The Essential Resilience Scale (ERS) is a 15-item, three-factor measure of resilience developed in China from culturally grounded conceptions of physical, emotional, and social resilience. A differential item functioning (DIF) study of the Chinese and English versions in university samples found that six of 15 items function differently across the two language–cultural groups, with substantially weaker item discrimination in the English version, and left a coherent set of unresolved issues: the causes of the DIF were not identified; generalization beyond well-educated Chinese and Canadian undergraduates is untested; the multidimensional second-order structural equivalence of the scale across the two cultures was not established; predictive validity for actual recovery and behavioral outcomes following traumatic or adverse events has not been demonstrated; and age differences between the original samples remain a possible confound. This problem asks for a systematic cross-cultural research program that diagnoses the sources of the ERS's Chinese–English non-invariance, establishes (or definitively fails to establish) its structural equivalence in appropriately matched samples, and tests whether ERS scores predict real recovery outcomes — jointly determining whether the ERS can serve as a valid, comparable measure of resilience across Chinese and Western cultures.

Background

Resilience — the capacity to adapt to and recover from adversity — is a central construct in clinical, health, and personality psychology, but it is measured by many non-equivalent self-report scales, most of them developed in Western, English-speaking settings. The Essential Resilience Scale (ERS), developed by Chen, Wang, and Yan (2016, Stress and Health 32:533–542) from interviews with Chinese respondents, operationalizes resilience as 15 items loading on three first-order factors — physical resilience (e.g., enduring hunger, thirst, or fatigue), emotional resilience (maintaining composure under strong negative or positive emotion), and social resilience (maintaining relationships and responsibilities toward others) — with a general resilience dimension at the top of a second-order hierarchical factor model. Its content deliberately encodes indigenous Chinese understandings of endurance and self-regulation, which raises the question of whether the construct survives translation into English and Western cultural settings.

Two psychometric frameworks matter here. Item response theory (IRT) models each questionnaire item as a function of the latent trait; in Samejima's graded response model, appropriate for Likert-type items with ordered response categories, each item has a discrimination parameter (how steeply endorsement probabilities change with the latent trait) and threshold parameters (where along the trait continuum the response categories lie). Differential item functioning (DIF) is present when two groups with the same standing on the latent trait nevertheless have different probabilities of endorsing an item; uniform DIF is a constant group offset, nonuniform DIF is a group-by-trait interaction (different discrimination). DIF is usually screened by ordinal regression on IRT-derived trait scores (e.g., with Bonferroni correction over items) or by multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) testing measurement invariance — the stepwise comparison of configural, metric, and scalar invariance across groups. Uncontrolled DIF means observed cross-cultural score differences may reflect item bias rather than genuine psychological differences.

Chen et al. (2016) showed in Chinese samples that ERS scores predicted self-reported perceived health and behavior. Lau, Chiesi, Saklofske, Yan, and Li (2020, Personality and Individual Differences 155:109666) provided the first item-level cross-cultural evaluation, administering the Chinese ERS to 375 Chinese undergraduates and the English ERS to 378 Canadian undergraduates with criterion measures (the Resiliency Scale for Young Adults, RSYA, and the Satisfaction with Life Scale, SWLS). Under a unidimensional graded response model, all items fit in both versions, but Chinese discrimination parameters ranged from 1.02 to 2.22 while English parameters ranged from 0.32 to 1.97, with a lower test information function (the test information function summarizes how precisely the full item set measures the trait at each trait level, so lower values mean less measurement precision); DIF analyses flagged six of the 15 items, five of which showed nonuniform DIF and were more discriminant in the Chinese than in the English version. Criterion correlations with mastery, relatedness, and life satisfaction held in both samples. The authors concluded that the Chinese version is psychometrically strong, the English version may not be suitable in its current form, and that uncorrected cross-cultural comparisons on ERS scores are biased. The study's design and scope leave several questions unresolved: the causes of the DIF (cultural differences in beliefs and values, translation complications, divergent item meanings, and differential response styles are candidate explanations that a single observational administration cannot isolate); whether the findings generalize beyond well-educated Chinese and Canadian university students (other age groups, other English-speaking countries, rural or lower-education Chinese populations); the structural equivalence of the second-order hierarchical three-factor model across the two cultures as a multidimensional cross-cultural model (their IRT/DIF work treated the scale as unidimensional); the predictive validity of the ERS for actual recovery and behavioral outcomes after traumatic or adverse events (only concurrent, self-report criterion validity was shown); and whether age differences between the two samples contributed to the invariance problems, a possible confound that matched-sample designs would address.

