Date post: | 17-Feb-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | halleyworld |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 18
7/23/2019 Constructs, Concept Mapping, And Psychometric Assessment of the Concise Scale of IndividualismCollectivism
1/18
CONSTRUCTS, CONCEPT MAPPING, AND PSYCHOMETRICASSESSMENT OF THE CONCISE SCALE OF
INDIVIDUALISMCOLLECTIVISM
XINGUANGCHEN
University of Florida
JIEGONG
Wuhan Center for Disease Prevention and ControlBINYU
University of Florida
SHIYUELI
Wuhan University
CATHERINESTRILEY
University of Florida
NIANNIANYANGANDFANGLI
Wuhan Center for Disease Prevention and Control
We developed and psychometrically evaluated the Concise Scale of Individualism
Collectivism (CSIC) to support the growing need for cross-cultural research to better
understand the relationship between culture and health. To construct the scale, we used the
concept mapping technique. The CSIC contains 18 paired items, 9 of which are used to assess
respondents level of individualism and 9 to assess collectivism, rated using a 5-point Likert
scale. We evaluated the instrument using a diverse sample (N = 249, Mage = 29.64, SD =
SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2015,43(4), 667-684
Society for Personality Research
http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2015.43.4.667
667
Xinguang Chen, Department of Epidemiology, University of Florida; Jie Gong, Department of
Chronic Disease, Wuhan Center for Disease Prevention and Control; Bin Yu, Department of
Epidemiology, University of Florida; Shiyue Li, Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics,
Wuhan University; Catherine Striley, Department of Epidemiology, University of Florida; Niannian
Yang and Fang Li, Department of Chronic Disease, Wuhan Center for Disease Prevention and
Control.
This study was supported through a research grant from the National Institute of Health (Award #:
R01 MH086322). We are grateful to those who participated in data collection and data processing.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Bin Yu, Department of Epidemiology,
University of Florida, 2004 Mowry Road, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA. Email: [email protected]; or to
Shiyue Li, School of Public Health, Wuhan University, 185 Donghu Road, Wuhan, Hubei, 430071,
Peoples Republic of China. Email: [email protected]
7/23/2019 Constructs, Concept Mapping, And Psychometric Assessment of the Concise Scale of IndividualismCollectivism
2/18
CONCISE SCALE OF INDIVIDUALISMCOLLECTIVISM668
7.81) consisting of rural-to-urban migrants and nonmigrant rural and urban residents in the
city of Wuhan, China. Cronbachs alpha coefficients were .91, .83, and .86 for the total CSIC
scale, and for the collectivism and individualism subscales, respectively. A 2-factor model fit
the data well, showing that both individualism and collectivism scores significantly differed
according to level of education and area of residence, and significantly predicted levels ofsocial capital, social support, resilience, and stress of respondents. We determined that the
CSIC has adequate reliability and validity for use in research to quantify cultural beliefs about
individualism and collectivism among Chinese adults.
Keywords:individualism, collectivism, health, culture, concept mapping.
Personal beliefs and values have a fundamental impact on peoples behavior,
health, and well-being (Chen, Stanton, Gong, Fang, & Li, 2009; Chen et al.,
2011; Goodwin & Hernandez Plaza, 2000; Kayser, Wind, & Ashok Shankar,2008; Realo, Allik, & Vadi, 1997; Wagner & Moch, 1986). Individualism and
collectivism are a pair of core values theorized to be opposite ends of a continuum
that can be used to characterize individuals and cultures around the world
(Brewer & Venaik, 2011; Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002; Triandis &
Singelis, 1998; Zhang, Liang, & Sun, 2013). In an individualisticculture, the self
is considered independent; therefore, each individual can pursue his or her own
goals; personal goals take priority over the groups goals; personal rights, needs,
and attitudes, as well as contracts with others, determine behavior; communal
relationships are not emphasized, and individuals often leave relationships withwhich they are not satisfied (Triandis & Gelfand, 2012).
