See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8883380

Resilience: a historical review of the construct

Article in Holistic nursing practice · January 2004

Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

250 4,667

2 authors, including:

Kathleen Tusaie
University of Akron
36 PUBLICATIONS 735 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kathleen Tusaie on 10 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 C O N T I N U I N G E D U C AT I O N

CE 1.5
Contact Hours
See test on pp. 9–10

Resilience: A Historical Review

of the Construct
■ Kathleen Tusaie, PhD, APRN-BC ■ Janyce Dyer, DNSc, CRNP, CS

Evolution of the construct of resilience from physiological and psychological research extends from the 1800s
to the present. This review supports 3 observations: (1) the importance of a dynamic, interactive perspective
for understanding resilience; (2) the complexity of the construct requires a holistic perspective; and (3) the
importance of exposure to diverse experiences and educational perspectives for professional health care students.
KEY WORDS: anxiety, holistic, resilience, stress Holist Nurs Pract 2004;18(1):3–8

R esilience is a vital attribute for nurses in

their everyday work and particularly amidst the
current nursing shortage. It denotes a combination of
abilities and characteristics that interact dynamically
to allow an individual to bounce back, cope
successfully, and function above the norm in spite of
significant stress or adversity.1 Although researchers
agree on multiple domains to the concept of resilience,
it can be viewed as a qualitative categorical construct2
or as a continuum of adaptation or success
experiences.3 Its complexity necessitates an additional
holistic nursing perspective.
The domains of work or school performance,
behavior adjustment, psychosocial adjustment, and
physical health comprise overall resilience.1,2,4
Because of a weak correlation among the domains of
resilience, individuals may vary in resilience
characteristics. For example, an individual from an
abusive, impoverished childhood may demonstrate
education and work resiliency by obtaining a doctoral
degree and a high-paying job, but be unable to
maintain intimate relationships and demonstrate
impairment in the psychosocial domain. Therefore,
current evidence suggests that the idea of overall
resilience is of questionable utility.3,5 Definitions that
focus on aggregating various domains are likely to be
weakly correlated with outcomes. So domain
From the University of Akron College of Nursing, Akron, Ohio (Dr Tusaie);
and the Barry University School of Nursing, Miami Shores, Fla (Dr Dyer).
Corresponding author: Kathleen Tusaie, PhD, APRN-BC, University of
Akron College of Nursing, Mary Gladwin Hall, Akron, OH 44325 (e-mail:
ktusaie@uakron.edu).
specificity is more useful in research and practice
applications than is a global definition of resilience.6
The domains of resilience are developmentally
appropriate and change with different life stages. For
example, in addition to the absence of illness, children
who function above the norm scholastically and in
peer relationships in spite of risk exhibit resilience.7–11
In adolescence and young adulthood, resilience may
be measured by accomplishments higher than the
norm in career development, happiness, relationships,
and physical well-being in spite of the presence of risk
factors.12 Resilience is not static.
Resilience has been studied particularly in relation
to transitions of greatest stress. Developmental
transitions include school entry, detachment from
parents during adolescence, and childbearing.
Transitions also occur in unexpected or externally
controlled events such as disaster, family disruption,
or unemployment.13–17 These and other forms of
stressful situations place individuals at risk for the
development of psychosocial or physical symptoms.
Individuals who do experience disruption from stress
but then use personal strengths to grow stronger and
function above the norm are considered resilient.
Although each individual possesses the potential
for resilience, an interplay between the individual and
the broader environment is responsible for the level of
resilience.1,7 Further, the interactions among risk and
protective factors at an intrapersonal and
environmental level are integral to the definition of
resilience. The presence of risk factors indicates that a
person has been identified as with a group that is more
likely than other groups to develop a specific

