Measure resilience using the residual approach using data from Lifelines

Project introduction: Resilience is the capacity to buffer adverse, traumatic, or stressful events in preventing mental disorders.

Research question: How do we measure resilience as a residual of Long-Term Difficulties Inventory and Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview?

Project impetus: The lack of gold standard in measuring psychological resilience makes assessing resilience on a population level difficult. Several resilience instruments provide no psychometric information, which poses a challenge to evaluate its quality (Windle, Bennett, and Noyes 2011). Residual approach in quantifying resilience was first reported in children with socioeconomic deprivation (Kim‐Cohen et al. 2004). Since then, residual approach has been used in many other research settings investigating psychological resilience, and briefly summarized in the table 1 reported by Höltge and Ungar (2022).

Project objective: This project aims to measure resilience as a residual of Long-Term Difficulties Inventory (LDI) and Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) available from the Lifelines data. This project will also investigate the latent profile of resilience in the population.

Project results: A scientific manuscript outlining resilience profile in the population.

Outside scope of the project: This project will not use psychometric instrument to measure resilience. MINI modules are limited to major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder.

Effects: Evaluate the latent resilience profile in the Netherlands general population participating in Lifelines study. Resilience, anxiety, and depressive disorder prevalences are used to parameterize the baseline scenario in the agent-based model project.

Users: Researchers utilizing mental health variables from Lifelines who need a derived measure of psychological resilience from the existing data.

Constraints: The presence of outliers when measuring the residual will be the main obstacle. Höltge and Ungar (2022) has proposed several methods to handle outliers and provide a better measure of resilience.

Relation with other projects: Nothing to disclose.

References

Höltge, J., and M. Ungar. 2022. “Quantifying Resilience as an Outcome: Advancing the Residual Approach with Influence Statistics to Derive More Adequate Thresholds of Resilience.” Adversity and Resilience Science 3 (4): 381–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42844-022-00078-6.
Kim‐Cohen, Julia, Terrie E. Moffitt, Avshalom Caspi, and Alan Taylor. 2004. “Genetic and Environmental Processes in Young Children’s Resilience and Vulnerability to Socioeconomic Deprivation.” Child Development 75 (3): 651–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00699.x.
Windle, Gill, Kate M Bennett, and Jane Noyes. 2011. “A Methodological Review of Resilience Measurement Scales.” Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 9 (1): 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-9-8.
Back to top