e
e
e
e

.32/.30
e
e
.22/.26
e
.72/.89
.49/.60
.36/.45
e
e
.31/.33
e
e
.37/.43
e
.46/.55
.24/.31
e
.50/.56
e
e
e
e
e
e

Model 1: original 5-factor model (Connor & Davidson, 2003).

Model 2: original 5-factor model (Connor & Davidson, 2003) with a higher-order factor (i.e., the higher-order, latent general-factor represents the common cause of all
covariation among the ve lower-order constructs).
c
Model 3: unidimensional model including all 25 of the original items (Connor & Davidson, 2003).
d
Model 4: unidimensional model including 22 items (Burns & Anstey, 2010).
e
Model 5: unidimensional model including 10 items (Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007).
b

Table 4
Item statistics for the 10-item unidimensional model of resilience.
CD-RISC items

Descriptive statistics
M

Adult sample
Adapt to change
Can deal with whatever comes
Tries to see humorous
side of problems
Coping with stress can
strengthen me
Tend to bounce back after
illness or hardship
Can achieve goals
despite obstacles
Can stay focused under pressure
Not easily discouraged by failure
Thinks of self as strong person
Can handle unpleasant feelings
Adolescent sample
Adapt to change
Can deal with whatever comes
Tries to see humorous
side of problems
Coping with stress can
strengthen me
Tend to bounce back after
illness or hardship
Can achieve goals
despite obstacles
Can stay focused under pressure
Not easily discouraged by failure
Thinks of self as strong person
Can handle unpleasant feelings

SD Skew Kurtosis Corrected a if item

item-total deleted
correlation

3.01 .66 .40

.53
2.96 .64 .20
.13
2.93 .89 .46 .36

.47
.62
.30

.82
.81
.84

2.94 .83 .56

.04

.51

.81

3.12 .74 .49 .20

.53

.81

3.22 .67 .61

.87

.49

.82

.27 .21
.65
.30
.54
.30
.53
.38

.55
.57
.69
.51

.81
.81
.80
.81

2.93 .68 .98

.38
2.81 .75 .48
.56
2.72 .99 .39 .48

.55
.66
.30

.81
.80
.83

2.65 .92 .26 .58

.52

.81

3.16 .79 .79

.61

.48

.81

3.44 .66 .88

.13

.46

.81

.27 .04
.45 .05
.41
.01
.47
.23

.53
.57
.66
.47

.81
.80
.79
.81

2.84
2.74
3.06
2.65

2.79
2.61
2.81
2.61

.75
.88
.76
.87

.79
.96
.82
.89

properties (i.e., correlations with hypothesized key correlates) and

age-related invariance of the supported measurement model
between adult and adolescent cricketers. Within-network analyses
supported the viability of a 10-item, unidimensional model
(Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007) when compared with the original
25-item, ve-factor model (Connor & Davidson, 2003). Betweennetwork analyses identied positive and moderate correlations
with hardiness as well as negative and moderate correlations with
burnout components thereby providing support for the convergent
validity of the unidimensional model. Measurement invariance
analyses of the unidimensional model across the two age-group
samples supported congural (i.e., same factor structure across
groups), metric (i.e., same pattern of factor loadings across the
groups), and partial scalar (i.e., mostly the same intercepts across
the groups) invariance.
With regard to the most appropriate measurement model, our
results failed to support the originally proposed 25-item, ve-factor
model (Connor & Davidson, 2003) at both lower- and higher-order
levels, and an amended 22-item version (Burns & Anstey, 2010), but
instead revealed support for the 10-item, unidimensional model
(Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007). As anticipated, the superiority of the
unidimensional model over and above the multidimensional model
was replicated in both the adult and adolescent samples thereby
strengthening this nding. Support for a unidimensional model of
resilience as measured by the 10-item CD-RISC (referred to hereafter as CD-RISC-10) is consistent with recent psychometric
examinations of the scale with young adults outside of sport (e.g.,
Burns & Anstey, 2010). These ndings appear consistent with
existing concerns (e.g., Ahern et al., 2006) of the original CD-RISC
such as the lack of clarity and labeling of the factors, the utilization
of only two items to measure the spirituality subscale (see, e.g.,
Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007), and the application of an orthogonal
rotation preventing correlation among the subscales. With the CD-

430

D.F. Gucciardi et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12 (2011) 423e433

Table 5
Measurement equivalence and goodness of t statistics across age groups for the 10-item unidimensional model of the CD-RISC.