3
4 HOLISTIC NURSING PRACTICE • JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2004
difficulty.18 Risk factors do not predict a particular
negative outcome with absolute certainty; they only
expose individuals to circumstances associated with a
higher incidence of that outcome. Risk factors stem
from multiple life stressors, a single traumatic event,
or cumulative stress from a number of individual and
environmental factors.1,3,4,16 The risk may be viewed
from an epidemiological perspective that would
include an entire group, such as children in poverty or
on an individual basis such as an experience of trauma
or an adverse event.9 The balance between risk and
protective factors is a dynamic process.
Protective factors are defined as operating to protect
those at risk from the effects of the risk factors.
Similar to risk factors, protective factors may be
individual or environmental and they contribute to
positive outcomes regardless of the risk status.18 The
manner in which risk and protective factors interact in
the person demonstrating resilience is not clear.
Understanding the root of causation often requires a
focus on the presence or absence of specific unitary
factors, and the nature of the interactions within the
collectivity of risk and protective factors. When stress
or the number of risk factors is greater than the
number of protective factors, individuals who
exhibited resilience in the past may be overwhelmed
and develop symptoms in one of the domains of
physical, psychosocial, behavioral school, or work.4
The prevalence of resilience ranges from 15% to
50% depending upon the definition of resilience and
the population studied.8,9,14,19 These rates suggest that
resilience does not function uniformly and
automatically, but waxes and wanes in response to
contextual variables.
Experts agree that the potential for change or
plasticity exists across the life course.10,11,15,20–22 This
plasticity, or ability to bounce back in spite of
adversity and function above the norm, provides
reason for optimism about intervention programs to
promote health and prevent illness. Therefore, the area
of resilience is of interest to researchers, clinicians,
and educators. Many forms of stress and adversity
exist in our workplaces and in our world, but those
who cope successfully and function above the norm in
spite of adversity have valuable knowledge to share.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
The roots of the construct of resilience are in 2 bodies
of literature: (1) the psychological aspects of coping
and (2) the physiological aspects of stress. Fields of
study related to psychology and physiology are
simultaneously pushed apart by academic politics and
drawn together by common elements of the human
experience.23 This review of the literature will include
some of the literature that led to the evolution of the
construct of resilience (see Fig 1).
From the psychological literature on stress and
coping, observations of individuals coping better than
expected and actually improving as a result of
adversity laid the groundwork for the construct of
resilience. Although the construct uses a holistic,
multilevel approach similar to
psychoneuroimmunology, resilience focuses upon
positive outcomes, not illness. Thus, both constructs
are related but have a different emphasis.
The early studies of resilience focused upon factors
or characteristics that assist individuals to thrive from
adversity. These findings can be divided into
intrapersonal and environmental factors. Intrapersonal
factors identified include cognitive factors and specific
competencies. Cognitive factors include
optimism,24–27 intelligence,9,28–30 creativity,31,32
humor,31,33 and a belief system that provides
existential meaning, a cohesive life narrative, and an
appreciation of the uniqueness of oneself.2,34–37
Competencies that contribute to resilience include a
wide range of coping strategies,38,39 social skills,
educational abilities, and memory above the average
level.2,40,41 Physical attractiveness has also been
reported to add to the level of individual resilience.9,42
The intraindividual factors contributing to higher
levels of resilience may be considered protective
factors within the individual.
Environmental factors that influence resilience
include perceived social support or a sense of
connectedness and life events. Social support has been
described as an important factor in several domains of
resilience.2,8,9 A brief definition includes the objective
quantity of social resources as well as the process of
maintaining relationships. Social support is a
transaction between the person and the environment.
Therefore, it is not only the number or function of
social relationships but also the perception of the
support that encompasses the definition of social
support.43 Individuals with a negative outlook toward
the support being offered may repel it, thereby
receiving and perceiving less support.44 Therefore, an
individual is not a passive recipient of social support,
but the process of social support is reciprocal and
dynamic. For example, parental support has been