In direct contrast to individualism, in a collectivistic culture, the self is
considered interdependent with others; therefore, the groups goals take priority
over individuals goals; norms, obligations, and duties guide behavior; communal
relationships are common; and people attempt to resolve interpersonal problems
in a way that will maintain relationships and harmony (Kim, Sharkey, & Singelis,
1994; Oyserman et al., 2002; Triandis & Gelfand, 2012). Beyond the bipolar
conceptualization described above, another two-dimensional definition has been
used to categorize the individualismcollectivism continuum into the followingfour components: horizontal individualism, involving being unique and following
ones own wishes; vertical individualism, involving being unique but accepting
competition to be valuable; horizontal collectivism, involving being an equal and
valued part of a group; and vertical collectivism, involving being submissive to
within-group authorities (Triandis, 2001).
Numerous instruments are available for assessing individualismcollectivism
(Probst, Carnevale, & Triandis, 1999; Taras et al., 2014), 10 of the most commonly
used of which are listed in the Appendix. An evaluation of these instruments
revealed that few can be used directly for cross-cultural psychological and
behavioral research, because of several limitations.
7/23/2019 Constructs, Concept Mapping, And Psychometric Assessment of the Concise Scale of IndividualismCollectivism
3/18
CONCISE SCALE OF INDIVIDUALISMCOLLECTIVISM 669
First, some of these scales consist of a large number of measurement items.
One example is the AllocentricIdiocentric Tendencies Scale (Triandis et al.,
1985), which contains 132 items, and may take as long as 15 to 20 minutes
for individuals with a limited education to complete. In addition, although
the reliability of most subscales has been found to be adequate, no reliability
measure (e.g., Cronbachs alpha coefficient) has been provided for the scale as
a whole. Second, a number of scales are available that contain fewer items, but
their reliability has not been proven because of the lack of, or relatively low,
Cronbachs alpha values that have been reported. For example, the alpha value
for Yamaguchis Collectivism Scale (Yamaguchi & Sugimori, 1992) was found
to be only .63. Finally, the validity of several of these scales is also unproven.
For example, the relationship between the IndividualismCollectivism Index
(Vandello & Cohen, 1999) and social capital has been reported as positive in
some studies (Allik & Realo, 2004), but negative in others (McBride, 1998;
Realo & Beilmann, 2012).
In addition to the limitations described above, the majority of the published
scales were developed and validated in individualistic cultures and in countries
where the residents earn a high income (Chen, 2007; Steele & Lynch, 2013).
It is, therefore, unclear whether or not these instruments would be reliable and
valid for use in China, a country well-known for its long history of advocacy for
collectivism among its people. Values and beliefs of people in China regarding
the self, goals, norms, attitudes, relationships, and behavior may significantlydiffer from those in countries where individualism is advocated (Oyserman et
al., 2002; Triandis & Gelfand, 2012). In addition, China has experienced rapid
economic and technological growth since the reforms of the late 1970s began.
Thus, there is a growing need for cross-cultural research on cultural beliefs,
behavior, and health, and for the development of better tools for measuring
individualismcollectivism in the context of China in the early 21st century
(Chen, 2007).
To support this research, in which our aim was to develop the Concise Scale
of IndividualismCollectivism (CSIC), we operationalized the definition ofindividualism as a set of norms, values, and behavioral beliefs reflecting the
notion that all individuals in a society and the universe are born to be independent
(Triandis, Chan, Bhawuk, Iwao, & Sinha, 1995). Therefore, people who believe
in individualism will promote the values of autonomy, personal uniqueness,
personal efficiency, self-decision making, and personal benefits (Triandis, 1994).
Consequently, these people are more likely to rate their own value and success
based on what they have achieved (Hofstede, 1980; Oyserman et al., 2002).
In previous studies, researchers have shown that believing in individualism
is associated with lower social capital (McBride, 1998), less social support(Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988), and greater stress (Allik
& Realo, 2004; Triandis et al., 1988). Following these study findings, we
7/23/2019 Constructs, Concept Mapping, And Psychometric Assessment of the Concise Scale of IndividualismCollectivism
4/18
CONCISE SCALE OF INDIVIDUALISMCOLLECTIVISM670
hypothesized that believing in individualism may also be associated with low
levels of resilience, which is the ability to adapt and to overcome risks and
adversity. The development of resilience often involves group collaboration
and joint activities (Allik & Realo, 2004), whereas individualism promotes
independence and discourages group cohesion (Hofstede, 1980).