Adult sample (n 321)

Adolescent sample (n 199)
Congural invariance
Metric invariance
Scalar invariance
Partial scalar invariance

c2

df

c2/df

Dc2

Ddf

RMSEA (90% CI)

CFI

IFI

TLI

DCFI

80.10
61.34
141.46
147.46
207.53
161.15

35
35
70
79
89
86

2.29
1.75
2.02
1.87
2.33
1.87

e
e
e
6.00
60.07
13.69

e
e
e
.74
.001
.06

e
e
e
9
10
7

.063
.062
.044
.041
.051
.041

.947
.948
.947
.950
.913
.945

.947
.949
.948
.950
.913
.945

.932
.934
.932
.943
.912
.942

e
e
e
.003
.037
.005

RISC-10 evidencing high correlations with all of the original ve

factors except for spirituality, it appears that the unidimensional
model shares a considerable degree of conceptual overlap with the
original model. However, whilst correlations between the unidimensional and 10-item models were high (.89/.90) this nding still
indicates around 20% of the variance was not shared. Considering
that these latent variables are supposed to reect the same
construct, this nding could be seen as problematic. Moreover, it is
important to recognize that the exclusion of 15 of the original 25
items in the CD-RISC-10 means important resilient qualities such as
self-efcacy and protective factors such as social support are not
being assessed (Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007). At the item-level,
retaining an item with a less than adequate factor loading (.34/.31:
item 6) appears consistent with previous concerns (Burns & Anstey,
2010) that the CD-RISC10 is not consistent across samples.
An inspection of item content of the CD-RISC-10 reveals that the
instrument assesses ones ability to bounce back from the various
adversities and challenges that can arise in life (e.g., adapt to
change, tend to bounce back after illness or hardship). This interpretation is somewhat consistent with contemporary denitions of
resilience, which pertain to an individuals ability to maintain
relatively stable, healthy levels of psychological and physical
functioning, or positive adaptations following exposure to signicant adversity (Luthar, 2006). Nevertheless, there is a growing body
of evidence supporting the conceptual distinction between resilience and coping (e.g., Campbell-Sills et al., 2006; Karoly &
Ruehlman, 2006). Thus, it may be argued that this CD-RISC-10
(and its original version) diverts the users attention from examining the true nature of resilience (i.e., positive adaptation in the
face of adversity) to that which examines resilient qualities but not
resources external to the individual.
When the age-related factorial invariance of the CD-RISC-10 was
examined, support for congural (i.e., same factor structure across
groups), metric (i.e., same pattern of factor loadings across the
groups), and partial scalar invariance (i.e., mostly the same intercepts across the groups) was observed. Consistent with our
expectations, these ndings lend support for the conclusion that
there are conceptual similarities between adults and adolescents in
the construct being measured, and that the items share similar
meanings across the two age groups; that is, it appears that the
resilient qualities maintain their structure and meaning across age
when measured using the CD-RISC-10. However, three items
precluded the demonstration of full scalar invariance (viz. coping
with stress can strengthen me; can achieve goals despite obstacles;
and think of self as strong person). In other words, partial scalar
invariance indicates that adult and adolescent cricketers who have
the same value on the latent resilience construct will report similar
values on seven of the 10 indicators, regardless of group membership. An examination of the item intercepts revealed that adults
reported higher levels of coping with stress strengthens me and
thinks of self as strong person than adolescents. The coping
indicator nding aligns well with previous research indicating that
older athletes are better prepared than younger athletes to cope
with adversity (Bebetsos & Antoniou, 2003). Similarly, research

