EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Development and psychometric properties of the Nursing Student Academic Resilience Inventory (NSARI): A mixed-method study

Tayyebeh Ali-Abadi, Abbas Ebadi, Hamid Sharif Nia, Mohsen Soleimani and Ali Asghar Ghods

PLOS ONE, 2021, vol. 16, issue 6, 1-16

Abstract: Introduction: Resilience has been proposed as a suitable solution to better deal with nursing students in cases of challenges but the complex and multidimensional nature of resilience has made its measurement challenging. This study aimed to develop and validate a new inventory theory-driven labeled Nursing Student Academic Resilience Inventory. Methods: This study was performed with an exploratory sequential mixed-method design. In the qualitative phase of the study, individual interviews were conducted by including 15 participants to elicit the concept of resilience through purposive sampling. In the quantitative phase, psychometric analysis of the extracted items was performed using face, content, and construct validities (exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses) on a sample size of 405 nursing students. Besides, reliability has been tested using internal consistency and test-retest methods. According to the COSMIN standards, beside two important indicators of validity and reliability, responsiveness and interpretability were also considered. Results: A 6-factor structure (optimism, communication, self-esteem/evaluation, self-awareness, trustworthiness, and self-regulation) with 24 items were extracted in terms of the derived categories from the qualitative phase. In confirmatory factor analysis, the χ2/df ratio was calculated as 2.11 for the NSARI six-factor structure. Suitable values were obtained for the goodness of fit indices (CFI = 0.904, AGFI = 0.885, IFI = 0.906, PCFI = 0.767, and RMSEA = 0.053). In the second-order factor analysis, AVE = 0.70 indicated the existence of both convergent and divergent validities. The Cronbach’s alpha and omega coefficients were investigated as (0.66–0.78) and (0.66–0.80), respectively. The AIC was between 0.33 and 0.45 for all factors, which is an acceptable rate. Additionally, an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was obtained as .903 for the whole instrument (CI .846- .946, P

Date: 2021
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0252473 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 52473&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0252473

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252473

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().

 
Page updated 2025-03-19
Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0252473