In direct contrast to individualism, we operationalized the definition of
collectivismas a set of norms, values, and behavioral beliefs reflecting the notion
that all individuals in a society are born to be connected with each other (Triandis,
1994; Triandis et al., 1995). As a result, individuals who believe in collectivism
are more likely to treat each other as part of a group, and to pursue in-group
coherence, cooperation, and collaboration (Kim et al., 1996; Singelis & Brown,
1995). These people will tend to seek advice from others when confronted with
difficulties and be willing to sacrifice their own benefits for group interests (Kimet al., 1994; Triandis, 1994). Collectivists tend to rate the recognition by peers
and society highly when assessing their own values (Oyserman et al., 2002).
Previous researchers have documented the protective effect of collectivism
on health and social well-being. People who believe in collectivism have high
social capital (Realo & Beilmann, 2012), more social network connections than
do those who are not collectivists, and are more likely than people who are not
collectivists to receive social, emotional, and instrumental support from others
when needed (Cordero, 2011; Goodwin & Hernandez Plaza, 2000). People who
are procollectivism also show high levels of resilience (Bandura, 2000; Kayseret al., 2008), and are less likely than others are to experience stress (Triandis et
al., 1988).
Although individualism and collectivism are conceptual opposites, there is
consistent empirical support for a moderate but positive relationship between
the two concepts (Le & Stockdale, 2005; Oyserman et al., 2002; Shulruf et al.,
2011). One person can simultaneously score high or low in both collectivism
and individualism (Shulruf et al., 2011), suggesting that there are four potential
behavioral mechanisms. (a) People who believe in both individualism and
collectivism may selectively utilize each in different settings to maximize theirown benefits. (b) People who embrace neither individualism nor collectivism
may be at increased risk of health problems. (c) Individuals who disbelieve
in collectivism will be less likely than those who believe in collectivism to
interact with others, reducing their likelihood for social capital accumulation
and resilience development, and lacking social support to use as a buffer against
stress. (d) Individuals who disbelieve in individualism will have low motivation
for success and, thus, an increased likelihood of failure in career and life, which
may lead to stress and associated health issues.
Capitalizing on the progress made in previous research regarding individualism
and collectivism, our purpose in this study was to develop a new scale that
7/23/2019 Constructs, Concept Mapping, And Psychometric Assessment of the Concise Scale of IndividualismCollectivism
5/18
CONCISE SCALE OF INDIVIDUALISMCOLLECTIVISM 671
had a small number of items ( 20 items) and demonstrated good reliability
(Cronbachs alpha .80) and validity. The ultimate goals in this study were to
provide a new tool for use in research in China, and to advance cross-cultural
understanding of individualism and collectivism as they relate to peoples
behavior, health, and well-being.
Method
Participants
The main characteristics of the study sample are presented in Table 1. The final
sample comprised 249 adults recruited in Wuhan, China.
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of the Study Sample
Variable Men Women Total
Total sample, n(%) 83 (33.33) 166 (66.67) 249 (100.00)
Area of residence, n(%)
Rural-to-urban migrants 26 (31.33) 51 (30.72) 77 (30.92)
Rural residents 28 (33.73) 64 (38.56) 92 (36.95)
Urban residents 29 (34.94) 51 (30.72) 80 (32.13)
Age (years)
Mean (SD) 29.23 (6.95) 29.84 (8.22) 29.64 (7.81)
Marital status, n (%)
Married 41 (49.40) 101 (60.84) 142 (57.03) Other 42 (50.60) 65 (39.16) 107 (42.97)
Level of education, n(%)
Middle school or less 27 (32.53) 60 (36.14) 87 (34.94)
High school 24 (28.92) 56 (33.74) 80 (32.13)
College or higher 32 (38.55) 50 (30.12) 82 (32.93)
Monthly income (RMB), n(%)
< 500a 14 (17.07) 41 (26.11) 55 (23.01)
500999 21 (25.61) 31 (19.75) 52 (21.76)
10001999 20 (24.39) 56 (35.67) 76 (31.80)
2000 27 (32.93) 29 (18.47) 56 (23.43)
Note.aIn 2012, US$1 = approximately RMB 6.
