See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233973413

Psychometric properties of the Child and Youth Resilience Measure (CYRM-

28) among samples of French Canadian youth

Article  in  Child abuse & neglect · December 2012

DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.06.004 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

24 1,008

5 authors, including:

Isabelle Daigneault Jacinthe Dion

Université de Montréal University of Québec in Chicoutimi
107 PUBLICATIONS   670 CITATIONS    76 PUBLICATIONS   340 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Martine Hébert Pierre Mcduff

Université du Québec à Montréal Université de Montréal
328 PUBLICATIONS   3,679 CITATIONS    125 PUBLICATIONS   2,392 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Youth in Custodial Facilities View project

Cognitive outcomes of children who have experienced complex trauma: a systematic review of longitudinal studies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Isabelle Daigneault on 08 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 160–171

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Child Abuse & Neglect

Psychometric properties of the Child and Youth Resilience Measure

(CYRM-28) among samples of French Canadian youth夽
Isabelle Daigneault a,∗ , Jacinthe Dion b , Martine Hébert c , Pierre McDuff a ,
Delphine Collin-Vézina d
a
Université de Montréal, Department of Psychology, Case Postale 6128, Succursale Center-Ville, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3C 3J7
b
Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, Département des sciences de l’éducation et de psychologie, Chicoutimi, Québec, Canada
c
Université du Québec à Montréal, Department of Sexology, Université du Québec à Montréal, succursale Center-ville, Montréal, Québec, Canada
d
McGill University, School of Social Work, Montreal, Québec, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Objective: Explore the psychometric properties of the French Canadian version of the Child
Received 17 November 2011 and Youth Resilience Measure (CYRM-28, Resilience Research Center, 2009; Ungar et al.,
Received in revised form 14 June 2012 2008) in youth samples.
Accepted 21 June 2012
Method: Two investigations were conducted. Participants in Study 1 were 589 youth
Available online 20 December 2012
(60% female) in grades 10–12 from 2 urban public high schools. Participants in Study 2
were 246 youth (48% female) from a rural public high school, 28% from First Nations.
Keywords: All participants completed the French CYRM-28 and measures of self-esteem and self-
Resilience acceptance/mindfulness. Participants in Study 2 completed additional measures evaluating
Reliability their sense of empowerment, trauma symptoms, family problems, and relationship with
Validity parents.
Adolescents Results: Factor analysis identified three components correlated to each other: individual,
Assessment family and community resilience. Evidence provides initial support for the construct valid-
Sexual abuse
ity of the scale by correlations with measures of self-esteem, self-acceptance/mindfulness,
empowerment, trauma symptoms, relationship with parents and differences according to
gender and a history of sexual abuse.
Conclusion: The present results, the first to explore the psychometric properties of the
French version of the CYRM-28, provide preliminary data supporting the reliability and
validity of a global scale including 27 items. However, our results reveal a different factorial
structure compared to previous studies using the CYRM-28. Future studies are needed to
further document the validity of the scale.
© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Childhood sexual abuse and other types of maltreatment have consistently been associated with an increase in the risk
of psychological symptoms and disorders (Fergusson, Boden, & Horwood, 2008; Gilbert et al., 2009; Hillberg, Hamilton-
Giachritsis, & Dixon, 2011) and later revictimization (Daigneault, Hébert, & McDuff, 2009). For example, a recent meta-
analysis using data from 587 studies, including more than 270,000 participants, concluded that childhood sexual abuse can

夽 This study was supported by a grant from Quebec’s Social Services and Health Ministry to the first author and by a grant from the Université du Québec
à Chicoutimi to the second author. All authors are members of the Center de recherche interdisciplinaire sur les problèmes conjugaux et les agressions sexuelles
(CRIPCAS).
∗ Corresponding author.

0145-2134/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.06.004
 Author's personal copy

I. Daigneault et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 160–171 161

be considered a non-specific risk factor for a host of psychological consequences such as depression, anxiety, dissociation,
substance abuse, sexual dysfunction, post-traumatic stress disorder, self-esteem impairment (Maniglio, 2009).
Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, researchers have begun to pay attention to resilient individuals who had been
exposed to adverse events. Although there is a growing number of studies focusing on resilience, few have documented
resilient profiles and processes in sexually abused children or adolescents (for examples, see Daigneault, Tourigny, & Cyr,
2004; Hébert, Parent, Daignault, & Tourigny, 2006; Spaccarelli & Kim, 1995). Despite continuing debate over how best to
define resilience and the existence of a variety of approaches to its study (Kolar, 2011; Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000),
resilience is now most often viewed as a process by which individuals manage to use resources to develop and maintain
adaptive functioning in the face of adversity. This definition of resilience as a process contrasts with previous definitions
of resiliency, which referred to personality traits rather than processes (Luthar et al., 2000). Adversity may take different
forms (e.g., childhood maltreatment) and adaptive functioning is generally assessed with regards to the unique risk posed
by the adverse context each child and youth faces. For example, adaptive functioning after experiencing sexual abuse could
be defined as an absence of one identified consequence, such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Ungar (2004) also suggested
that factors contributing to adaptive functioning vary according to each individual and each individual’s context in time.
Individual factors, such as self-esteem, mindfulness and empowerment have previously been associated with better
psychological functioning and resilience processes (Huppert & Johnson, 2010; Oliver, 2008; Tiet, Huizinga, & Byrnes, 2010;
Wong, Chang, He, & Wu, 2010; Woodier, 2011) including better outcomes following sexual abuse trauma (Daigneault, Hébert,
& Tourigny, 2007). Factors recurrently associated with resilience in at-risk youth do not solely reside within the individuals
facing adversity, but also with their families and communities (for example, Anthony, 2008; Edmond, Auslander, Elze, &
Bowland, 2006; Mannarino & Cohen, 1996). In fact, Luthar and her colleagues (2000), suggesting guidelines for future work
on the construct of resilience, have also underlined that individual, familial and community sources of resilience have been
persistently identified across studies. In a recent review of the history behind resilience research and its development, it was
suggested that defining resilience as a process shared among individuals, their families and the community, rather than an
individual characteristic, would diminish the burden placed on individuals facing adversity (Kolar, 2011).
Although psychometrically sound measures are essential for theory development and clinical practice, measures evalu-
ating resilience features in youth are scant; and even fewer are available in French. Prince-Embury (2010a), in the special
issue on resiliency assessment of the Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, recommended that measures be theory-driven,
developmentally appropriate, brief and easy to administer, linked to intervention and psychometrically sound. Among avail-
able measures, some focus on resiliency, i.e., ego characteristics that render individuals invulnerable to stress (Resiliency
Scales for Children and Adolescents – Mowder, Cummings, & McKinney, 2010; Prince-Embury, 2010b; Prince-Embury &
Steer, 2010). Other resilience measures assessing exclusively individual resilience features are designed to be completed
by teachers or parents (Devereux Student Strengths Assessment – Naglieri, Goldstein, & LeBuffe, 2010; Social–Emotional
Assets and Resilience Scales – Merrell, Cohn, & Tom, 2011; Merrell, Felver-Gant, & Tom, 2011). Other measures, adapted for
adolescents, require lengthy clinical interviews and scoring by trained clinicians (Multidimensional Trauma Resiliency and
Recovery interview and scale – Daigneault, Cyr, & Tourigny, 2007; Daigneault et al., 2004; Harvey et al., 2003).
In fact, as documented by a review of resilience measurement scales (Windle, Bennett, & Noyes, 2011), the majority of
existing resilience scales focus exclusively on the individual level (9 of 15) and only 5 reviewed scales assess resilience on
multiple levels (individual, social, societal). Furthermore, the 3 measures that had the highest psychometric quality ratings
(moderate) were all developed for adult populations (Windle et al., 2011). Therefore, resilience measures for children or
youth need to be developed and adapted for use with different cultures, and their psychometric properties assessed more
thoroughly.
The CYRM-28, developed by Ungar and his colleagues (2008), is a 28-item measure that gauges individual, family, commu-
nity and cultural factors associated with resilience and competency in youth using a 5-point Likert scale. The scale originally
consisted of 58 items, but was shortened following an initial pilot study in which it was found that some items: (a) had high
non-response rates, (b) did not capture at least 45% of the variance, or (c) did not receive a high factor loading (i.e., significant
correlation with one component) (Ungar et al., 2008). This original pilot test included youth from 14 separate communities
worldwide and revealed a 4-component solution of Individual, Relational, Community and Cultural features (Ungar et al.,
2008).
When attempts were made to find a valid 4-component solution that would reflect the model upon which the CYRM-28
was based, no valid structure could be identified for all communities in the study. Further analyses have suggested the
framework commonly adhered to in Western research may not necessarily be valid for other populations. The fact that the
scale’s structure was not replicated across cultures is not that surprising. The search for a singular metric with an invariant
factorial structure across the globe may be fruitless, as the meaning of resilience likely varies according to context and
the CYRM-28 items-constellation best able to explain resilience in youth may also vary according to the type of adversity
youth are faced with (Merrell, Cohn, et al., 2011). The measure did, however, have high face validity through its “ground up”
creation process (Resilience Research Center, 2009). Some 35 researchers with methodological and cultural expertise, child
advocates and frontline practitioners from around the world were invited to contribute.
Because it is so recent, the CYRM-28 has been featured in very few studies as of yet. Two such studies have looked at the
CYRM-28 factorial structure in 2 different communities. Zahradnik and colleagues used the CYRM-28 with a sample of 126
Canadian First Nations youth who were at least 14 years old. Results revealed a high internal consistency for the global score
(˛ = .90). The 3 components resulting from their analysis were labeled Community (˛ = .86), Family (˛ = .72) and Individual
 Author's personal copy