FIGURE 1. Evolution of the construct of resilience.
reported to be moderately to strongly correlated
(r = 0.06–0.08, P < .001) with adolescent resilience
in all domains.27,45 However, parental overprotection
resulting in lack of successful accomplishments and
self-regulation by the child has been significantly
correlated (r = 0.53, P < .001) to substance abuse,
antisocial behavior, and low psychosocial resilience.45
Therefore, protective factors change within context
and dosing or amount of the factor present.
Several studies have reported that number and
recency of bad life events directly influence resilience.
It was not life change in general, but specifically the
number of events perceived as bad by the individual
that influenced level of resilience. However, this
research on life events raised questions that validated
the importance of a transactional relationship among
factors because not all individuals who experience bad
life events have low resilience.
As the resiliency literature expanded, it became
clear that individual and environmental factors may be
necessary but not sufficient to understand the construct
of resilience. The dynamic processes among the
A Historical Review of Resilience 5
factors mediate between the person and the
environment and the person and the outcome.
Therefore, models of resilience began to emerge in the
literature.
A Resilience Process Model proposed by
Richardson46 is similar to other models developed by
Rutter,1,8 Wolin and Wolin,31 and Masten.2 This
conceptual model posits the presence of
biopsychospiritual homeostasis within the individual,
which is influenced by adversity, life events, and
resilient factors. Following disruption of homeostasis,
there is a conscious or unconscious reintegration
resulting in 1 of 4 outcomes: (1) resilient reintegration
resulting in growth, self-understanding, and increased
resilience; (2) reintegration back to homeostasis;
(3) reintegration with loss; or (4) dysfunctional
reintegration.
Other researchers focused upon a more narrow
model of resilience. Mandelco and Rerry11 have
proposed resilience models specifically for children
and an adolescent model was developed by
Tusaie-Mumford.27 Another direction in model
6 HOLISTIC NURSING PRACTICE • JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2004
development resulted in an expansion to describe
resilience in larger systems such as families47 and
communities.48 All models were consistent in
identifying resilience as a dynamic process involving a
personal negotiation through life and fluctuating
across time, developmental stage, and context.
The measurement of resilience has lacked empirical
instruments because of the diversity of definitions as
well as the trend to use qualitative studies for this
complex phenomena. However, as research grows,
there are more consistent themes in identifying
intraindividual factors that strongly correlate with
resilient outcomes in all domains. Early work
measured the absence of expected symptoms in
various populations. However, only the absence of
expected symptoms did not measure the essence of
resilience. So, in addition to the absence of symptoms,
specific attributes of resilience were measured.
Therefore, self-report instruments to quantify resilient
factors within the individual have been developed. The
Ego Resilience Scale (ER89) was developed by Jack
Block49 to identify the pure ego resilience qualities of
the personality. It was developed with community
samples of adults and used recently to evaluate
resilience in individuals residing in war zones.14
Several other scales have been developed using the
research literature as a framework with a community
sample.21,50 Biscoe and Harris (unpublished data,
1994) have developed resiliency scales for children,
adolescents, and adults, with samples from residents
of a substance abuse treatment center and the clinical
staff. These scales are based upon the framework from
Wolin and Wolin.31 None of these scales has been
widely used and lack generalizability due to
development with specific populations.
Another scale, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale
(CD-RISC), has used the research literature to guide
development but has a wider adult sample consisting
of a community group, primary care outpatients,
psychiatric outpatients, subjects in a study of
generalized anxiety disorder, and subjects in clinical
trials for posttraumatic stress disorder.51 This scale
may assist in the process of identifying levels of
resilience in a wide range of populations as well as
quantifying changes in resilience during therapy. The
clearest descriptions and measurements of resilience
today consist of a quantitative scale correlated with
outcome measures specific to the population and
domain of resilience being studied combined with a
qualitative piece to address the individualized
dynamics of resilience.
Although the specific relationships among the
intraindividual and environmental factors remain only
partially understood, the need to maximize resilience
in an effort to decrease the rising rates of mental illness
has driven the development of resiliency training
programs. Some programs focused upon maximizing a
specific factor such as social support,52,53 while others
took a more traditional psychotherapeutic approach.51
Richardson54,55 developed a seminar format for
training adults in a corporate setting as well as high
school students. Although these programs demonstrate
initial improvement following the intervention, there
are no longitudinal studies to date that test resilience
promotion along with risk reduction in real-world
settings.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS AND “LESSONS
OF HISTORY” FOR RESILIENCE
What lessons have been learned from this historical
literature review and what are the likely directions of
future advances? We will make 3 observations: (1) the
importance of a dynamic, interactive perspective for
understanding resilience; (2) the complexity of the
construct requires a holistic perspective; and (3) the
importance of exposure to diverse experiences and
educational perspectives for professional health care
students.
A dynamic, interactive perspective
Reactions to stress can no longer be seen as isolated
events eliciting a response, but rather the outcome of
what has gone on before. There is a dynamic
interaction of patterns of coping responses, personality
characteristics, social support, and genetically
determined biological reactivity with an individual’s
appraisal of a stimulus to effect neuroendocrine and
immune responses that influence resilience and health.
The historical literature on resilience has added to our
understanding of the human response to stress, but
much remains to be learned. Although the themes in
characteristics of resilient individuals have been
explored, there is a need to explore the dynamic
interactions of these characteristics. For example, if a
child is at risk because of parental loss, will a
substitute parent eliminate or minimize the risk factor?
Recent statistical advances such as Structural Equation
Modeling software allow this concurrent analysis to
provide more understanding of the dynamic nature of