(.045e.082)
(.035e.087)
(.034e.055)
(.031e.051)
(.042e.060)
(.031e.051)

with Australians indicates that self-concept (e.g., thinks of self as

strong person) declines in middle adolescence, then increases
during the transition into early adulthood (Marsh, 1989). In contrast
to the previous two items, adolescents reported higher levels of
can achieve goals despite obstacles than adults. With the
adolescent sample comprising a greater number of representative
cricketers (i.e., selected in a team based on their skill level) than the
adult sample (48% and 30%, respectively), it may be the younger
participants believe in their ability to achieve their goals despite
adversity more so than the older cricketers. Although equivalence
of the parameters for all items is not necessary for substantive
analyses to be meaningful, latent means can be reliably estimated
when at least two items on a scale are invariant across the groups
(Steenkamp & Baumgartner, 1998). Considering that previous
research involving the CD-RISC has focused on older age groups
(e.g., Burns & Anstey, 2010; Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007; Connor &
Davidson, 2003), the current ndings make an original contribution
to the extant literature by demonstrating the full factorial and
partial structural integrity of the unidimensional model in samples
of adult and adolescent cricketers. Therefore, we can conclude that
the dimensionality of the resilient qualities and the items
measuring the latent variable are equivalent across the age groups,
with both groups scoring similarly on seven of the 10 indicators.
Analyses exploring the relationships between the resilient
qualities and hypothesized key correlates offered support for the
construct validity of the CD-RISC-10. As anticipated, the resilient
qualities assessed with the CD-RISC-10 evidenced negative and
moderate correlations with burnout. Burnout is characterized as
a response to chronic emotional and interpersonal stressors of the
workplace, which includes emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment (Maslach, Schaufeli, &
Leiter, 2001). Resilience may offer one explanation as to why some
athletes who experience chronically high levels of stress in the
workplace fail to burnout; that is, those resilient qualities assessed
by the CD-RISC-10 may act to mediate the relationship between the
stressors one encounters and subsequent burnout levels. This
assertion is purely speculative however, as the cross-sectional
nature of the current study does not permit the examination of
such causal relationships.
It was also considered important to explore the relationship
between resilient qualities and hardiness as the two constructs are
often used synonymously. Of particular note, hardiness has been
found to increase resilience in a wide range of stressful situations
(Maddi, 2005). Personality hardiness comprises three components:
control (a tendency to feel and act if one is inuential in the face of
external forces), commitment (a tendency to be involved, and nd
purpose and meaning in ones life), and challenge (a belief that
change in life is normal and affords opportunity for growth)
(Maddi, 2005). As anticipated, resilient qualities evidenced positive
and moderate correlations with hardiness thereby indicating that
the two constructs share some conceptual space but are not
redundant. Nevertheless, caution is urged when interpreting the
hardiness ndings due to low reliability estimates observed. Low
levels of internal reliability indicate that the items designed to

D.F. Gucciardi et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12 (2011) 423e433