162 I. Daigneault et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 160–171

(˛ = .79) and accounted for 44% of the variance. Two items (7 and 22) failed to load on any of the three components and
were only retained for calculating participants’ total scores. Moreover, Liebenberg, Ungar, and Van de Vijver (2012) have
reassessed the factorial structure of the CYRM-28 within a more homogenous sample of youth than their original validation
study. This study included 497 youth from the Atlantic Canada region known to be using multiple services, such as child
protection or mental health services. In contrast to their previous cross-cultural research, they found a three-component
solution best fitted the data. Based on items’ content, these components were labeled Individual (˛ = .80), Relational (˛ = .83)
and Contextual (˛ = .80) resilience features (Liebenberg et al., 2012). This factorial structure accounted for 40.4% of the
variance, and all items were included in the final structure. Three items with low factor loadings on more than 1 component
were kept and assigned to 1 component based on the best theoretical fit to maintain a strong content validity of the scale.
Authors concluded that the reliability analyses demonstrated internal consistency of the CYRM-28 total score and subscales.
Another recent study (Collin-Vézina, Coleman, Milne, Sell, & Daigneault, 2011) used the 4 initial components of the
CYRM-28 (Ungar et al., 2008) with 53 English-speaking at-risk youth in out-of-home care in Montreal, Canada. Authors
found that youth who had experienced 4 or more types of maltreatment exhibited significantly lower Individual, Relational
and Community resilience features than those who had experienced 1 type only. The cultural resilience component originally
proposed by Ungar and his colleagues (2008) was unrelated to maltreatment experiences in this sample.
To our knowledge, no study has yet reported psychometric properties from a French Canadian version of the CYRM-28.
While questionnaire translation is common practice, translation by itself does not necessarily result in valid and reliable
scores. Structure of the translated scale needs to be examined, and statistical analyses are needed to establish reliability
and validity of their scores (Hambleton & de Jong, 2003; van Widenfelt, Treffers, de Beurs, Siebelink, & Koudijs, 2005). This
seems even more important when translating scales that are culturally sensitive, such as the CYRM-28, for use in varied
communities where youth may define differently what it means to be resilient.
The objectives pursued in the current studies are to provide initial data on psychometric properties of the French Canadian
version of the CYRM-28 for Quebec youth. This was done with 2 studies: Study 1 enabled the assessment of (a) the factorial
structure of the French CYRM-28 and the internal consistency of scores with a large sample of urban youth, (b) its two-week
and 3-month test-retest reliability, (c) its construct validity, and (d) potential problems with floor or ceiling effects. Study 2
enabled the assessment of (a) the internal consistencies of scores, (b) the scales’ construct validity and (c) potential problems
with floor and ceiling effects, while relying on a rural ethnically diverse sample of youth from low socioeconomic settings.
These two studies will be presented separately.

Study 1

Goals and hypotheses

We sought to describe the CYRM-28 factorial structure and its internal consistency in a large youth sample from an urban
area of the province of Quebec, Canada. Because the CYRM-28 structure is thought to vary according to culture and settings,
we did not seek to confirm the authors’ original 4-component structure, or the 3-component structure found with their
Atlantic Canada youth (Liebenberg et al., 2012) nor Zahradnik and colleague’s (2010) three-component structure observed
with Mi’kmaq youth. Based on previous research on the CYRM-28, we hypothesized that the global scale would exhibit an
acceptable internal consistency coefficient.
We also assessed the scale’s reliability by administering the measure at 2 time intervals, i.e., 2 weeks and 3 months, and
calculating test-retest correlations. We hypothesized these analyses would reveal high correlations (above .70) between test
and retest at 2-week (Liebenberg et al., 2012) and 3-month intervals, which would demonstrate a good temporal reliability
of the scale (Windle et al., 2011).
Because the resilience process has previously been theoretically, clinically or empirically associated with self-esteem and
self-awareness/mindfulness (for example, Cicchetti, Rogosch, Lynch, & Holt, 1993), we used self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965)
and mindfulness measures (Greco, Baer, & Smith, 2011) to assess construct validity. We hypothesized that the CYRM-28
global score and subscale scores would be positively correlated to the self-esteem and mindfulness scores. As a means to
provide further evidence of construct validity, this first study examined whether resilience scores varied according to gender
(Liebenberg et al., 2012; Merrell, Felver-Gant, et al., 2011) and to a history of sexual abuse (Collin-Vézina et al., 2011). Based
on previous findings, we hypothesized that resilience scores on the CYRM-28 total score and subscale scores would be lower
among male youth and among victims of child sexual abuse.
To determine whether there was a floor or ceiling effect of the CYRM-28 total scale, we assessed the percentage of
participants who had the lowest and highest possible scores on the total scale. A percentage of participants obtaining the
lowest or highest scores greater than 15% would be considered a problematic floor or ceiling effect (Terwee et al., 2007;
Windle et al., 2011).