resilience. Although it is important to analyze
individual characteristics in more detail, the history
indicates that the dynamic interaction is also vital to
resilience. This finding can be extended to the health
educator and provider who are cautioned not to take a
narrow perspective when working with clients.
Holistic perspective
A historical perspective encourages the recognition of
the importance of context. The expression of
resilience will be affected by the context, not only the
immediate context, but the larger contexts of age
cohort, family history, social class, nation/culture,
history, and gender.20 For example, social power or a
kind of “force field” affects the formation and
expression of resilience. For example, in 1944, a
20-year-old white American male storming the beach
in Normandy and a middle-aged Japanese woman in
an “internment camp” for US citizens of Japanese
ancestry would certainly express resilience in a
different manner. When considering the larger social
context of an individual, the appreciation of the
concept of resilience becomes more clear. To have this
perspective, it is important to use a holistic framework.
Diverse training
The third and final lesson is to consider the training of
many of the great figures in history. Sigmund Freud
started as a neurologist and Florence Nightengale
addressed issues ranging from sanitation to physical
health to interpersonal relationships. The area of
health promotion and illness prevention has greatly
benefited by the experiences and perspectives from a
diverse range of interests and education. As our
society continues to become more complex, health
practitioners in the 21st century will require diverse
training and experiences. The importance of
interdisciplinary teams and interdisciplinary training
as part of professional education can only add to the
understanding and application of the construct of
resilience.
REFERENCES
1. Rutter M. Resilience: some conceptual considerations. J Adolesc Health.
1993;14:598–611.
2. Masten A. Resilience in individual development: successful adaptation
despite risk and adversity. In: Wang MC, Gordon EW, eds. Educational
Resilience in Inner City America: Challenge and Prospects. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum; 1994:3–25.
A Historical Review of Resilience 7
3. Luthar S, Doernberger C, Zigler E. Resilience is not a unidimensional
construct: insights from a prospective study of inner-city adolescents.
Dev Psychopathol. 1993;4:287–299.
4. Garmezy N. Resiliency and vulnerability to adverse developmental out-
comes associated with poverty. Am Behav Sci. 1991;34:416–430.
5. Hunter AJ. A cross-cultural comparison of resilience in adolescents. J
Pediatr Nurs. June 2001;16:172–179.
6. Werner E, Johnson J. Can we apply resilience? In: Glanz M, Johnson J,
eds. Resilience and Development: Positive Life Adaptations. New York:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum; 1999:259–277.
7. Egeland B, Carlson E, Stroufe L. Resilience as a process. Dev Psy-
chopathol. 1993;5:517–528.
8. Rutter M. Resilience in the face of adversity: protective factors and
resistance to psychiatric disorders. Br J Psychiatry. 1987;147:598–611.
9. Werner E. Risk, resilience, and recovery: perspectives from Kauai. Dev
Psychopathol. 1993;5:503–515.
10. Resnick MD. Resilience and protective factors in the lives of adoles-
cents. J Adolesct Health. 2000;27(1):1–2.
11. Mandelco BL, Reery JC. An orgazational framework for conceptu-
alizing resilience in children. J Child Adolesc Psychiatr Nurs. July–
September 2000;13:99–111.
12. Baldwin A, Baldwin C, Kasser T, Zax M, Samerof A, Seifer R. Con-
textual risk and resilience during late adolescence. Dev Psychopathol.
1993;5:741–761.
13. Luthar S, Zigler E. Intelligence and social competence among high-risk
adolescents. Dev Psychopathol. 1992;4:287–299.
14. Al-Naser F, Sandman M. Evaluating resiliency patterns using the ER89:
a case study from Kuwait. Soc Behav Pers. 2000;28(5):505–514.
15. Sigal JJ, Weinfeld M. Do children cope better than adults with poten-
tially traumatic stress? A 40-year follow-up of Holocaust survivors.
