In Discussion 1, You Considered How You Might Create An Inst

In Discussion 1 You Considered How You Might Create An Instrument For

In this week's discussion, you are asked to evaluate an existing measurement instrument related to the concept identified in your previous discussion. You should compare this existing instrument to your original measurement approach, consider how you would modify or replace your initial plan, and analyze the advantages and disadvantages of using existing measurement instruments based on scholarly resources.

Paper For Above instruction

The process of selecting appropriate measurement instruments is central to conducting reliable and valid research, particularly in social sciences. In the initial discussion, the focus was on designing an instrument tailored to measure a specific phenomenon or client issue. For this assignment, I have chosen an existing instrument relevant to that concept, which allows for a comparative analysis between developing a new measurement tool and utilizing established instruments.

The concept I identified previously was resilience among adolescents. To measure resilience, I initially considered creating a bespoke questionnaire that would assess coping strategies, emotional regulation, and social support. Such a custom instrument would be tailored specifically to the study population, providing context-sensitive data. However, existing instruments like the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) provide validated measures of resilience and have been widely used in research across diverse populations.

The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) is a self-report questionnaire comprising 25 items that assess resilience as the ability to adapt to adversity, recover from stress, and maintain psychological well-being. It is designed to be comprehensive, capturing multiple dimensions of resilience, and has demonstrated strong psychometric properties including high internal consistency (Connor & Davidson, 2003). This instrument has been validated in numerous populations, including adolescents, making it a reliable source for comparison.

Contrasting this with my original measurement idea—the bespoke resilience survey—I find that my approach involved developing questions based on theoretical frameworks and prior qualitative data. While this custom instrument could be more tailored, it lacks the extensive validation evidence that supports the CD-RISC. Using an established instrument like the CD-RISC offers the advantage of proven reliability and validity, which enhances the credibility of the data collected. Additionally, employing a standardized measure allows for easier comparison across studies and populations, facilitating broader generalizations.

However, there are limitations. For instance, existing instruments may not fully capture specific nuances relevant to my particular population or context. The questions might be too general or not address certain cultural considerations unique to the group. In such cases, a combined approach—using the existing instrument supplemented with additional items—might be optimal.

To revise the original measurement plan, I would incorporate the validated items from the CD-RISC and customize some questions to capture context-specific aspects of resilience pertinent to my target population. This hybrid approach ensures reliability while maintaining relevance. Furthermore, I would pilot this combined instrument to assess its psychometric properties within my sample before full deployment.

The decision to use an existing instrument offers several advantages. Primarily, it saves time and resources associated with developing and validating a new tool (Yegidis, Weinbach, & Myers, 2018). Its established reliability ensures consistency in measurement, and its previous validation provides confidence that it accurately captures the construct of resilience. Additionally, standardized instruments facilitate comparison across studies, contributing to a cumulative evidence base.

On the downside, relying solely on an existing instrument might overlook specific contextual factors or cultural nuances. It might also impose restrictions if some items are not appropriate or relevant to the particular population being studied. Moreover, licensing costs or proprietary rights can sometimes pose barriers to usage.

In conclusion, selecting an existing validated instrument like the CD-RISC for measuring resilience offers significant advantages in terms of reliability, validity, and comparability. Nonetheless, careful consideration of contextual relevance is essential, and modifications or supplemental questions may enhance the instrument’s applicability. Balancing the strengths of standardized measures with the specific needs of a study ensures robust and meaningful data collection.

References

  • Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18(2), 76–82.
  • Yegidis, B. L., Weinbach, R. W., & Myers, L. (2018). Research methods for social workers (8th ed.). Pearson.
  • Windle, G., Bennett, K. M., & Noyes, J. (2011). A methodological review of resilience scales. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 9(8), 1–18.
  • Walker, K. E., & Arbreton, A. J. (2001). Working together to build Beacon Centers in San Francisco: Evaluation findings from 1998–2000. Public/Private Ventures.
  • Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2008). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In Smith, J. A. (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (pp. 53-80). Sage Publications.
  • Hawkins, R. P., & Cummings, J. (2001). Counseling psychology and resilience measurement: A review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(4), 448–456.
  • Friborg, O., Barlaug, D., Martinussen, M., Rosenvinge, J. H., & Hjemheim, R. (2003). Resilience in relation to depression, self-esteem, neuroticism and other personality traits. International Journal of Circumpolar Health, 62(3), 190–202.
  • Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543-562.
  • Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist, 59(1), 20–28.
  • Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227–238.

Related Assignments