Study 1 – Method

Participants and procedures

Study 1 received institutional review board (IRB) approval for initial and secondary data analyses. Informed con-
sent was obtained from participants immediately prior to data collection. The CYRM-28 and all other measures were
 Author's personal copy

I. Daigneault et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 160–171 163

group-administered to youth from two participating high schools as part of a larger project. Participants consisted of 589
students (352 girls and 237 boys) aged between 15 and 18 years, mostly in grades 10 and 11. Ninety-seven percent (97%) of
targeted students accepted to participate and were present at T1. When excluding missing data at T1 and T2, invalid protocols
and failure to pair protocols over time, we obtain a 74% participation rate. Participants were mostly born in Canada (88%), 3%
reported being First Nations. They anonymously and individually completed the CYRM-28, measures of self-esteem, mind-
fulness and sexual abuse. Three research assistants were available to answer individual youth questions. Administration
took about 40 minutes on each occasion (initial assessment, two-week [n = 578] and three-month [n = 487] intervals). Taking
into account the anonymous character of the study, seven questions enabled youth to create a unique code that facilitated
questionnaire pairing while guaranteeing the anonymity of their answers. While the socioeconomic level of families was not
available to the investigators, participating schools were situated in middle to high socioeconomic settings (MELS, 2011).

Measures

The CYRM-28 is composed of 28 items designed to assess resilience features in children and youth. For each question,
participants use a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = not at all to 5 = a lot. Total scores range from 28 to 140, with higher
scores indicating greater global resilience. The scale was first independently translated in French. This initial version was
submitted to two reviewers. The integrity of the French Canadian translation was then verified using the back translation
technique (Vallerand, 1989). A professional translator whose mother tongue is English translated the French version back
into English. Discrepancies with the original English version were noted and the French Canadian version was adjusted
accordingly.
Rosenberg’s 10-item self-esteem scale (RSES, 1965; French translation, Vallières & Vallerand, 1990) was used to assess
youth self-esteem. Items were scored on a Likert scale ranging from 0 = strongly disagree to 3 = strongly agree. Total scores
ranged from 0 to 30, with scores below 15 indicating low self-esteem and scores above 15, normal self-esteem (Study 1:
˛ = .84). This scale has excellent psychometric properties and has been used previously with youth (for examples, see De
Berardis et al., 2008; Lionel & Michel, 2010).
The 10-item version of the Child self-Acceptance, Mindfulness Measure (CAMM – Greco et al., 2011; French translation
Daigneault, 2008), was used to assess self-acceptance/mindfulness in children and adolescents. Items are scored on a five-
point Likert scale ranging from 0 = never true to 4 = always true. Scores range from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating
greater self-acceptance and mindfulness (Study 1: ˛ = .81).
Youths’ past experiences of sexual abuse were assessed with one item concerning all unwanted sexual contacts with a
variety of perpetrators before the study: “The next item represents a situation that might have happened to you with different
people (family member, date, romantic partner, friend, neighbor, coach, acquaintance, stranger, etc.) Please, read the next item
and indicate whether someone has behaved this way toward you (yes or no). Have you ever had a sexual relationship, were
subjected to sexual behaviors or were forced to behave sexually with one of these people while you did not want to?” Answers
were dichotomized with participants answering yes being coded as victims of sexual abuse (SA) and those answering no
coded as non-sexually abused youth (NSA).

Study 1 – Results and discussion

CYRM-28 French version factorial structure and internal consistency

Evidence for the construct validity of the scores from the French Canadian version of the CYRM-28 was explored by means
of a principal component analysis (PCA) using an oblique rotation, with IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 19.0.
First, preliminary analyses revealed that item 5 (Do you feel that your parent(s) watch you closely?) had to be excluded from
the PCA because of a lack of correlation with other items (anti-image correlation coefficient <.5; Pett, Lackey, & Sullivan,
2003).Second, in order to determine the number of components to be extracted, we used the Velicer’s minimum average
partial (MAP) test performed on the correlation matrix (O’Connor, 2000; Velicer, Eaton, & Fava, 2000), which suggested a
three-component solution. Third, interpretable, salient structure coefficients were considered to be .35 or greater (Cattell,
1965) for the PCA on the remaining 27 items (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy = .840 and Bartlett’s test
of sphericity – ␹2 (351) = 1,871,623; p = .000). Results in Table 1 reveal that the first component was related to Individual and
Social resilience features, which is composed of 11 items that account for 25.2% of the variance (e.g., Do you feel supported by
your friends?). A second component identified items pertaining to Family resilience features, which is composed of 7 items
that account for 7.2% of the variance (e.g., Do you feel safe when you are with your family?). Finally, the third component
reflected Community and Spiritual resilience features and is composed of 6 items that account for 6.6% of the variance (e.g.,
Do you enjoy your community’s traditions?).
No item loaded on more than one component, while three items (1 = Do you have people you look up to?, 3 = Is getting
an education important to you? and 28 = Are you proud to be (Nationality: )?) failed to load on any component (i.e., they
had no significant correlation with the scale’s components; Cattell, 1965). Two of these items (1 and 3) loaded on different
components in previous studies (Liebenberg et al., 2012; Zahradnik, 2011; Zahradnik et al., 2010) and might represent
fluctuating or culturally bound concepts not clearly associated with one area of resilience from the youth’s perspective, which
would explain why they have been inconsistently associated with item sets across samples. In addition, nationality (item 28)
 164

Table 1
Summary of factor loadings for principal component analysis for Oblimin three factor solution of the CYRM-28 and comparison with English version components from other communities.

Items Component 1 Component 2 Component 3 (Liebenberg (Zahradnik

(Individ- (Familial) (Commu- et al., 2012) et al., 2010)
ual/Social) nity/Spiritual)

14. Te sens-tu appuyé par tes amis? (Do you feel supported by your friends?) .72 .07 −.20 Individual Community
11. Les gens trouvent-ils agréable d’être avec toi? (Do people think you are fun to be with?) .71 −.02 −.05 Individual Community
18. Penses-tu que tes amis seront toujours prêts à t’appuyer dans les moments difficiles? (Do you think your friends will .68 .16 −.31 Individual Community
always stand by you during difficult times?)
19. Es-tu traité de façon équitable dans ta communauté? (Are you treated fairly in your community?) .67 .08 −.11 Context Community
16. Te sens-tu à ta place dans ton école? (Do you feel you belong at your school?) .66 .07 −.04 Context Community
4. Sais-tu comment te comporter dans différentes situations sociales? (Do you know how to behave in different social .63 −.21 .06 Individual Individual
situations?)
2. Collabores-tu avec les gens qui t’entourent? (Do you cooperate with people around you?) .58 .03 .08 Individual Individual
20. As-tu l’occasion de montrer aux gens que tu deviens adulte? (Do you have opportunities to show others that you are .57 .06 .14 Individual Individual
becoming an adult?)
15. Sais-tu où aller pour obtenir de l’aide dans ta communauté? (Do you know where to go in your community to get help?) .45 −.01 .20 Individual Community
21. Connais-tu tes forces? (Are you aware of your own strengths?) .45 −.00 .26 Individual Community
8. Fais-tu tout ton possible pour finir ce que tu as entrepris? (Do you strive to finish what you start?) .39 .09 .28 Individual Individual
24. Te sens-tu en sécurité quand tu es avec ta famille? (Do you feel safe when you are with your family?) .08 .78 −.06 Caregiver Community
6. Dirais-tu que tes parents savent beaucoup de choses sur toi? (Do you feel that your parent(s) know a lot about you?) −.13 .77 −.02 Caregiver Family
17. Penses-tu que ta famille sera toujours prête à t’appuyer dans les moments difficiles? (Do you think your family will .09 .76 −.18 Caregiver Family
always stand by you during difficult times?)
12. Parles-tu à ta famille de ce que tu ressens? (Do you talk to your family about how you feel?) .02 .66 .02 Caregiver Family
26. Aimes-tu les traditions de ta famille? (Do you enjoy your family’s traditions?) .03 .52 .33 Caregiver Community
13. Es-tu capable de résoudre les problèmes sans utiliser d’alcool ou de drogues illégales? (Are you able to solve problems −.06 .49 .06 Individual Individual
without using illegal drugs and/or alcohol?)
7. Manges-tu assez tous les jours, ou presque? (Do you eat enough most days?) .20 .17 Caregiver –
Author's personal copy