Psychiatry. Spring 2001;64:69–80.
16. Hess CR. Resilience among African American adolescent mothers: pre-
dictors of positive parenting in early infancy. J Pediatr Psychol. October–
November 2002;27:619–629.
17. Norris FH. 60,000 disaster victims speak: an empirical review 1981–
2001. Psychiatry. Fall 2002;65:207–239.
18. Zuckerman M. Vulnerability to Psychopathology. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association; 1999.
19. Richardson GE. The metatheory of resilience and resiliency. J Clin
Psychol. 2002;58(3):307–321.
20. Lerner R. America’s Youth in Crisis. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage; 1995.
21. Wagnild G, Young H. Development and psychometric evaluation of the
Resilience Scale. J Nurs Meas. 1993;1(1):165–178.
22. Felten BS, Hall JM. Conceptualizing resilience in women older than 85:
overcoming adversity from loss or illness. J Gerontol Nurs. November
2001;27:46–53.
23. Sulloway FJ. Freud: Biologist of the Mind. New York: Basic; 1979.
24. Seligman M. Helplessness: On Depression, Development, and Death.
San Francisco: Freeman; 1975.
25. Schweizer K, Beck-Seyffer A, Schneider R. Cognitive bias of op-
timism and its influence on psychological well-being. Psychol Rep.
1999;84:627–636.
26. Chang E, Sanna L. Optimism, pessimism, and positive and negative
affectivity in middle-aged adults: a test of a cognitive-affective model
of psychological adjustment. Psychol Aging. 2001;16(3):524–531.
27. Tusaie-Mumford K. Psychosocial Resilience in Rural Adolescents: Op-
timism, Perceived Social Support, and Gender Differences [disserta-
tion]. Pittsburgh, Pa: University of Pittsburgh; 2001.
28. Long JVF, Valliant GE. Natural history of male psychological health:
escape from the underclass. Am J Psychiatry. 1984;141:341–346.
29. White JL, Moffitt TE, Silva PA. A prospective replication of the pro-
tective effects of IQ in subjects at high risk for juvenile delinquency. J
Consult Clin Psychiatry. 1989;57:719–724.
30. McKnight L, Loper A. The effect of risk and resilience factors on
the prediction of delinquency in adolescent girls. Sch Psychol Int.
2002;23(2):186–198.
8 HOLISTIC NURSING PRACTICE • JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2004
31. Wolin SJ, Wolin S. Bound and Determined: Growing Up Resilient in a
Troubled Family. New York: Villard Press; 1993.
32. Simonton DK. Creativity. Am Psychol. 2000;55:151–158.
33. Masten A. Resilience in individual development: Successful adaptation
despite adversity. In: Gorden EW, ed. Educational Resilience in Inner
City America. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1994:3–25.
34. Myers DG. The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. Am Psychol.
2000;55:56–67.
35. Frankl V. Man’s Search for Meaning: An Introduction to Logotherapy.
Boston: Beacon Press; 1959.
36. Valent P. Documented childhood trauma: its sequelae and application
to other traumas. Psychiatry Psychol Law. 1995;2:81–89.
37. Urman M, Funk J, Elliott R. Children’s experience of traumatic events:
the negotiation of normalcy and difference. Clin Child Psychol Psychi-
atry. 2001;6(3):403–424.
38. Aldwin C. Stress, Coping, and Development. New York: Guilford Press;
1994.
39. Barbarin OA, Richter L, deWet T. Exposure to violence, cop-
ing resources, and psychological adjustment. Am J Orthopsychiatry.
2001;71(1):16–25.
40. Davis T. Gone but not forgotten: declarative and nondeclarative mem-
ory processes and their contribution to resilience. Bull Menninger Clin.
November 2001;65:451–470.
41. Rouse K. Resilient students’ goals and motivation. J Adolesc.
2001;24(4):461–472.
42. Kaufman J, Zigler E. The intergenerational transmission of child abuse.
In: Cicchetti D, Carlson V, eds. Child Maltreatment: Theory and Re-
search on the Causes and Consequences of Child Abuse and Neglect.
Cambridge, Mass: Cambridge University Press; 1989:129–150.
43. Pro cidano M, Hellers K. Perceived social support. Am J Community
Psychol. 1983;11:1–24.
44. Varni J, Setogichi Y, Rappaport L, Talbot D. Psychological adjustment
and perceived social support with congenital/acquired limb deficiencies.
J Behav Med. 1992;15(1):31–44.
