Problems defining resiliency: Illustrations from the study of maltreated children

Abstract

AbstractIn this article, operational definitions of resiliency used in previous studies are reviewed. Data from a sample of 56 maltreated school-age children are then explored to highlight how variations in the source, type, and number of assessments obtained affect the rates of children classified as resilient. Assessments were obtained in three domains: academic achievement, social competence, and clinical symptomatology. Two sources of information were used to assess each domain, and three different data integration procedures were used to calculate rates of resiliency in the maltreated cohort. It is concluded that the most appropriate definition of resiliency to be used in future investigations depends on the aims of the study. If the goal of the study is to assess overall functioning, there is an advantage to using more broad, multidimensional assessments. If, in contrast, the goal of the study is to determine why some high-risk children develop particular types of problems, to identify underlying etiological processes associated with different outcomes, there is an advantage to using narrower definitions.