.38
27. Aimes-tu les traditions de ta communauté? (Do you enjoy your community’s traditions?) .06 .21 .58 Context Community
I. Daigneault et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 160–171

23. Trouves-tu qu’il est important de servir ta communauté? (Do you think it is important to serve your community?) .04 .08 .58 Context Community
22. Participes-tu à des activités religieuses organisées? (Do you participate in organized religious activities?) −.11 −.12 .56 Context –
9. As-tu des convictions spirituelles qui te donnent de la force? (Are spiritual beliefs a source of strength for you?) .06 −.04 .50 Context Individual
10. Es-tu fier de ton origine ethnique? (Are you proud of your ethnic background?) .09 .24 .42 Context Individual
25. As-tu l’occasion d’acquérir des compétences professionnelles qui te seront utiles plus tard? (Do you have opportunities .31 .11 .41 Individual Community
to develop job skills that will be useful later in life?)
1. Y’a-t-il des gens que tu admires? (Do you have people you look up to?) .31 .02 .15 Context Family
28. Es-tu fier d’être (Nationalité) (Are you proud to be Nationality) .08 .33 .32 Context Community
3. Pour toi, est-ce important de faire des études? (Is getting an education important to you?) .21 25 17 Context Individual

Note. Bold characters indicate factor loadings above 35.

 Author's personal copy

I. Daigneault et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 160–171 165

Table 2
Correlations between CYRM-28 subscales and total score with self-esteem, mindfulness, trauma symptoms, family problems and relationship with the
mother and father.

Measure Study 1 Study 2

Individual/Social Familial Community/Spiritual Total Individual/Social Familial Community/Spiritual Total

RSES .53*** .35*** .29*** .51*** .48*** .40*** .22*** .48***

CAMM .34*** .31*** .13** .32*** .25*** .20** −.03 .19**
CCES – – – – .48*** .37*** .14* .44***
TSCC – – – – −.28*** −.27*** −.18** −.29***
FPI – – – – −.20** −.34*** −.02 −.23***
CAM – – – – −.39*** −.63*** −.16* −.50***
CAF – – – – −.41*** −.53*** −.23** −.49***

Note. RSES = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; CAMM = Child self-Acceptance, Mindfulness Measure; CCES = Consumer-Constructed Empowerment Scale;
TSCC = Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children; FPI, Family Problems Inventory; CAM and CAF = Child Attitude Toward Mother and Father.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.

might not be a significant aspect affecting resilience from the perspective of this culturally homogenous sample of French
Canadian middle-class youth. Their response patterns to this item seemed incoherent with other sets of item responses
in the CYRM-28. Furthermore, items 1 and 28 were among the three items that obtained poor loadings in Liebenberg and
colleagues’ (2012) study (.363 and −.233, respectively).
It is interesting to note that in the CYRM-28 Manual (Resilience Research Center, 2009), the item excluded from the total
scale in our study (item 5) was included in the final scale for its theoretical importance despite results indicating it should
not (it failed to load on the first component for boys from Colombia, South Africa and Northern Canada). In the present study,
this item may sometimes have been interpreted negatively by youth (as parental intrusiveness), rather than as a positive
aspect (good parental practices/supervision), which might explain why it did not correlate with other items, which are more
unequivocally positive in nature (e.g., Do you feel supported by your friends?).
Cronbach’s (1951) alpha coefficients were calculated as a measure of the internal consistency of scores from the French
Canadian version of the CYRM-28 total scale (27 items) and three subscales. The coefficients were satisfactory, respectively
.84, .78 and .64 for the three components (Individual/Social, Family, and Community/Spiritual) and .88 for a total score. Only
the Community/Spiritual component revealed weaker internal consistency. Correlations between the three components
ranged from .38 to a high of .48, indicating significant relationships among resilience features as well as their uniqueness.

Reliability and floor and ceiling effects

Test-retest correlation coefficients at the two-week interval (n = 578) were .82, .76, .84 and .73 for the Total, Indi-
vidual/Social, Family and Community/Spirituality scores respectively, revealing high stability of scores. The three-month
test-retest coefficients (n = 487) were also indicative of adequate stability at .75, .70, .76 and .70 for the Total, Individual/Social,
Family and Community/Spirituality scores respectively. Stability estimates of scores were similar to those obtained in a
previous study (Liebenberg et al., 2012).
There are no floor or ceiling effect problems with the CYRM-28 total scale, as fewer than 15% of participants obtained the
lowest (28) or the highest score (140). In fact, 0% obtained the lowest and highest scores, which is similar to previous results
using the CYRM-28 (Liebenberg et al., 2012) and further attests to its content validity (Terwee et al., 2007).

Construct validity

Table 2 presents correlations between the three components and the total score of the CYRM-28 (excluding item 5
measuring parental supervision) and the two measures of self-esteem and mindfulness (see ‘Study 1’ section). Results reveal
that scores of self-esteem and mindfulness were significantly positively associated with all CYRM-28 resilience scores (total
and subscale scores). These results confirm our hypothesis and support the construct validity of the CYRM-28. The strongest
association was found between Individual/Social resilience features of the CYRM-28 and youth self-esteem (r = .53). The fact
that the score on the RSES, an individual characteristic, was most strongly associated with individual aspects of resilience
also attests to the Individual subscale’s construct validity.
One-way, between subjects, analyses of variance (ANOVA) contrasting resilience scores of male and female youth in this
sample reveal an absence of differences according to gender (Table 3, ‘Study 1’ section). Our hypothesis regarding gender
differences was thus unconfirmed, which is dissonant with previous results indicating greater resilience in female youth
when compared to their male counterparts (Liebenberg et al., 2012; Merrell, Cohn, et al., 2011; Merrell, Felver-Gant, et al.,
2011). This result could not be solely attributed to a small sample size. However, in Liebenberg and colleagues’ (2012) study
using the CYRM-28, differences between girls and boys were small and explained only 4% of the variance in resilience. In
addition, at least one study found no gender difference in resilience scores using the CYRM-28 with a smaller sample of
youth under child protection (Collin-Vézina et al., 2011).
 Author's personal copy

166 I. Daigneault et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 160–171

Table 3
Average scores and standard deviations of the CYRM-28 subscales and the total score according to gender and sexual abuse, ANOVA results and effect sizes.

