Fluent Essays

Scales and Measurements of ResiliencyThe importance of measuring resiliency and its cultural focus is central to understanding a populations sensitivity to interventions that may support growth in resiliency. Thus, understanding the options available will be important when identifying a specific population that is being studied.The research has spawned different measures of resilience, including qualitative interviews and self-tests, as well as questionnaires provided by specialists. Todays focus on using statistical methods in resilience measurement impacts the information we have concerning resilience as well as the depth of research we may conduct.For this discussion, use the journal articles you located (they are attched to this page) that utilize scales and measurements of resilience to address the following:Identify what scales and measurements are utilized to effectively demonstrate resilience.Highlight the components of at least two of these measurement scales, identifying their method of measurement, reliability, or validity.Analyze their use with the specific population you are going to examine for the Resilience Terminology assignment in Unit 2.Write a 250-word minimum initial post to this discussion. Include two scholarly resources (not including the textbook). Be sure to include relevant, required information, adequate explanations, and alternative viewpoints.Measurement of ResilienceAddress the following for this discussion:Briefly identify and discuss the level of resilience displayed by diverse populations in the video you chose from NBC Learn (in the first study for this unit). https://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/video/houston-and-new-orleans-tested-by-tragedy-bound-by-resilience-1039281219984Based on your viewing of the first 38 minutes and 30 seconds of the video, Happy, identify how relationships contribute to resilience and happiness.( Transcript is attached)Write a 250-word minimum initial post to this discussion. Include two scholarly resources (not including the textbook). Be sure to include relevant, required information, adequate explanations, and alternative viewpoints. shame_resilience_theory_a_gro.pdf contentserver.pdf __1_.pdf Unformatted Attachment Preview Shame Resilience Theory: A Grounded Theory Study on Women and Shame Brown, Brené Families in Society; Jan-Mar 2006; 87, 1; ProQuest Central pg. 43 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ann S. Masten University of Minnesota–Twin Cities Resilience Theory and Research on Children and Families: Past, Present, and Promise Origins and advances in the history of resilience science with children and families are highlighted in this article, with a focus on interconnections and integration. Individual and family resilience scholarship reflect interwoven roots, and there is a growing impetus to integrate knowledge and strategies to inform practice and policies to mitigate risk and promote resilience in systems that shape human adaptation over the life course. Resilience is defined as the capacity of a system to adapt successfully to significant challenges that threaten its function, viability, or development. Research evidence is summarized to illustrate parallels in concepts and findings from studies of child and family resilience, with special emphasis on parenting processes. Integrating models, findings, methods, and training across multiple systems and levels holds great promise for elucidating resilience processes that will inform efforts to build capacity for healthy adaptation in the face of rising threats to families and societies around the world. The study of resilience has surged over the past decade in many disciplines, including studies of individuals and families in the social sciences (Henry, Morris, & Harrist, 2015; Masten, 2014b; Panter-Brick & Leckman, 2013; Southwick, Bonanno, Masten, Panter-Brick, & University of Minnesota–Twin Cities, 51 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455 (amasten@umn.edu). Key Words: Adaptive systems, cascades, developmental systems theory, family resilience, family systems theory, pathways. 12 Yehuda, 2014; Walsh, 2016). Global concerns about climate change, natural and technological disasters, economic instability, war, and terrorism have spurred intensified attention to resilience, because hopes for addressing these challenges rest in the capacity of many systems to adapt, often in concert with one another (Masten, 2014a). Concomitantly, although theory and research on resilience in families and in individual human development emerged decades ago, there is a new urgency to calls for integrating science and practice across these levels (Doty, Davis, & Arditti, 2017; Henry et al., 2015; Masten, 2015; Masten & Monn, 2015; Masten & Palmer, in press). The goal of this article is to highlight origins and advances in theory and research on resilience in human development in support of efforts to integrate models, knowledge, and applications pertaining to the adjustment and development of children and their families. First, the history of resilience theory and research in studies of children and families is briefly described and historical challenges for defining resilience are delineated. Effects of the broad shift to a developmental systems framework