45. Neher L, Short J. Risk and protective factors for children’s substance
abuse and antisocial behavior following parental divorce. Am J Or-
thopsychiatry. 1998;68(1):154–161.
46. Richardson G, Neiger B, Jensen S, Keumpfer K. The resiliency model.
Health Educ. 1990;21:33–39.
47. Patterson J. Understanding family resilience. J Clin Psychol. March
2002;58:233–246.
48. Tobin G. Resilience and volcano hazard: the eruption of Tungurahua
and evacuation of the foldas in Ecuador. Disasters. 2002;26(1):28–48.
49. Block J, Kremen A. IQ and ego resiliency: conceptual and empirical
connections and separatedness. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1966;70:349–361.
50. Bartone P, Ursano R, Wright K, Ingraham L. The impact of military
air disaster on the health of assistance workers. J Nerv Ment Disord.
1989;177:317–328.
51. Connor K, Davidson J. Development of a new resilience scale:
the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depress Anxiety.
2003;18:76–82.
52. Belgrave F, Chase-Vaughn G, Gray F, Addison J, Cherry V. The ef-
fectiveness of a cuture- and gender-specific intervention for increasing
resiliency among African-American preadolescent girls. J Black Psy-
chol. 2000;26(2):133–147.
53. Shapiro E. Chronic illness as a family process: a social-developmental
approach to promoting resilience. J Clin Psychol. 2002;17(11):832–
838.
54. Richardson GE. High School Resilient Youth Curriculum Guide. Salt
Lake City, Utah: The Human Experience Institute; 1998.
55. Richardson GE. Corporate Personal Resilience Student Workbook. Salt
Lake City, Utah: The Human Experience Institute; 1999.
CE Test
Resilience: A Historical Review of the Construct
Instructions:
• Read the article on page 3.
• Take the test, recording your answers in the test an-
swers section (Section B) of the CE enrollment form.
Each question has only one correct answer.
• Complete registration information (Section A) and course
evaluation (Section C).
• Mail completed test with registration fee to: Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins, CE Depart., 16th Floor, 345 Hudson
Street, New York, NY 10014.
• Within 3–4 weeks after your CE enrollment form is
received, you will be notified of your test results.
• If you pass, you will receive a certificate of earned contact
hours and answer key. If you fail, you have the option of
taking the test again at no additional cost.
• A passing score for this test is 14 (70%) correct
answers.
• Need CE STAT? Visit www.nursingcenter.com for imme-
diate results, other CE activities and your personalized
CE planner tool.
• No Internet access? Call 800-933-6525 x331 or x332
for other rush service options.
• Questions? Contact Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: (212)
886-1331 or (212) 886-1332.
Registration Deadline: February 28, 2006
Provider Accreditation:
This Continuing Nursing Education (CNE) activity for 1.5
contact hours is provided by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins,
which is accredited as a provider of continuing education
in nursing by the American Nurses Credentialing Center’s
Commission on Accreditation and by the American
Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN 11696, CERP
Category O). This activity is also provider approved by the
California Board of Registered Nursing, Provider Number
CEP 11749 for 1.5 contact hours. LWW is also an
CE
approved provider of CNE in Alabama, Florida, and Iowa
and holds the following provider numbers: AI,
#ABNP0114, FL, #FBN2454, IA #75. All of its home study
activities are classified for Texas nursing continuing
education requirements as Type 1.
Your certificate is valid in all states. This means that your
certificate of earned contact hours is valid no matter
where you live.
Payment and Discounts:
• The registration fee for this test is $17.95.
• If you take two or more tests in any nursing journal pub-
lished by LWW and send in your CE enrollment forms
together, you may deduct $0.75 from the price of each
test.
• We offer special discounts for as few as six tests and
institutional bulk discounts for multiple tests. Call (800)
933-6525, ext. 331 or 332 for more information.