We purposefully selected a diverse sample to enhance the generalizability of
the developed scale. Wuhan is a metropolitan city and the capital city in Hubei
Province. It consists of both urban and rural areas, and has a population of
approximately 10 million people comprising urban residents, rural residents, and
rural-to-urban migrants.
The rural-to-urban migrant residents were recruited at the Wuhan Center
for Disease Prevention and Control from among those migrants who werevisiting for a physical check-up for employment purposes, the nonmigrant rural
7/23/2019 Constructs, Concept Mapping, And Psychometric Assessment of the Concise Scale of IndividualismCollectivism
6/18
CONCISE SCALE OF INDIVIDUALISMCOLLECTIVISM672
resident group was drawn from residents in a rural village, and the nonmigrant
urban participants were residents in consecutive households of one street in
the downtown area of Wuhan. We selected one participant per household. For
households with two or more eligible participants, one was selected using the
random digits method. Among the participants we approached, 92% of the urban
residents and 95% of the rural-to-urban migrants and rural residents agreed to
participate.
Instrument
The Concise Scale of IndividualismCollectivism consists of 18 items set out
as nine pairs (see Table 2 for item content). Participants rate their responses on
a standard 5-point Likert scale, with response options ranging from 1 (totally
disagree) to 5 (totally agree). To construct the scale, we used the conceptmapping technique (Rosas & Camphausen, 2007), a top-down approach for
item development that has been found to enhance reliability and validity. After
the establishment of the conceptual framework, the lead author composed a
set of draft items by adopting six items from published scales that were highly
consistent with the conceptual framework we used to develop the CSIC (see
Table 2). Following the style of these adopted items, the lead author then drafted
a further 12 items and circulated them among the team members for feedback and
revision to produce the pilot instrument. We carefully worded individual items
to maximize the discriminative sensibility and minimize culture-specificity. Thepilot version was tested with a sample of 12 adults, after which we conducted
further revisions to produce the final version of the CSIC.
Procedure
Data were collected using the audio computer-assisted self-interviewing
technique. The individual CSIC items were randomly ordered and then embedded
in the Migration and Behavioral Health Survey (Chen et al., 2009; Triandis,
2001). The participants completed the survey in a private room or a room of the
participants preference. Three trained data collectors from the Wuhan Center forDisease Prevention and Control (CDC) were in charge of the data collection. All
participants signed an informed consent form before completing the survey. The
study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at Wuhan CDC
in China, and the Human Investigation Committees at Wayne State University
and University of Florida, USA.
Measures
The six variables used for construct validity assessment were age (in years),
gender (male/female), marital status (married or other), area of residence(rural, urban, or rural-to-urban migrant), level of education ( middle school,
7/23/2019 Constructs, Concept Mapping, And Psychometric Assessment of the Concise Scale of IndividualismCollectivism
7/18
CONCISE SCALE OF INDIVIDUALISMCOLLECTIVISM 673
high school, college or higher), and monthly income (in Chinese RMB;
.90, comparative fit index (CFI) > .90, root mean square error of approximation(RMSEA) < .05, ratio of chi square to degrees of freedom (2/df) < 2.0.
We assessed construct validity by comparing individualism (IND) scores and
collectivism (COL) scores across groups with Students ttests (for dichotomous
variables) or F tests (for variables with three or more levels). We assessed
predictive validity with analysis of variance (ANOVA). Four comparison groups
were generated using the median IND and COL scores as the cutoff point to
produce (a) low IND and low COL (LILC), (b) high IND and low COL (HILC),
(c) low IND and high COL (LIHC), and (d) high IND and high COL (HIHC).
Effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed for both t test
(Cohens d) and ANOVA (2) results. A type I error of p< .05 was applied to
7/23/2019 Constructs, Concept Mapping, And Psychometric Assessment of the Concise Scale of IndividualismCollectivism
8/18
CONCISE SCALE OF INDIVIDUALISMCOLLECTIVISM674
all psychometric assessments. Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS
version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).
Results
Item Sensibility and Scale Constructs
Results in Table 2 indicate high sensibility of the individual CSIC items.