in multiple disciplines are then described, along with a scalable definition of resilience for integrating ideas across disciplines, levels, and systems. Next, key unifying concepts are discussed, including promotive and protective processes, pathways, and cascades. Parenting is reviewed as a central set of processes linking child and family resilience theory and research, and the transformational effects of resilience models on intervention are considered, as well as the importance Journal of Family Theory & Review 10 (March 2018): 12–31 DOI:10.1111/jftr.12255 Resilience Theory and Research of experimental intervention research for corroborating resilience theory. Conclusions underscore the promise of integrating theory and research on resilience across the levels of individuals, families, and other interconnected systems of human life and development. Origins of Resilience Science Systematic theory and research on human resilience emerged around 1970, following decades of observations, theory, research, and practice concerned with the impact of trauma and stress on the function and development of individuals and families (Masten, 2001; Masten & Cicchetti, 2016; Nichols, 2013; Walsh, 2016). Theories on variations in human adaptation to experience were profoundly shaped by the 19th-century ideas of Darwin and Freud on natural selection and personality, respectively (Masten & Coatsworth, 1995). In the 20th century, global calamities affecting tens of millions of children and families worldwide—most notably the Great Depression and World War II—inspired clinicians and scientists to seek a better understanding of how adversity threatens human adaptation and what could be done to mitigate risk or support recovery. Soon, studies were launched of individuals and families suffering effects of traumatic loss, violence, separation, injury, torture, homelessness, and other consequences of economic, natural, and political disasters (Masten, Narayan, Silverman, & Osofsky, 2015; Nichols, 2013). Initially, the focus of research was concentrated on the negative consequences of adversity and conceptualized primarily in terms of risks for psychopathology, dysfunction, breakdown, and other problematic outcomes. Variations in the impact of similar adversities on individuals and families were recognized and often conceptualized in terms of vulnerability, based on diathesis-stressor models of disease and mental illness (Gottesman, 1974; Henry et al., 2015; Masten & Cicchetti, 2016). The great insight of pioneering scholars of resilience in child and family studies was in recognizing the importance of understanding influences that promoted positive adaptation or mitigated the effects of risk or adversity. While acknowledging that some individuals or families appeared to be more vulnerable to adversity, they noted others who appeared to be better protected or to have recovered better than individuals or 13 families exposed to similar trauma or family crisis. Sometimes these buffering effects reflected the positive end of a continuum (e.g., good emotion regulation or problem-solving) along a dimension already known to exacerbate risks posed by adversities such as poverty or violence in children or families (e.g., poor emotion regulation or problem-solving). In other cases, protective influences (e.g., a supportive friend or mentor) differed from vulnerabilities typically studied in earlier models of stress. The systematic study of individual resilience emerged in clinical sciences concerned with effects of adversity on mental health and development, led by investigators in search of understanding the origins and etiology of mental health problems (Masten, 1989, 2007, 2012, 2014b). These investigators included Anthony (Anthony & Cohler, 1987), Garmezy (1983), Murphy (Murphy & Moriarty, 1976), Rutter (1979, 1987), and Werner (Werner & Smith, 1982). These influential scholars recognized the significance of the striking variation in adaptive functioning and life course of young people considered “at risk” due to their family or genetic history, exposure to trauma, and/or poverty. Positive adjustment in high-risk samples, as well as individual case studies, suggested that there must be important influences on coping and adapting that were not captured by focusing exclusively on risk and pathological processes. At first, such phenomena were described as invulnerability or stress resistance, but eventually leading scholars settled on the term resilience to refer broadly to the study of capabilities, processes, or outcomes denoted by desirable adaptation in the context of risk or adversities associated with dysfunction or adjustment problems. Early prominent resilience investigators knew one another and often interacted with one another and many other colleagues and students, spreading their ideas through dialogue, presentations, publications, collaboration, and student training (Masten, 2012, 2014b). Similarly, the origins of family-centered resilience studies have roots in research on stress, adversity, and/or crisis, although with a focus on the family unit rather than individuals (Becvar, 2013; Boss, Bryan, & Mancini, 2017; Hawley & DeHaan, 1996; Henry et al., 2015; Hill, 1949, 1958; Masten & Monn, 2015; Nichols, 2013; Walsh, 2016). Studies of successful adaption