Problem Statement

The problem, as left open by Lau et al. (2020), is to determine whether — and under what corrections — the Essential Resilience Scale can function as a valid, measurement-equivalent measure of resilience across Chinese and English (Western) cultural settings. Its jointly linked components are: (1) identify the sources of the differential item functioning of the six flagged items, adjudicating among cultural differences in beliefs and values, translation complications, divergent item meanings, and differential response styles; (2) establish (or definitively refute) the structural equivalence of the second-order hierarchical three-factor ERS model across Chinese and English-speaking groups as a multidimensional cross-cultural measurement model, in samples appropriately matched on age and education; testing also beyond well-educated Chinese and Canadian university students — e.g., in other age groups, other English-speaking countries, and rural, lower-education, or hardship-exposed Chinese populations — would address the generalizability limitation of the original samples; and (3) test the predictive validity of ERS scores for actual recovery and behavioral outcomes following traumatic or adverse events, beyond the concurrent self-report criterion validity already demonstrated. These components serve one objective: whether the ERS as constructed (or in a revised form) supports unbiased cross-cultural comparison of resilience between Chinese and English (Western) settings.

References

  1. Chen, Xinguang; Wang, Yan; Yan, Yaqiong (2016). The Essential Resilience Scale: Instrument development and prediction of perceived health and behaviour. Stress and Health, 32(5), 533–542. DOI: 10.1002/smi.2659. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2659
  2. Lau, Chloe; Chiesi, Francesca; Saklofske, Donald H.; Yan, Gonggu; Li, Catherine (2020). How essential is the essential resilience scale? Differential item functioning of Chinese and English versions and criterion validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 155, 109666. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.109666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109666
  3. Zhang, Ziyi; Yan, Gonggu; Sun, Chang; Saklofske, Donald H. (2021). Who will adapt best in Antarctica? Resilience as mediator between past experiences in Antarctica and present well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 169, 109963. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.109963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109963
  4. Qing, Yulan; Bakker, Anne; van der Meer, Christianne A. I.; te Brake, Hans; Olff, Miranda (2022). Assessing psychological resilience: translation and validation of the Chinese version of the resilience evaluation scale (RES). European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 13(2), 2133358. DOI: 10.1080/20008066.2022.2133358. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008066.2022.2133358
  5. Lau, Chloe; Chiesi, Francesca; Li, Catherine; Saklofske, Donald H. (2023). Measuring Italian Resilience. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 39(5), 323–330. DOI: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000712. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000712
  6. Lau, Chloe; Swindall, Taylor; Chiesi, Francesca; Quilty, Lena C.; Chen, Hsueh-Chih; Chan, Yu-Chen; Ruch, Willibald; Proyer, René T.; Bruno, Francesco; Saklofske, Donald H.; Torres-Marín, Jorge (2023). Cultural Differences in How People Deal with Ridicule and Laughter: Differential Item Functioning between the Taiwanese Chinese and Canadian English Versions of the PhoPhiKat-45. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 13(2), 238–258. DOI: 10.3390/ejihpe13020019. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe13020019
  7. Kurnaz, Fatma Betül; Yıldız, Hüseyin (2023). Investigating the sources of differential item functioning: A sample critical thinking motivation scale. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 10(3), 434–453. DOI: 10.21449/ijate.1279152. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.1279152
  8. Bialo, J. A.; Li, H. (2024). An Analysis of DIF and Sources of DIF in Achievement Motivation Items Using Anchoring Vignettes. Educational Assessment, 29(4), 293–318. DOI: 10.1080/10627197.2024.2374298. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2024.2374298
  9. Tian, Zhenyu; Kuang, Kai; Wilson, Steven R.; Buzzanell, Patrice M.; Ye, Jinyi; Mao, Xinyue; Wei, Hai (2024). Measuring resilience for Chinese-speaking populations: a systematic review of Chinese resilience scales. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1293857. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1293857. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1293857
  10. Zhu, Lin; Guo, Tingting (2026). Adaptation and Validation of the Essential Resilience Scale for Chinese College Students. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 10(7), 12025–12038. DOI: 10.47772/ijriss.2026.100700810. https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2026.100700810