Study 1 Study 2

Individual/ Familial Community/ Total Individual/ Familial Community/ Total

social spiritual social spiritual

Girls (n = 352) M 42.16 27.22 17.99 103.69 Girls (n = 117) M 46.45 29.11 18.97 111.87
SD 6.15 5.06 3.84 13.49 SD 5.73 4.44 3.79 11.72

Boys (n = 237) M 41.70 26.89 18.50 103.02 Boys (n = 129) M 43.79 27.25 18.58 105.79
SD 6.67 4.47 3.86 13.93 SD 6.29 4.81 4.10 14.31

F: .71 .65 2.42 .33 11.76*** 9.77** 0.56 12.83***

Eta: 0.035 0.033 0.064 0.024 0.217 0.198 0.048 0.227

NSA (n = 490) M 42.41 27.54 18.36 104.59 NSA (n = 207) M 45.19 28.25 18.92 109.14
SD 6.21 4.56 3.83 13.17 SD 6.06 4.57 3.88 13.08

SA (n = 69) M 39.38 24.46 17.19 96.28 SA (n = 32) M 44.38 27.52 17.82 106.19
SD 6.96 5.92 3.88 14.66 SD 6.80 5.60 4.29 15.56

F: 14.005*** 25.365*** 5.681* 23.422*** 0.487 0.688 2.219 1.335

Eta: 0.157 0.209 0.100 0.202 0.045 0.053 0.096 0.075

Note. NSA = non-sexually abused; SA = sexually abused. Eta = effect size for ANOVA.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.

ANOVAs comparing resilience scores according to whether or not participants experienced sexual abuse reveal that
participants disclosing sexual abuse (12% of the sample) obtained lower resilience scores when compared with their non-
sexually abused counterparts (Table 3, ‘Study 1’ section). These results are similar to previous results indicating that sexually
abused children and adolescents exhibit greater difficulties in many spheres of functioning, including self-esteem (Diaz,
Simantov, & Rickert, 2002; Kendall-Tackett, Williams, & Finkelhor, 1993), and that sexual abuse victims often lack access to
appropriate social support networks or receive greater unsupportive responses following sexual abuse than victims of other
types of traumatic experiences (Davis & Brickman, 1996).

Study 2

Goals and hypotheses

We used a measure of empowerment in addition to self-esteem and mindfulness to assess construct validity of the
CYRM-28. We hypothesized that resilience scores would be positively correlated with empowerment, self-esteem and
mindfulness. As a way to document construct validity further, we also examined whether resilience was related to youth’s
trauma symptoms, family problems and relationship with parents and if resilience scores differed according to youth gender
and sexual abuse history. We hypothesized that resilience scores would be negatively related to trauma symptoms, sexual
abuse history, family problems and conflict in the relationship with parents. We also hypothesized that female youth would
exhibit higher resilience scores than males. As in Study 1, we assessed the percentage of participants who had the lowest
and highest possible scores on the total scale in order to determine whether there was a floor or ceiling effect problem with
the CYRM-28 total scale.

Study 2 – Method

Participants and procedures

The study received IRB approval for secondary data analysis from a study on trauma in a rural high school in the province
of Québec, Canada. All enrolled students aged between 14 and 19 years (grades 9–11) present the day of assessment accepted
to participate. The 246 youth (117 girls and 129 boys) included in the study represent 92% of the targeted sample when
taking into account the absentees the day of assessment, missing data and invalid protocols. Participating youth completed
the CYRM-28, measures of self-esteem, mindfulness, empowerment, trauma symptoms, family problems and relationship
with parents. It took about 30 minutes to complete the questionnaires, and the latter was administered to groups of students
after obtaining their informed consent. Four research assistants were available to answer individual youth questions when
necessary. While the socioeconomic level of families was not available to the investigators, the participating school was
situated in a low socioeconomic setting (MELS, 2011). Almost a third of participants (28%) were from First Nations.
 Author's personal copy

I. Daigneault et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 160–171 167

Measures

The CYRM-28, RSES, CAMM and IRI-EC and past sexual abuse experienced measures are described in Study 1.
Empowerment was assessed using the Consumer Constructed Empowerment Scale (CCES, Rogers, Chamberlin, Ellison,
& Crean, 1997; Sciarappa, Rogers, & Chamberlin, 1994). In the French translation of the scale adapted for an adolescent
population (Daigneault, Cyr, & Tourigny, 1998), four of the original five subscales were retained and these 23 items were
computed to yield a total Sense of empowerment score. Participants indicated the degree to which they agreed with each
item from 1 = strongly agree to 4 = strongly disagree. A higher score on the total scale was indicative of a greater sense of
empowerment (Study 2: ˛ = .80). This empowerment scale was one of two significant prospective predictors of an outcome-
type resilience measure in a previous study looking at resilient trajectories of sexually abused female youth over a five-month
period (Daigneault, Cyr, et al., 2007).
Trauma symptoms were assessed using the Trauma Symptoms Checklist for Children (TSCC – Briere, 1996; French trans-
lation by Wright & Sabourin, 1996), a 54-item questionnaire for youth 8 to 17 years of age scored on a four-point Likert scale
from 0 = never to 3 = almost always. The factorial structure and internal consistency of the French-language translation of the
instrument were comparable to those of the original version (Jouvin, Cyr, Thériault, & Wright, 2001). A total score was used
for the present study where a higher score was indicative of greater trauma symptoms (Study 2: ˛ = .93).
Part of the “Inventaire des problèmes familiaux” (Family Problems Inventory – FPI, Thériault, Cyr, & Wright, 1996) was
used to document 12 events in the youth’s lives before the study (family violence, parental separation or alcoholism, etc.).
A total score of the number of family problems was calculated and used in the present study (Study 2: ˛ = .73).
A 10-item version of the Child Attitudes Toward Mother (CAM) and Father (CAF) (Giuli & Hudson, 1977) was used to assess
youth’s perception of the quality of the relationship with their mother and father. The scale consists of 10 items scored on a
five-point scale from 1 = rarely, to 5 = most of the time. Higher scores on both scales indicate greater youth perceived conflict
in the relationship with the mother and the father (Study 2: CAM ˛ = .93; CAF ˛ = .94).

Study 2 – Results and discussion

Internal consistency and floor or ceiling effects

In this second study, internal consistency of the three CYRM-28 components (excluding item 5) and the total score
were similar to those of Study 1. They were: .82, .76, .63 and .87 for the Individual/Social, Familial, Community/Spirituality
and Total scores respectively. Here again, the third component representing community and spiritual resilience features as
assessed by youth had a somewhat lower internal consistency, whereas other scales had adequate consistency coefficients.
This indicates that items from this third subscale may be less related to one another from the participants’ point of view.
As is the case for Study 1, 0% of participants in Study 2 obtained the lowest and highest CYRM-28 total scores, highlighting
the absence of floor or ceiling effect problems.