to family crises dating back 14 to the 1930s set the stage for later adoption by family theorists of a resilience framework (Hawley & DeHaan, 1996). Additionally, family resilience concepts were strongly influenced by theories that guided family therapy, in addition to concepts from individual resilience and family stress studies (Henry et al., 2015). Much has happened for individual-focused resilience science, influential scholars played a key role in infusing resilience perspectives into family theory and practice. These scholars included McCubbins and collaborator J. M. Patterson (H. I. McCubbin & Patterson, 1982, 1983; H. McCubbin & McCubbin, 1988; M. A. McCubbin & McCubbin, 1993; J. M. Patterson, 2002), Boss (2006), and Walsh (1993), among others. Resilience concepts in individual and family scholarship shared some of their roots. General systems theory (von Bertalanffy, 1968) influenced family resilience ideas as well as individual resilience theory (Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 2013; Hawley & DeHaan, 1996; Masten, 2014b). Moreover, both fields of study were spurred in many ways by the devastating effects of World War II on families and their children (see Masten & Cicchetti, 2016; Masten & Palmer, in press; Nichols, 2013). Nonetheless, over the years, investigators focused on family resilience and individual resilience pursued their work with limited overt integration, although there was ongoing cross-fertilization of ideas (Hawley & DeHaan, 1996; Masten & Monn, 2015; J. M. Patterson, 2002). This largely separate development of scholarship on individual and family resilience was particularly surprising in light of the geographic proximity of leading scholars studying resilience in each domain of scholarship. Boss, Garmezy, Masten, H. I. McCubbin, and Patterson, for example, overlapped at the University of Minnesota. Now, multiple pathways of resilience theory and science are converging in conjunction with the emergence of developmental systems theory as an integrative framework in resilience science (Criss, Henry, Harrist, & Lazrelere, 2015; Masten, 2014b, 2016b; Masten & Monn, 2015; Henry et al., 2015; Masten & Palmer, in press). Masten and Wright (Masten, 2007, 2014b; Wright, Masten, & Narayan, 2013) have described this direction in theory and research as the fourth wave of resilience science in the psychosocial literature focused on individual resilience in human development. Journal of Family Theory & Review Family-focused scholars also are moving in this integrative direction (Henry et al., 2015; Walsh, 2016). As this new frontier of integrative work on resilience opens, there is growing attention to harmonizing definitions of resilience and aligning concepts across disciplines and levels of analysis. Defining Resilience: Past and Present Challenges Theory and research on resilience in the individual and family literatures have been plagued with challenges related to varying definitions of key concepts (Hawley, 2013; Luthar, 2006; Masten, 2014b; Masten & Cicchetti, 2016). Resilience as a concept has been viewed and defined as a trait, a process, an outcome or pattern of the life course, or a broad conceptual domain that encompasses all these ideas (Luthar, 2006; Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990; Boss et al., 2017; DeHaan et al., 2013; Masten, 1999; Masten & Cicchetti, 2016; Panter-Brick & Leckman, 2013; Patterson, 2002). For some scholars, resilience (or resiliency) was defined as a traitlike characteristic of an individual or family; others viewed resilience as the inferred capacity for adapting to adversity that derived from observable success in overcoming challenges. From the latter perspective, resilience was inferred on the basis of two observable criteria: challenges (risks, stressors, or adversities) confronting a child or family and posing a significant threat to their well-being or function and positive adaptation (how well the person or family is doing by designated criteria), typically judged by indicators of good function or competence in the development of the person or family (Masten & Cicchetti, 2016). Research on resilience required operational definitions and measures. Again, investigators chose a variety of measures aligned with their conceptual definitions of resilience. A wide variety of challenges were studied, ranging from divorce to natural disasters. At the same time, positive adaptation was also variously measured. Some investigators defined resilience in terms of the competence of the family or individual in meeting normative expectations of family or child function. Often, competence was defined by multidimensional criteria, because it was well recognized that families and individual children were expected to be competent in multiple ways. Investigators studying individual resilience often Resilience Theory and Research focused on “developmental task” expectations, or criteria for positive behavioral development that change over the life course (Masten, Coatsworth, & Douglas, 1998; Wright et al., 2013). Depending on the period of development under study, these tasks might include academic achievement, peer friendships, or work success. Family investigators also focused on roles and the basic functions families are expected to perform, but in this case