CE TEST QUESTIONS
General Purpose: To provide registered professional a. bad life events c. Structural Equation Modeling
nurses with information on the construct of resilience. b. health promotion d. Resilience Process Model
c. risk factors 14. Who addressed issues ranging from san-
Learning Objectives: After reading the article and d. social support
taking this test, you should be able to: itation to physical health to interpersonal
7. According to the Resilience Process relationships?
1. Define the construct of resilience and related factors. Model, biopsychospiritual homeostasis a. Nightingale c. Freud
2. Outline research findings on the physiological and psy- within the individual is influenced by ad- b. Block d. Vinson
chological components of resilience. versity, resilient factors, and
3. Describe the importance of a holistic perspective and 15. What type of framework does not de-
a. developmental stage. rive from the sum of individual parts, but
diverse training relating to resilience. b. generalized anxiety. rather from their dynamic, complex inter-
1. Competencies that contribute to re- c. life events. action?
silience include a wide range of coping d. social support. a. biological c. holistic
strategies, social skills, educational abil- 8. Social power or a kind of “force field” b. historical d. social
ities, and a. affects the formation and expression of resilience. 16. What has driven the development of re-
a. a belief system that provides existential meaning. b. benefits a diverse range of populations. siliency training programs?
b. creativity. c. places individuals at risk of developing psychosocial a. effort to decrease the rising rates of mental illness
c. memory above the average level. or physical symptoms. b. “internment camps” for US citizens of Japanese an-
d. optimism. d. stems from multiple life stressors, a single traumatic cestry
2. Which of the following has been re- event, or cumulative stress. c. continued complexity of our society
ported to be moderately to strongly cor- 9. The presence of risk factors indicates d. parental loss and substitute parents
related with adolescent resilience in all a. the absence of expected symptoms in various 17. Parental overprotection resulting in lack
domains? populations. of successful accomplishments and self-
a. cognitive factors c. intelligence b. a person is in a group that is more likely than other regulation by the child has been signif-
b. humor d. parental support groups to develop a specific difficulty. icantly correlated to substance abuse,
3. The prevalence of resilience ranges from c. there’s been a personal negotiation through life and antisocial behavior, and
15% to 50%, which suggest that fluctuating across time. a. dysfunctional reintegration.
a. individuals with a negative outlook toward the sup- d. intraindividual factors that strongly correlate with re- b. higher levels of resilience.
port being offered, may repel it, thereby receiving silient outcomes in all domains. c. low psychosocial resilience.
and perceiving less support. 10. Operating to protect those at risk from the d. unemployment.
b. many forms of stress and adversity cannot be pre- effects of the risk factors defines 18. The roots of the construct of resilience
vented in our workplaces and in our world. a. diverse training. are in the psychological aspects of cop-
c. resilience does not function uniformly and automat- b. intraindividual factors. ing and the physiological aspects of
ically, but waxes and wanes in response to contex- c. patterns of coping. a. plasticity.
tual variables. d. protective factors. b. psychoneuroimmunology.
d. the balance between risk and protective factors is a 11. Several studies have reported that re- c. stress.
dynamic process. silience is directly influenced by the num- d. transitions.
4. A neuroendocrine model of resilience ber and recency of 19. During the evolution of the construct of
specifically for women was presented by a. bad life events. resilience, what physiological develop-
a. Biscoe and Harris. b. developed coping strategies. ment occurred in the 1920s?
b. Caudell and Gallucci. c. life change in general. a. brain plasticity
c. Mandelico and Perry. d. acquired social skills. b. emotional stress and morbidity
d. Wolin and Wolin. 12. The ability to bounce back in spite of ad- c. psychoneuroimmunology
5. A self-reported instrument to quantify re- versity and function above the norm is d. quantum physics
silient factors within the individual devel- a. competencies. c. plasticity. 20. The psychological idea of “coping as
oped by Jack Block is the b. interplay. d. reintegration. a conscious process” was introduced
a. Conner-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). 13. Which of the following is software that al- into the evolution of the construct of re-
b. Ego Resilience Scale (ER89). lows concurrent analysis to provide more silience during the
c. Structural Equation Modeling. understanding of the dynamic nature of a. 1920s c. 1960s
d. Resilience Process Model. resilience? b. 1950s d. 1990s
6. Which is defined as a transaction be- a. Conner-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC)
tween the person and the environment? b. Ego Resilience Scale (ER89)