Construct validity

Table 2 presents correlations between the three components (Individual/Social, Familial and Community/Spiritual) and
the total score of the CYRM-28 and the measures of self-esteem, mindfulness, empowerment, trauma symptoms, family
problems and relationship with parents (‘Study 2’ section). Results reveal significant positive correlations between all CYRM-
28 subscales and self-esteem, mindfulness and empowerment, except for the Community/Spiritual subscale, which was
unrelated to mindfulness. This indicates that youth who reported greater resilience features also exhibited greater self-
esteem, mindfulness and sense of empowerment. In addition, resilience subscales and the total score were negatively related
to self-assessed trauma symptoms, moderately negatively correlated with the number of family problems and strongly
correlated with the degree of perceived conflict in the relationship with the mother and the father. This indicates that
youth who exhibited greater resilience features also exhibited fewer traumatic symptoms, reported experiencing fewer
family problems and fewer conflicts with their mother and father. This result replicates the results of other studies linking
resilience features (e.g., good parenting practices or empowerment) with lessened trauma symptoms in sexually abused
youth (Daigneault, Hébert, et al., 2007; Leon, Ragsdale, Miller, & Spacarelli, 2008) or with fewer maltreatment types (Collin-
Vézina et al., 2011). Noteworthy is the fact that individual youth characteristics (self-esteem or sense of empowerment)
obtained higher correlations with the Individual CYRM-28 component, and that, inversely, the Family resilience component
obtained higher correlations with measures of family problems or relationship with parents. This indicates the construct
validity of those two CYRM-28 components.
ANOVAs contrasting resilience scores according to gender reveal results that do not parallel those of our first study
(Table 3). That is, whereas in Study 1 we found no significant differences in resilience according to gender, Study 2 results
reveal that female youth reported greater resilience scores in all subscales except for Community/Spiritual. These discrep-
ancies will be addressed in the general discussion. The results of Study 2 thus confirm our hypothesis that female youth
would obtain greater resilience scores on the CYRM-28, and are similar to those obtained by Liebenberg et al. (2012) with
the CYRM-28, and those of Merrel and colleagues (2011).
 Author's personal copy

168 I. Daigneault et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 160–171

Inversely, while the same analyses comparing resilience scores of sexually abused and non-sexually abused youth
revealed significant differences in Study 1, in favor of the non-sexually abused youth obtaining higher resilience scores,
results of Study 2 revealed no statistically significant differences of resilience scores according to sexual abuse (13% reported
sexual abuse in Study 2; Table 3 – ‘Study 2’ section). Perhaps the two samples differ in terms of characteristics of the sexual
abuse experienced, which may explain this disparity in findings. Unfortunately, data regarding the type of abuse experienced,
the severity of acts involved or the length of the abuse, were not available for analysis.

General discussion and conclusion

The first aim of this research was to examine the psychometric properties of the French Canadian version of the CYRM-28,
a resilience scale developed by Ungar and colleagues (2008), in terms of factorial structure, internal consistency, test-retest
reliability and construct validity. The studies’ results confirmed most hypotheses except for those regarding gender and past
sexual abuse history, which were inconsistently associated with the CYRM-28 across studies.
Indeed, gender differences in resilience were observed in Study 2, but not Study 1. Considering that statistical power to
detect small differences was greater in Study 1, we must conclude that there are indeed gender differences in resilience, as
assessed by the CYRM-28, for rural youth but not for urban youth. It may be that with higher socioeconomic levels, such as
in our middle-class urban sample, CYRM-28 differences between males and females are attenuated. In other studies, gender
differences in youth resilience seem to be related to how resilience is defined. When resilience is defined as an absence of
internalized behavior problems, adolescent boys are favored (Tusaie, Puskar, & Sereika, 2007). However, when resilience is
defined as social and emotional strengths and abilities (Merrell, Cohn, et al., 2011; Romer, Ravitch, Tom, Merrell, & Wesley,
2011), or effective use of social support (e.g., Richards & Branch, 2012; Willhite et al., 2008), adolescent girls are favored.
Greater resilience for females in Study 2 may partly be related to the “social” aspect of resilience. Because the CYRM-28
assesses multiple aspects of resilience, its components may alternately favor males or females. The relationship between
gender and resilience thus remains to be investigated.
The first two components of the French CYRM-28 exhibited strong internal consistencies and strong construct validity, as
revealed by significant relationships with measures of self-esteem, mindfulness, empowerment, trauma symptoms, family
problems, and conflicts in the relationship with parents. The Community/Spiritual resilience component had lower internal
consistency coefficients across the two studies and less evidence of its construct validity, as correlations with mindfulness
and family problems were not significant. This may be explained by the fact that 79% of Quebec youth find that religious
beliefs and activities are not very important (39%) or not important at all (40.3%) (Gaudreault, Veillette, & Perron, 2002) and
may not represent significant resilience features for them.
Results also revealed that four items of the CYRM-28 (1, 3, 5 and 28) do not correlate with others or fail to exhibit
strong factor loadings on one of the three final components. These items measured the presence of an admired other, the
importance of studies, parental supervision and pride in one’s nationality, respectively. A replication might be necessary
before deciding on their exclusion from the French version of the scale when subscales are used. Three of these items (1,
5 and 28) also revealed problematic factor loadings in previous validation studies using the original English version of the
scale (Liebenberg et al., 2012; Resilience Research Center, 2009). Two other items (7 and 22) were excluded from subscales
in the study with Mi’kmaq youth (Zahradnik et al., 2010) and another (15) obtained poor factor loadings with the Atlantic
youth sample (Liebenberg et al., 2012). Thus, there might be a need to rethink some of the 28 items’ contribution to the final
scale, specifically for items that consistently fail to correlate with others or to load on specific components across studies.
In this regard, analysis using item-response theory may be particularly relevant in identifying items that are robust across
cultures and items that may show differential functioning or “bias” in one or more cultures. This might serve to pursue
the identification of a set of core items applicable to all cultures and a set of items that are responded to differently across
cultures or that present specific relevance for distinct cultural groups.
One interesting finding, when comparing factor loadings of items across three studies, is that results using samples of
French-Canadian and Atlantic Canada youth revealed similar factorial composition with 20 of 24 (83%) comparable items
loading on the same components. Similarities were greater among these two samples, which may be closer culturally, than
among the two communities of Atlantic and Mi’kmaq youth using the English version of the CYRM-28. Indeed, for those
two samples, only 11 of 25 (44%) comparable items loaded on the same components. This suggests that culture, more than
language, affects how resilience is perceived by youth. Consequently, it remains important to validate resilience scales when
used in new populations, whether their language is the same or not.

Study strengths and limitations

The studies’ strengths include the fact that two studies were used to assess the CYRM-28’s structure and validity. In
addition, varied measures were used in both studies, which enabled us to assess construct validity for different components
of the CYRM-28.
Some study limitations should also be highlighted. First, we did not use another measure of youth resilience to assess
the CYRM-28’s construct validity as a whole. However, there does not exist a “gold standard” for use with youth to which
the CYRM-28 could have been compared (Windle et al., 2011), which is why construct validity was assessed using variables
that usually correlate with resilience or adaptive functioning. The exclusive reliance on individual and family characteristics
 Author's personal copy

I. Daigneault et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 160–171 169

to assess construct validity also limited our study’s ability to validate all components of the CYRM-28. As such, further
assessments of the French version of the CYRM-28’s construct validity would need to include independent measures of
community or spiritual resilience features to determine that component’s construct validity. Our study’s results with regard
to sexual abuse should be interpreted with caution considering our limited single dichotomous item measurement. Indeed,
vague, narrow and single-item measures tend to under report rates of sexual abuse (Stoltenborgh, van Ijzendoorn, Euser,
& Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2011). Although we used one item, we aimed to avoid varied interpretations of sexual abuse by
participants by providing a precise (e.g., a list of possible perpetrators), behavior-based and broad definition, which may
have partly counterbalanced the single-item effect. In fact, the prevalence rates obtained in our studies (12% and 13%) are
consistent with other self-reported rates obtained in a recent meta-analysis of worldwide studies (12.7% – Stoltenborgh
et al., 2011). Our single-item measure may, nonetheless, have entailed false negatives in reported child sexual abuse, and
thus, a number of participants in the non-sexually abused group may have been abused without reporting it. This, in turn,
may have diminished the existing differences between groups and may explain why sexual abuse is inconsistently associated
with resilience across the two studies.