at the level of the family unit (Henry et al., 2015; J. M. Patterson, 2002). Family tasks also vary over the family life cycle, such as parenting, caring for aging family members, providing a sense of meaning or belonging, and carrying out community responsibilities (J. M. Patterson, 2002; Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 2013; Harkness & Super, 2012; McCubbin & Patterson, 1983; Walsh, 2016). Some investigators in the family and individual research on resilience defined adaptation criteria in negative rather than positive terms. The criteria for positive adaptation sometimes took the form of “not developing symptoms” rather than meeting a positive standard of function or competence. This approach has been criticized, but it is understandable in light of the origins of resilience studies within clinical studies of individual trauma or family crisis. In the context of extreme trauma, such as the adversities endured by maltreated children or by families in war zones, observers may find the absence of expected suffering, breakdown, or trauma symptoms more notable than the manifestation of good function. These variations in the concepts and operational definitions of resilience in the literature have complicated the aggregation of knowledge. Meta-analyses on resilience remain scarce because of inconsistencies in the literature on how resilience is defined and measured (Masten & Cicchetti, 2016). This problem has been further complicated by the emerging consensus that resilience is a systems concept. Resilience in a Developmental Systems Framework Both individual- and family-centered concepts of resilience have roots in systems theory as well as in models of stress and coping (Hawley & DeHaan, 1996; Henry et al., 2015; Masten & Monn, 2015; Walsh, 2016). Over the past decade, systems theory has permeated many fields of study, offering a unifying framework 15 for integrated resilience science (Masten, 2015, 2016a). As noted earlier, global challenges involving multiple systems, such as climate change, natural disaster, war and terror, and pandemics, may have sparked this rapid transformation (Boss et al., 2017; Masten, 2014a). Definitions and models of resilience have changed in concert with this broad shift to systems thinking. In the sciences focused on human development, the prevailing integrative model is described as a “relational developmental systems” framework (Overton, 2013; Lerner et al., 2013; Zelazo, 2013). This framework drew on ideas from multiple disciplines and theories, including ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006), developmental systems theory (Gottlieb, 2007; Lerner, 2006; Sameroff, 2010), family systems theory and therapy (Cox & Paley, 1997; Goldenberg & Goldenberg, 2013; Hawley & DeHaan, 1996; Walsh, 2016), models of family stress (Hill, 1949, 1958; Boss, 2002; Boss et al., 2017; Conger & Elder, 1994), developmental psychopathology (Cicchetti, 2006, 2010, 2013; Egeland, Carlson, & Sroufe, 1993; Gottesman, 1974; Masten & Kalstabakken, in press; Sroufe, Egeland, Carlson, & Collins, 2005), and resilience theory (Masten, 2001, 2014b; Rutter, 1987, 2012). Masten and Cicchetti (2016) summarized salient themes of a systems framework into eight principles. At the heart of these principles are the following core ideas: • Many interacting systems at multiple levels shape the function and development of living systems. • The capacity for adaptation of a system and its development are dynamic (always changing). • Because of interconnections and interactions inherent to living systems, change can spread across domains and levels of function. • Systems are interdependent. These attributes of complex adaptive systems have profound implications for individual and family resilience. Individuals are embedded in families and other systems (e.g., peer groups, schools), and families in turn are embedded in other systems (e.g., cultures, communities). Interactions of individuals, families, and larger contexts affect all of the interacting systems, although some systems may have greater directional influence (e.g., parents have greater responsibility for the care of infants than infants 16 do, although infants engage and signal parents in many ways). From a systems perspective, resilience of a system at one level will depend on the resilience of connected systems. Thus, individual resilience will depend on other systems interacting with the individual, particularly on systems that directly support that individual’s resilience, such as a parent or extended family. A prominent implication of this systems framework is that resilience should not be construed as a singular or stable trait, as it arises from dynamic interactions involving many processes across and between systems. The resilience of a child or a family is distributed across levels and interacting systems, including relationships (Masten, 2015; Masten & Monn, 2015). The resilience of a child at a given point in time will depend on the resources and supports available to the child through many processes, both within the child and between the child and the many systems the child interacts with. Caregiving adults are likely to play a substantial role in that capacity. As children grow older, their internal ... Purchase answer to see full attachment