reect the same construct are not yielding similar results. Thus,
measurement error resulting from low internal reliability can
reduce the magnitude of the relationships between observed
variables.
Strengths, limitations and conclusions
The strengths of the current study lie in the analytical tools
employed to assess the factorial validity of the CD-RISC (Connor &
Davidson, 2003). Specically, CFA is considered a state-of-theart analytical technique (Hagger & Chatzisarantis, 2009) for testing
the validity of a hypothesized measurement model against the data
(i.e., hypothesis testing). Moreover, the inclusion of adolescent
participants in the current study represents an important methodological extension of previous research involving the CD-RISC.
From a conceptual standpoint, this study provides original information on the robustness of the resilient qualities assessed using
the CD-RISC-10 with a previously unexplored sample (i.e., athletes)
as well as across adolescents and adults. These strengths are of
value both to the sport and mainstream psychology literatures.
Despite the aforementioned strengths of this study, there are
several limitations that should be considered. First, the relatively
small sample of adolescents in the current study may have resulted
in the smallest model (i.e., CD-RISC-10) outperforming the larger
models. Some researchers have advocated n 100 as the lower
limit for sample size, where others advised the use of at least
n 200 (Anderson & Gerbing, 1984; Boomsma, 1982). Nevertheless,
model convergence and parameter estimation are generally
improved when studies involve larger samples, more indicators per
factor, and stronger factor loadings (Gagn & Hancock, 2006).
Second, the partition of the adult sample into comparable age
ranges with the adolescent sample might have resulted in different
ndings (e.g., lack of measurement invariance across age groups).
Third, the reliance on a cross-sectional sample precludes the verication of developmental stability or change in resilience for the
sample. Fourth, we did not assess any type of adversity or positive
outcome (e.g., performance, well-being). Thus, we were unable to
provide evidence to support the notion that the personal qualities
assessed using the CD-RISC-10 predispose an individual to a greater
likelihood of experiencing positive outcomes following exposure to
adversity. Finally, the factor structure and invariance analyses
pooled male and female data together. In particular, the predominantly male sample precluded the examination of gender invariance, although there is preliminary evidence to support the
invariance of a unidimensional CD-RISC model across genders
(Burns & Anstey, 2010). Given our focus on cricketers in the current
study, caution should be exercised when extrapolating the ndings
to the other athletic samples as well as the general population.
In terms of future research, clearly there is a need to ascertain
the utility of the CD-RISC-10 when considering the two main
components of resilience, namely risk or adversity and positive
adaptation or competence (Luthar, 2006). For example, a worthwhile avenue of future research might involve an examination of
the relationship between the resilient qualities of the CD-RISC-10
and perceived stress levels (e.g., Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein,
1983) whereby an inverse relationship (i.e., higher levels of resilient qualities, lower levels of perceived stress) would provide
support for its convergent validity. A more rigorous test of
convergent validity than the previous example might involve
a prospective study in which perceived stress and CD-RISC-10 are
initially observed, with additional measures of positive adaptation
(e.g., well-being, performance) and negative symptoms and
pathology (e.g., burnout) taken several months later. Subsequently,
one could test whether the resilient qualities assessed with the CDRISC-10 moderate the relationship between perceived stress and