Table 2. Items in the Concise Scale of IndividualismCollectivism
Items M(SD) Mdn(IQR)
Individualism (IND)
IND1: All individuals in the society are absolutely independent from
each other. 3.38 (1.22) 4.00 (2.00)
IND2: Individuals are much more important than the group. 2.93 (1.20) 3.00 (2.00)
IND3: Everyone must put his/her own interests first. 3.22 (1.13) 3.00 (2.00)
IND4: One can do better by working alone than in a group. a 3.21 (1.19) 3.00 (2.00)
IND5: Groups, including the government, should not interfere with
personal behavior. 3.12 (1.19) 3.00 (2.00)
IND6: The value of a person is solely determined by his/her personal
achievements. 3.59 (1.09) 4.00 (1.00)
IND7: A person must follow only his/her own ideas of how to act and
behave. 3.33 (1.13) 3.00 (2.00)
IND8: It is more than enough to focus only on ones own business.d 3.65 (1.06) 4.00 (1.00)
IND9: It is essential to maintain ones personal characteristics in workand daily life.d 3.89 (0.99) 4.00 (2.00)
Collectivism (COL)
COL1: All individuals in a society are closely related to each other. 4.03 (0.91) 4.00 (1.00)
COL2: Individuals may not be able to survive if there is no group
or country. 3.90 (1.01) 4.00 (2.00)
COL3: To ensure group interests are met, self-interests must
be sacrificed.d 3.22 (1.10) 3.00 (2.00)
COL4: An individuals talents can be realized only through teamwork/
group collaboration. 3.91 (0.95) 4.00 (2.00)
COL5: Individuals should be unconditionally submissive to thegroup and nation. 3.65 (1.14) 4.00 (1.00)
COL6: The value of a person is determined primarily by assessments
of oneself that are made by others and the society. 3.51 (1.08) 4.00 (1.00)
COL7: Every one of us must consult others about how to act
and behave.b 3.36 (1.14) 4.00 (2.00)
COL8: It is much more important to help others than it is to mind
your own business.c 3.40 (1.11) 4.00 (1.00)
COL9: One must conform to the opinion of the majority in work
and daily life. 3.65 (1.00) 4.00 (1.00)
Note. aderived from Triandis et al. (1990), bderived from Oyserman et al. (2002), cderived fromSingelis (1994), and dderived from Singelis et al. (1995). IQR = interquartile range.
7/23/2019 Constructs, Concept Mapping, And Psychometric Assessment of the Concise Scale of IndividualismCollectivism
9/18
CONCISE SCALE OF INDIVIDUALISMCOLLECTIVISM 675
Results from the CFA indicated that the proposed two-factor 18-item structure
of the CSIC (see Figure 1) was supported by the data, and there was a significant
correlation between the two subscales of IND and COL.
IND1
IND2
IND3
IND4
IND5
IND6
IND7
IND8
IND9
COL1
COL2
COL3
COL4
COL5
COL6
COL7
COL8
COL9
IND COL
.54**
.56**
.52**
.68**
.67**
.70**
.71**
.61**
.60**
.69**
.60**
.65**
.56**
.42**
.63**
.57**
.59**
.68**
.49**
Figure 1. CFA modeling of the Concise Scale of IndividualismCollectivism.
Note.Datamodel fit: GFI = .90, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .07, Chi square/df= 2.23.*p< .05, **p< .01.
Reliability and Validity Assessments
Cronbachs alpha coefficients were .91, .86, and .83 for the total CSIC scale,
and for the IND and COL subscales, respectively, suggesting excellent reliability
for the CSIC as a whole and very good reliability for both IND and COL
subscales. Results from the construct validity analysis set out in Table 3 show
that the IND scores were higher for older participants, and for participants with
a higher income, and lower for participants with a higher level of education, and
for those who resided in urban areas. COL scores were lower for participants with
a higher level of education, and for those who resided in urban areas.
