McGeough, Julienne and Gallagher-Mitchell, Thomas and Clark, Daniel P. A. and Harrison, Neil (2021) Reliability and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) of a Paper- Versus App-Administered Resilience Scale in Scottish Youths: Comparative Study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 9 (12). ISSN 10.2196/11055
Preview |
Text (pdf version of preprint and final subumission)
preprint-11055-accepted.pdf - Accepted Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (567kB) | Preview |
Abstract
Background: Adequately measuring resilience is important in order to support young people and children who may need to
access resources through social work or educational settings. A widely accepted measure of youth resilience has been developed
by Ungar and Liebenberg which has been shown to work within vulnerable youth [1]. While the measure is completed by the
young person on paper, it has been designed to be worked through with a teacher or social worker in case further clarification is
required. However, this method is time consuming and when faced with large groups of pupils who need assessing can be
overwhelming for schools and practitioners. The current study assesses app software with a built-in avatar who can guide the
young person through the assessment and its interpretation.
Objective: The primary objective is to compare the reliability and psychometric properties of a mobile software app to a paper
version of the Child and Youth Resilience measure (CYRM-28). Secondly, the study will assess the use of the CYRM-28 in a
Scottish youth population (11-18 years).
Methods: Following focus groups and discussion with teachers, social workers and young people, an avatar was developed by a
software company and integrated into an android smartphone app designed to ask questions via the device’s inbuilt text-to-voice
engine. Seven-hundred and fourteen students from two schools in North East Scotland completed either a paper version or app
version of the CYRM-28. A cross-sectional design was used and students completed their allocated version twice, with a twoweek period in between each testing. All participants could request clarification either from a guidance teacher (paper version) or
from the in-built software glossary (app version).
Results: Test and retest correlations showed that the app version performed better than the paper version of the questionnaire.
Paper (r(303)=.81, p<.001, 95%CI [.77, .85]); App (r(413)=.84, p <.001, 95%CI [.79, .89]). Fisher’s r to z transformation found
the difference in the correlations to be statistically significant, Z=-2.97, p <.01. Similarly, Cronbach’s alpha in both conditions
was very high (app: ?=.92; paper: ?=.87). Such a high Cronbach’s alpha indicates there may be item redundancy. Ordinarily this
would lead to a possible removal of highly correlated items, however the primary aim of the current study is a comparison of app
delivery method over a pen-and-paper mode and therefore outside the parameters of this paper. This will be considered in the
discussion. Fisher’s r to z transformation found the difference in the correlations to be statistically significant [Z=-3.69, p <.01].
A confirmatory factor analysis [2] supported the three-factor solution (individual, relational and contextual) and reported a good
model fit (?2 (15, N= 541) = 27.6, p=0.24).
Conclusions: ALEX, an avatar with an integrated voice guide, increased reliability when measuring resilience compared to a paper version
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Faculty / Department: | Faculty of Human and Digital Sciences > School of Psychology |
| Depositing User: | Julienne McGeough |
| Date Deposited: | 17 Feb 2022 15:19 |
| Last Modified: | 17 Feb 2022 15:19 |
| URI: | https://hira.hope.ac.uk/id/eprint/3489 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
Altmetric
Altmetric