431

both positive adaptation and negative outcomes. Longitudinal

analyses exploring the factor structure stability and item consistency of the CD-RISC-10 within and across individuals would also
be invaluable (Hoge, Austin, & Pollack, 2007) as well as permitting
an exploration of individuals who are evaluated before and after an
adversity (e.g., injury).
In noting these potential avenues of future research with the
CD-RISC-10, it is also important that researchers consider the merit
of developing a sport-specic measure of resilience. Using the same
assessment tool developed for use in non-sport contexts with
athletes may present difculties for practitioners in that the
constructs that are meaningful in non-sport participants may not
be important for the latter. Consequently, important protective
(e.g., teammate support) and vulnerability (e.g., rigorous training
schedules) factors are likely not adequately captured when using
measures such as the CD-RISC-10 that were developed with other
populations in mind. According to Burns and Anstey (2010, p. 531),
measurement of context-specic resilience beliefs may better
indicate the role of resilience in providing a buffer against the
impact of life events. A measurement instrument that is capable of
assessing a range of protective factors across individual, social, and
societal levels (Werner, 1995) represents a useful approach that is
consistent with the conceptualization of resilience as a dynamic
process of positive adaptation to adversity (Luthar, 2006). Nevertheless, before scholars can develop a sport-specic measure of
resilience, there is a need for sport psychology researchers to
provide a comprehensive review of methodological issues pertaining to the measurement of resilience and how it can be applied
to sport.
Practitioners can glean some important benets from the
current study. First, taking into the consideration both the online
data collection procedures and item brevity, it appears that the CDRISC-10 offers a user-friendly assessment of resilient qualities. A
practitioner working at an institute of sport, for example, can have
condence in using an online methodology to assess a large
number of athletes resilient qualities thereby reducing the amount
of time it takes to both administer the survey and input the
responses commonly associated with hardcopy assessments.
Second, the results of partial measurement invariance across
adolescents and adults may also guide future use of the CD-RISC-10
in sport contexts. For example, practitioners can use the CD-RISC10 with a greater age range of athletes as well as justify the
comparison of means between adolescents and adult participants.
Third, with a deeper understanding of resilient qualities, efforts can
be directed toward the reduction of negative outcomes as well as
the promotion of dimensions of positive adaptation or competence.
Specically, the focus can turn from correcting or xing weaknesses
to identifying an athletes strengths that can be utilized to overcome adversity or stress. Practitioners subscribing to a personal
construct psychology (Kelly, 1955/1991; see also Gucciardi &
Gordon, 2009) perspective, for example, would encourage
athletes to anticipate the various stressors or adversities they may
encounter and describe their resilient qualities or protective factors
that can facilitate the attainment of positive outcomes should they
confront such experiences in the future.
In conclusion, this study is the rst to examine the psychometric
properties of a self-report measure of resilient qualities in a sport
context. From a factorial validity perspective, conrmatory factor
analyses and examination of internal reliability estimates provided
further support for a 10-item, unidimensional model (CampbellSills & Stein, 2007) and extend these ndings to a unique performance context. The CD-RISC-10 evidenced congural, metric, and
partial scalar invariance across adult and adolescent cricketers
thereby supporting the conceptual interpretation of the instrument
as a unidimensional model. Examinations of the relationship

432

D.F. Gucciardi et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12 (2011) 423e433