Conclusion

The present studies reveal that the French version of the CYRM-28’s total scale and its three subscales have strong temporal
stability over two weeks and three months. The scale’s content validity is further strengthened by the fact that neither Study
1 nor Study 2 find evidence of floor or ceiling effects of the scale. This absence of floor or ceiling effects is important, as it
allows for greater sensibility in detecting important clinical changes over time, such as in treatment effectiveness studies.
In that vein, future studies are warranted to assess the CYRM-28’s ability to detect changes following treatment (Windle
et al., 2011). As well, further study would be needed to determine if, as in Zahradnik and colleagues’ (2010) study, resilience
moderates the relationship between family problems, adversity or sexual abuse and subsequent traumatic symptoms.
In sum, results of the present study highlight the challenges facing researchers interested in designing measures of
resilience that are both culturally relevant for diverse samples and psychometrically sound. When combining all studies
assessing psychometric properties of the CYRM-28 in English and French, our results add to the strong content validity of
the scale (Windle et al., 2011), give evidence of its internal consistency, construct validity, test-retest reliability and absence
of floor or ceiling effect problems. The CYRM-28 is one of the few resilience measures that can assess multiple features
of resilience (individual, familial, community) (Windle et al., 2011) and, as such, this scale is conceptually congruent with
current theoretical definitions of resilience as being multidetermined.

References

Anthony, E. K. (2008). Cluster profiles of youths living in urban poverty: Factors affecting risk and resilience. Social Work Research, 32, 6–17.
Briere, J. (1996). Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children (TSCC): Professional manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Cattell, R. B. (1965). Factor analysis: An introduction to essentials. Biometrics, 21, 190–215.
Cicchetti, D., Rogosch, F. A., Lynch, M., & Holt, K. D. (1993). Resilience in maltreated children: Processes leading to adaptive outcome. Development &
Psychopathology, 5, 629–647.
Collin-Vézina, D., Coleman, K., Milne, L., Sell, J., & Daigneault, I. (2011). Trauma experiences, maltreatment-related impairments, and resilience among child
welfare youth in residential care. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 9, 577–589.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.
Daigneault, I. (2008). French translation of the Child and Adolescent Mindfulness Measure (CAMM). Montréal: Psychology, Université de Montréal Canada.
Daigneault, I., Cyr, M., & Tourigny, M. (1998). French translation of the “Consumer Constructed Scale to Measure Empowerment”. Montreal: Departement of
Psychology, Université de Montréal Canada.
Daigneault, I., Cyr, M., & Tourigny, M. (2007). Exploration of recovery trajectories in sexually abused adolescents. Journal of Aggression Maltreatment and
Trauma, 14, 165–184.
Daigneault, I., Hébert, M., & McDuff, P. (2009). Men’s and women’s childhood sexual abuse and victimization in adult partner relationships: A study of risk
factors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 638–647.
Daigneault, I., Hébert, M., & Tourigny, M. (2007). Personal and interpersonal characteristics related to resilient developmental pathways of sexually abused
adolescents. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 16, 415–434.
Daigneault, I., Tourigny, M., & Cyr, M. (2004). Description of trauma and resilience in sexually abused adolescents: An integrated assessment. Journal of
Trauma Practice, 3, 23–47.
Davis, R. C., & Brickman, E. (1996). Supportive and unsupportive aspects of the behavior of others toward victims of sexual and nonsexual assault. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 250–262.
De Berardis, D., Cicconetti, A., Farano, M., Campanella, D., Carano, A., Scali, M., & Ferro, F. (2008). Alexithymia, somatic complaints and depressive symptoms
in adolescence: A one-year longitudinal study. Medicina Psicosomatica, 53, 5–12.
Diaz, A., Simantov, E., & Rickert, V. I. (2002). Effect of abuse on health – Results of a national survey. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 156, 811–817.
Edmond, T., Auslander, W., Elze, D., & Bowland, S. (2006). Signs of resilience in sexually abused adolescent girls in the foster care system. Journal of Child
Sexual Abuse: Research, Treatment, & Program Innovations for Victims, Survivors & Offenders, 15, 1–28.
Fergusson, D. M., Boden, J. M., & Horwood, L. (2008). Exposure to childhood sexual and physical abuse and adjustment in early adulthood. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 32, 607–619.
Gaudreault, M., Veillette, S., & Perron, M. (2002). Comparaison des principaux résultats de deux enquêtes régionales auprès des élèves du secondaire (1997–2002)
Faits saillants, Série Enquête régionale 2002: Les jeunes du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. Qui sont-ils? Que font-ils? Jonquière: Groupe ECOBES, CÉGEP de
Jonquière. (32 pp.).
Gilbert, R., Widom, C. S., Browne, K., Fergusson, D., Webb, E., & Janson, S. (2009). Burden and consequences of child maltreatment in high-income countries.
Lancet, 373, 68–81.
Giuli, C. A., & Hudson, W. W. (1977). Assessing parent-child relationship disorders in clinical practice: The child’s point of view. Journal of Social Service
Research, 1, 77–92.
 Author's personal copy