9
CE Enrollment Form
Holistic Nursing Practice, January/February 2004:
Resilience: A Historical Review of the Construct

A Registration information: ❏ LPN ❏ RN ❏ CNS ❏ NP ❏ CRNA ❏ CNM ❏ Other

Last name First name MI Job Title Specialty
Address Type of facility
City State Zip Are you certified? ❏ Yes ❏ No
Telephone Fax email Certified by
Registration Deadline: February 28, 2006 State of License (1) License#
Contact Hours: 1.5
State of License (2) License#
Fee: $17.95
Social Security
❏ From time to time we make our mailing list available to outside organizations to
announce special offers. Please check here if you do not wish us to release your name
and address.

B Test Answers: Darken one for your answer to each question.

A B C D A B C D A B C D A B C D A B C D
1. ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ 5. ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ 9. ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ 13. ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ 17. ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
2. ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ 6. ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ 10. ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ 14. ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ 18. ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
3. ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ 7. ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ 11. ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ 15. ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ 19. ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍
4. ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ 8. ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ 12. ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ 16. ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍ 20. ❍ ❍ ❍ ❍

C Course Evaluation∗ A B D Two Easy Ways to Pay:

1. Did this CE activity’s learning objectives relate to its ❏ Yes ❏ No ❏ Check or money order enclosed
general purpose? (Payable to Lippincott Williams & Wilkins)
2. Was the journal home-study format an effective way ❏ Yes ❏ No ❏ Charge my ❏ Mastercard ❏ Visa ❏ American Express
to present the material? Card # Exp. Date
3. Was the content relevant to your nursing practice? ❏ Yes ❏ No Signature
4. How long did it take you to complete this CE activity? ∗
In accordance with the Iowa Board of Nursing Administrative rules governing
hours minutes grievances, a copy of your evaluation of the CE offering may be submitted
5. Suggestion for future topics directly to the Iowa Board of Nursing.

10

View publication stats