between the supported model and hypothesized key correlates (i.e.,

burnout, hardiness) provided support for convergent validity.
Collectively, these ndings provide preliminary support for the
utility of the CD-RISC-10 as a measure of resilient qualities in sport
contexts. Such a measure can be used in future research to explore
a theoretically justiable network of antecedents and consequences of resilience in the context of sport adversities.
References
Ahern, N. R., Kiehl, E. M., Sole, M. L., & Byers, J. (2006). A review of instruments
measuring resilience. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 29, 103e125.
doi:10.1080/01460860600677643.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1984). The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-t indices for maximum likelihood
conrmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika, 49, 155e173.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2009). AMOS version 18.0. Chicago, IL: SPSS.
Bebetsos, E., & Antoniou, P. (2003). Psychological skills of Greek badminton athletes.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 97, 1289e1296.
Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS: Structural equations program manual. Encino, CA:
Multivariate Software, Inc.
Boomsma, A. (1982). Robustness of LISREL against small sample sizes in factor
analysis models. In K. G. Jreskog, & H. Wold (Eds.), Systems under indirect
observation: Causality, structure, prediction (Part I). Amsterdam: North Holland.
Brown, D. L. (2008). African American resiliency: examining racial socialization and
social support as protective factors. Journal of Black Psychology, 34, 32e48.
doi:10.1177/0095798407310538.
Burns, R. A., & Anstey, K. J. (2010). The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC):
testing the invariance of a uni-dimensional resilience measure that is independent of positive and negative affect. Personality and Individual Differences,
48, 527e531. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.026.
Burton, N. W., Pakenham, K. I., & Brown, W. J. (2010). Feasibility and effectiveness of
psychosocial resilience training: a pilot study of the READY program.
Psychology, Health & Medicine, 15, 266e277. doi:10.1080/13548501003758710.
Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Campbell-Sills, L., Cohan, S. L., & Stein, M. B. (2006). Relationship of resilience to
personality, coping, and psychiatric symptoms in young adults. Behavior
Research and Therapy, 44, 585e599. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2005.05.001.
Campbell-Sills, L., & Stein, M. B. (2007). Psychometric analysis and renement of the
Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): validation of a 10-item measure of
resilience. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20, 1019e1028. doi:10.1002/jts.20271.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-t indexes for
testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233e255.
doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived
stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385e396. doi:10.2307/2136404.
Collishaw, S., Pickles, A., Messer, J., Rutter, N., Shearer, C., & Maughan, B. (2007).
Resilience to adult psychopathology following maltreatment: evidence form
a community sample. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 211e229. doi:10.1016/
j.chiabu.2007.02.004.
Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: the
Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18, 76e82.
doi:10.1002/da.10113.
Cresswell, S. L., & Eklund, R. C. (2006). The convergent and discriminant validity of
burnout measures in sport: a multi-trait/multi-method analysis. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 24, 209e220. doi:10.1080/02640410500131431.
Davidson, J., Baldwin, D. S., Stein, D. J., Pedersen, R., Ahmed, S., Musgnung, J., et al.
(2008). Effects of venlafaxine extended release on resilience in posttraumatic
stress disorder: an item analysis of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale.
International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 23, 299e303. doi:10.1097/
YIC.0b013e32830c202d.
Davydov, D. M., Stewart, R., Ritchie, K., & Chaudieu, I. (2010). Resilience and mental
health. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 479e495. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2010.03.003.
Gagn, P., & Hancock, G. R. (2006). Measurement model quality, sample size, and
solution propriety in conrmatory factor models. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 41, 65e83. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr4101_5.
Galli, N., & Vealey, R. S. (2008). Bouncing back from adversity: athletes experiences of resilience. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 316e335.
Goldney, R. D., Exckert, K. A., Hawthorne, G., & Taylor, A. W. (2010). Changes in the
prevalence of major depression in an Australian community sample between
1998 and 2003. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 44, 901e910.
doi:10.3109/00048674.2010.490520.
Gould, D., Dieffenbach, K., & Moffett, A. (2002). Psychological characteristics and
their development in Olympic champions. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,
14, 172e204. doi:10.1080/10413200290103482.
Gucciardi, D. F., & Gordon, S. (2009). Construing the athlete and exerciser: research
and applied perspectives from personal construct psychology. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology, 21(Suppl. 1), S17eS33. doi:10.1080/10413200802582821.
Hagger, M. S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2009). Assumptions in research in sport and
exercise psychology. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 511e519. doi:10.1016/
j.psychsport.2009.01.004.