170 I. Daigneault et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 160–171

Greco, L. A., Baer, R. A., & Smith, G. T. (2011). Assessing mindfulness in children and adolescents: development and validation of the child and adolescent
mindfulness measure (CAMM). Psychological Assessment,. Advance online publication.
Hambleton, R. K., & de Jong, J. H. A. L. (2003). Advances in translating and adapting educational and psychological tests. Language Testing, 20, 127–
134.
Harvey, M. R., Liang, B., Harney, P. A., Koenen, K., Tummala-Narra, P., & Lebowitz, L. (2003). A multidimensional approach to the assessment of trauma
impact, recovery and resiliency: Initial psychometric findings. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 6, 87–109.
Hébert, M., Parent, N., Daignault, I. V., & Tourigny, M. (2006). A typological analysis of behavioral profiles of sexually abused children. Child Maltreatment,
11, 203–216.
Hillberg, T., Hamilton-Giachritsis, C., & Dixon, L. (2011). Review of meta-analyses on the association between child sexual abuse and adult mental health
difficulties: A systematic approach. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 12, 38–49.
Huppert, F. A., & Johnson, D. M. (2010). A controlled trial of mindfulness training in schools: The importance of practice for an impact on well-being. Journal
of Positive Psychology, 5, 264–274.
Jouvin, É., Cyr, M., Thériault, C., & Wright, J. (2001). Study on the psychometric qualities of the French version of the Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children
(TSC-C). Montreal: Psychology Department, Université de Montréal.
Kendall-Tackett, K. A., Williams, L. M., & Finkelhor, D. (1993). Impact of sexual abuse on children: A review and synthesis of recent empirical studies.
Psychological Bulletin, 113, 164–180.
Kolar, K. (2011). Resilience: Revisiting the concept and its utility for social research. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 9, 421–433.
Leon, S. C., Ragsdale, B., Miller, S. A., & Spacarelli, S. (2008). Trauma resilience among youth in substitute care demonstrating sexual behavior problems.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 67–81.
Liebenberg, L., Ungar, M., & Van de Vijver, F. (2012). Validation of the Child and Youth Resilience Measure-28 (CYRM-28) among Canadian youth. Research
on Social Work Practice, 22, 219–226.
Lionel, D., & Michel, M. (2010). Body image and self-esteem among French high school students. Bulletin de Psychologie, 63, 321–334.
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71, 543–562.
Maniglio, R. (2009). The impact of child sexual abuse on health: A systematic review of reviews. Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 647–657.
Mannarino, A. P., & Cohen, J. A. (1996). Family-related variables and psychological symptom formation in sexually abused girls. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse:
Research, Treatment, & Program Innovations for Victims, Survivors & Offenders, 5, 105–120.
Ministère de l’éducation, du loisir et du sport (MELS). (2011). Indices de défavorisation 2010–2011. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec. Retrieved from
http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/sections/publications/index.asp?page=fiche&id=956
Merrell, K. W., Cohn, B. P., & Tom, K. M. (2011). Development and validation of a teacher report measure for assessing social-emotional strengths of children
and adolescents. School Psychology Review, 40, 226–241.
Merrell, K. W., Felver-Gant, J. C., & Tom, K. M. (2011). Development and validation of a parent report measure for assessing social-emotional competencies
of children and adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20, 529–540.
Mowder, M. H., Cummings, J. A., & McKinney, R. (2010). Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents: Profiles of juvenile offenders. Journal of Psychoedu-
cational Assessment, 28, 326–337.
Naglieri, J. A., Goldstein, S., & LeBuffe, P. (2010). Resilience and impairment: An exploratory study of resilience factors and situational impairment. Journal
of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28, 349–356.
O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research
Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 32, 396–402.
Oliver, D. A. H. (2008). Resilience in maltreated youth: Support vs. positive identity. Oliver, Desiree Andrea Hammond: U South Carolina, USA. Available from
Ovid Technologies PsycINFO database.
Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R., & Sullivan, J. J. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis: The use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Prince-Embury, S. (2010a). Introduction to the special issue: Assessing resiliency in children and adolescents. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28,
287–290.
Prince-Embury, S. (2010b). Psychometric properties of the Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents and use for youth with psychiatric disorders.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28, 291–302.
Prince-Embury, S., & Steer, R. A. (2010). Profiles of personal resiliency for normative and clinical samples of youth assessed by the Resiliency Scales for
Children and AdolescentsTM . Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28, 303–314.
Resilience Research Center. (2009). The child and youth resilience measure-28: User manual. Halifax, NS: Resilience Research Center, Dalhousie University.
Richards, T. N., & Branch, K. A. (2012). The relationship between social support and adolescent dating violence: A comparison across genders. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 27, 1540–1561.
Rogers, E. S., Chamberlin, J., Ellison, M. L., & Crean, T. (1997). A consumer-constructed scale to measure empowerment among users of mental health
services. Psychiatric Services, 48, 1042–1047.
Romer, N., Ravitch, N., Tom, K., Merrell, K. W., & Wesley, K. L. (2011). Gender differences in positive social-emotional functioning. Psychology in the Schools,
48, 958–970.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sciarappa, K., Rogers, S. E., & Chamberlin, J. (1994). A Consumer Constructed Empowerment Scale. Boston, MA: Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation: Boston
University, Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation.
Spaccarelli, S., & Kim, S. (1995). Resilience criteria and factors associated with resilience in sexually abused girls. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19, 1171–
1182.
Stoltenborgh, M., van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Euser, E. M., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2011). A global perspective on child sexual abuse: Meta-analysis of
prevalence around the world. Child Maltreatment, 16, 79–101.
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for
measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 34–42.
Thériault, C., Cyr, M., & Wright, J. (1996). Questionnaire sur les événements vécus dans l’enfance et l’adolescence. Montréal: Département de psychologie,
Université de Montréal.
Tiet, Q. Q., Huizinga, D., & Byrnes, H. F. (2010). Predictors of resilience among inner city youths. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19, 360–378.
Tusaie, K., Puskar, K., & Sereika, S. M. (2007). A predictive and moderating model of psychosocial resilience in adolescents. Journal of Nursing Scholarship,
39, 54–60.
Ungar, M. (2004). A constructionist discourse on resilience: Multiple contexts. Multiple realities among at-risk children and youth. Youth & Society, 35,
341–365.
Ungar, M., Liebenberg, L., Boothroyd, R., Kwong, W. M., Lee, T. Y., Leblanc, J., & Makhnach, A. (2008). The study of youth resilience across cultures: Lessons
from a pilot study of measurement development. Research in Human Development, 5, 166–180.
Vallerand, R. J. (1989). Vers une méthodologie de validation trans-culturelle de questionnaires psychologiques: Implications pour la recherche en langue
française. Psychologie Canadienne, 30, 662–680.
Vallières, E. F., & Vallerand, R. J. (1990). Traduction et validation canadienne-francaise de l’echelle de l’estime de soi de Rosenberg [French-Canadian
translation and validation of Rosenberg’s self-esteem scale]. International Journal of Psychology, 25, 305–316.
van Widenfelt, B. M., Treffers, P. D., de Beurs, E., Siebelink, B. M., & Koudijs, E. (2005). Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of assessment instruments
used in psychological research with children and families. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 8, 135–147.
 Author's personal copy

I. Daigneault et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 37 (2013) 160–171 171

Velicer, W. F., Eaton, C. A., & Fava, J. L. (2000). Construct explication through factor or component analysis: A review and evaluation of alternative procedures
for determining the number of factors or components. In R. D. Goffin, & E. Helmes (Eds.), Problems and solutions in human assessment (pp. 41–71). Boston:
Kluwer.
Willhite, R. K., Niendam, T. A., Bearden, C. E., Zinberg, J., O’Brien, M. P., & Cannon, T. D. (2008). Gender differences in symptoms, functioning and social
support in patients at ultra-high risk for developing a psychotic disorder. Schizophrenia Research, 104, 237–245.
Windle, G., Bennett, K. M., & Noyes, J. (2011). A methodological review of resilience measurement scales. Health & Quality of Life Outcomes, 9.
Wong, D. F. K., Chang, Y., He, X., & Wu, Q. (2010). The protective functions of relationships, social support and self-esteem in the life satisfaction of children
of migrant workers in Shanghai, China. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 56, 143–157.
Woodier, D. (2011). Building resilience in looked after young people: A moral values approach. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 39, 259–282.
Wright, J., & Sabourin, S. (1996). French translation of the “Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children”. Montreal: Department of psychology, Université de
Montréal.
Zahradnik, M. (2011). Relationships between childhood exposure to violence, posttraumatic stress, resilience, and alcohol misuse in Mi’kmaq adolescents. Ph.D.
Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS.
Zahradnik, M., Stewart, S. H., O’Connor, R. M., Stevens, D., Ungar, M., & Wekerle, C. (2010). Resilience moderates the relationship between exposure to
violence and posttraumatic reexperiencing in Mi’kmaq youth. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 8, 408–420.

View publication stats