Hanton, S., Fletcher, D., & Coughlan, G. (2005). Stress in elite sport performers:
a comparative study of competitive and organizational stressors. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 23, 1129e1141. doi:10.1080/02640410500131480.
Hoge, E. A., Austin, E. D., & Pollack, M. H. (2007). Resilience: research evidence and
conceptual considerations for posttraumatic stress disorder. Depression and
Anxiety, 24, 139e152. doi:10.1002/da.20175.
Holt, N. L., & Dunn, J. G. H. (2004). Toward a grounded theory of the psychosocial competencies and environmental conditions associated with soccer
success. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 199e219. doi:10.1080/
10413200490437949.
Jobson, L., & OKearney, R. (2008). Cultural differences in personal identity in posttraumatic stress disorder. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47, 95e109.
doi:10.1348/014466507X235953.
Karairmak, O. (2010). Establishing the psychometric qualities of the ConnorDavidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) using exploratory and conrmatory factor
analysis in a trauma survivor sample. Psychiatric Research, 179, 350e356.
doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2009.09.012.
Karoly, P., & Ruehlman, L. S. (2006). Psychological resilience and its correlates in
chronic pain: ndings from a national community sample. Pain, 123, 90e97.
doi:10.1016/j.pain.2006.02.014.
Kelly, G. A. (1991)The psychology of personal constructs: A theory of personality, Vol. 1.
London: Routledge. (Original work published 1955).
Kraemer, H. C., Kazdin, A. E., Offord, D. R., Vessler, R. C., Jensen, P. S., & Kupfer, D. J.
(1997). Coming to terms with the terms of risk. Archives of General Psychiatry,
54, 337e343.
Lamond, A. J., Depp, C. A., Allison, M., Langer, R., Reichstadt, J., Moore, D. J., et al.
(2009). Measurement and predictors of resilience among community-dwelling
older women. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43, 148e154. doi:10.1016/
j.jpsychires.2008.03.007.
Lee, T. Y., Kwong, W. M., Cheung, C. K., Ungar, M., & Cheung, M. Y. L. (2010). Childrens resilience-related beliefs as a predictor of positive child development in
the face of adversities: implications for interventions to enhance childrens
quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 95, 437e453. doi:10.1007/s11205-0099530-x.
Luthar, S. S. (2006). Resilience in development: a synthesis of research across
ve decades. In D. Cicchetti, & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Risk, disorder, and adaptation (2nd ed.). (pp. 740e795) New York:
Wiley.
Luthar, S. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). The construct of resilience: implications for
interventions and social policies. Development and Psychopathology, 12,
857e885.
Luthar, S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: a critical
evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71, 543e562.
doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00164.
Luthar, S. S., & Cushing, G. (1999). Measurement issues in the empirical study of
resilience: an overview. In M. D. Glanz, & J. L. Johnston (Eds.), Resilience and
development: Positive life adaptations (pp. 129e160). New York: Plenum.
Maddi, S. R. (2005). On hardiness and other pathways to resilience. American
Psychologist, 60, 261e272. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.36.261.
Maddi, S. R., & Khoshaba, D. M. (2001). Personal views survey (3rd ed.). Newport
Beach, CA: The Hardiness Institute.
Marsh, H. W. (1989). Age and sex effects in multiple dimensions of self-concept:
preadolescence to early adulthood. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81,
417e430. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.3.417.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: comment on
hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for t indexes and
dangers of overgeneralizing Hu and Bentlers (1999) ndings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320e341. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2.
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2008). Workplace and academic buoyancy: psychometric assessment and construct validity amongst school personnel and
students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26, 168e184. doi:10.1177/
0734282907313767.
Martin-Kruum, C. P., Sarrazin, P. G., Peterson, C., & Famose, J.-P. (2003). Explanatory
style and resilience after sports failure. Personality and Individual Differences, 35,
1685e1695. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00390-2.
Maslach, C., Shaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 397e422.
Masten, A. S., Hubbard, J. J., Gest, S. D., Tellegen, A., Garmezy, N., & Ramirez, M.
(1999). Competence in the context of adversity: pathways to resilience and
maladaptation from childhood to late adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 143e169.
Meade, A. W., Michels, L. C., & Lautenschlager, G. J. (2007). Are internet and paperand-pencil personality tests truly comparable? An experimental design
measurement invariance study. Organizational Research Methods, 10, 322e345.
doi:10.1177/1094428106289393.
Mellalieu, S. D., Neil, R., Hanton, S., & Fletcher, D. (2009). Competition stress in sport
performers: stressors experienced in the competition environment. Journal of
Sports Sciences, 27, 729e744. doi:10.1080/02640410902889834.
Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2006). Applied multivariate research: Design
and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mummery, W. K., Schoeld, G., & Perry, C. (2004). Bouncing back: the role of coping
style, social support and self-concept in resilience of sport performance. Athletic
Insight, 6, 1e18. http://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol6Iss3/BouncingBack.htm
Retrieved from.
Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

D.F. Gucciardi et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 12 (2011) 423e433

Podlog, L., & Eklund, R. C. (2006). A longitudinal investigation of competitive
athletes return to sport following serious injury. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 18, 44e68. doi:10.1080/10413200500471319.
Podlog, L., & Eklund, R. C. (2009). High level athletes perceptions of success in
returning to sport following injury. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10,
535e544. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.02.003.
Prince-Embury, S., & Courville, T. (2008). Measurement invariance of the resilience
scales for children and adolescents with respect to sex and age cohorts.
Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 23, 26e40. doi:10.1177/0829573508
316590.
Raedeke, T., & Smith, A. L. (2001). Development and preliminary validation of an
athlete burnout measure. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 23, 281e306.
Richardson, G. (2002). The metatheory of resilience and resiliency. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 58, 307e321. doi:10.1002/jclp.10020.
Rutter, M. (2000). Resilience reconsidered: conceptual considerations, empirical
ndings, and policy implications. In J. P. Shonkoff, & S. J. Meisels (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood intervention (2nd ed.). (pp. 651e682) New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sawyer, M. G., Harchak, T. F., Spence, S. H., Bond, L., Graetz, B., Key, D., et al. (2010).
School-based prevention of depression: a 2-year follow-up of a randomized
controlled trial of the beyond blue schools. Journal of Adolescent Health, 47,
297e304. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.02.007.
Schinke, R. J., & Jerome, W. C. (2002). Understanding and rening the resilience of
elite athletes: an intervention strategy. Athletic Insight, 4. http://www.
athleticinsight.com/Vol4Iss3/ResiliencePDF.pdf Retrieved from.
Schinke, R. J., Peterson, C., & Couture, R. (2004). A protocol for teaching resilience to
high performance athletes. Journal of Excellence, 9, 9e18.
Sexton, M. B., Byrd, M. R., & von Kluge, S. (2010). Measuring resilience in women
experiencing infertility using the CD-RISC: examining infertility-related stress,
general distress, and coping styles. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 44, 236e241.
doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2009.06.007.
Sheard, M. (2009). A cross-national analysis of mental toughness and hardiness in
elite university rugby league teams. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 109, 213e223.
doi:10.2466/PMS.109.1.213-223.
Sheard, M., & Golby, J. (2010). Personality hardiness differentiates elite-level sport
performers. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 8, 160e169.

433

Shepherd, C., Reynolds, F. A., & Moran, J. (2010). Theyre battle scars, I wear them
well: a phenomenological exploration of young womens experiences of
building resilience following adversity in adolescence. Journal of Youth Studies,
13, 273e290. doi:10.1080/13676260903520886.
Spencer, M. B., Cole, S. P., Dupree, D., Glymph, A., & Pierre, P. (1993). Self-efcacy
among urban African-American early adolescents: exploring issues of risk,
vulnerability, and resilience. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 719e739.
Steenkamp, J. B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance
in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78e90.
doi:10.1086/209528.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Taylor, K. M., & Sharpe, L. (2008). Trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder among
homeless adults in Sydney. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 42,
206e213. doi:10.1080/00048670701827218.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement
invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 4e69. doi:10.1177/
109442810031002.
Wagnild, G., & Young, H. M. (1990). Resilience among older women. Journal of
Nursing Scholarship, 22, 252e255. doi:10.1111/j.1547-5069.1990.tb00224.x.
Weissensteiner, J., Abernethy, B., & Farrow, D. (2009). Towards the development of
a conceptual model of expertise in cricket batting: a grounded theory approach.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 276e292. doi:10.1080/1041320090
3018675.
Werner, E. E. (1993). Risk, resilience, and recovery: perspectives from the Kauai
longitudinal study. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 503e515. doi:10.1017/
S095457940000612X.
Werner, E. E. (1995). Resilience in development. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 4, 81e85. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772327.
Wyman, P. A., Cowen, E. L., Work, W. C., & Kerley, J. H. (1993). The role of childrens
future expectations in self-system functioning and adjustment to life-stress.
Development and Psychopathology, 5, 649e661.
Yoo, J., Slack, K. S., & Holl, J. L. (2010). The impact of health-promoting behaviors on
low-income childrens health: a risk and resilience perspective. Health and
Social Work, 35, 133e143.