7/23/2019 Constructs, Concept Mapping, And Psychometric Assessment of the Concise Scale of IndividualismCollectivism
10/18
CONCISE SCALE OF INDIVIDUALISMCOLLECTIVISM676
Table 3. Construct Validity Analysis Results: Differences in IND and COL Scores Across
Subgroups
Variables N IND scores COL scores
M (SD) M (SD)
Gender
Male 83 30.48 (7.13) 32.58 (6.49)
Female 162 30.26 (7.06) 32.67 (6.03)
t(df)p .23 (244) .82 -.11 (244) .92
d[95% CI] .03 [-.86, .92] -.01 [-.79, .76]
Age
< 30 years 138 29.53 (7.03) 32.09 (6.15)
30 years 107 31.37 (7.01) 33.35 (6.17)
t(df)p -2.04 (244) .04 -1.59 (244) .11
d[95% CI] -.26 [-1.14, .62] -.20 [-.98, .57]
Marital status
Married 139 31.19 (7.04) 33.14 (6.36)
Other 106 29.21 (6.97) 31.97 (5.90)
t(df)p 2.42 (244) .09 1.09 (244) .34
d[95% CI] .28 [-.59, 1.16] .19 [-.58, .96]
Level of education
Middle school 85 33.35 (7.24) 34.46 (6.84)
High school 79 29.86 (6.18) 31.54 (6.07)
College or more 81 27.63 (6.53) 31.79 (5.09)
F(df)p 15.52 (2, 242) .001 5.92 (2, 242) .001
2[95% CI] .11 [.05, .19] .05 [.01, .10]
Area of residence
Rural 88 32.86 (7.13) 33.97 (6.82)
Migrant 77 29.99 (7.13) 32.87 (6.59)
Urban 80 27.89 (6.00) 30.95 (4.47)
F(df)p 11.43 (2, 242) .001 5.25 (2, 242) .01
2[95% CI] .09 [.03, .15] .04 [.00, .10]
Monthly income (RMB)
< 500 55 29.60 (6.72) 31.84 (5.21)
500999 51 30.59 (7.57) 33.22 (6.04)
10001999 75 29.47 (7.38) 32.08 (6.91)
> 2000 55 32.75 (6.13) 34.24 (6.24)
F(df)p 2.74 (3, 241) .04 1.84 (3, 241) .14
2[95% CI] .03 [.00, .08] .02 [.00, .06]
Note.In 2012, US$1 = approximately RMB 6.
Predictive Validity Analysis
The ANOVA results in Table 4 indicate that the CSIC significantly predicted
levels of social capital, social support, resilience, and stress among the
participants.
Among the four groups, HILC participants scored the lowest for social capital,
social support, and resilience, and the highest for stress. In contrast, the same
7/23/2019 Constructs, Concept Mapping, And Psychometric Assessment of the Concise Scale of IndividualismCollectivism
11/18
CONCISE SCALE OF INDIVIDUALISMCOLLECTIVISM 677
Table
4.
Pre
dictive
Va
lidity
Ana
lys
isResu
lts:
Meansan
dStan
dard
D
ev
iationso
fDifferences
Amon
gCo
llec
tiv
ism
/In
dividua
lismG
roups
Variables
LILC
LIHC
HILC
HIHC
F(df)p
2
[95%
CI]
Socialca
pital
Totalcapital
25.9
6(5.2
8)a
26.3
6(4.1
0)a
22.5
7(4
.53)b
26.3
3(6.1
3)a
2.8
0(3,
241)
.040
.03
[.00,.0
8]
Bondi
ngcapital
14.2
6(2.6
8)
14.7
2(2.0
0)
12.9
9(2
.15)
14.1
6(2.6
8)
2.4
1(3,
241)
.070
.03
[.00,.0
7]
Bridgingcapital
11.6
9(3.8
6)
11.6
4(2.9
1)
9.5
8(3
.63)
12.1
7(4.3
2)
2.4
7(3,
241)
.060
.03
[.00,.0
7]
Socialsu
pport
Total
38.0
2(8.9
2)b
38.4
2(8.4
5)b
34.9
5(9
.00)c
42.5
8(11.3
6)a
5.1
4(3,
241)
.002
.06
[.01,.1
2]
Inform
ational
13.2
2(3.1
5)b
13.7
1(3.5
9)b
12.4
2(3
.55)c
14.7
2(4.0
8)a
3.4
1(3,
241)
.018
.04
[.00,.0
9]
Instrumental
12.0
9(3.7
2)b
11.9
5(3.4
7)b
11.0
0(3
.80)c
13.5
6(4.4
0)a
3.9
8(3,
241)
.009
.05
[.00,.1
0]
Emoti
onal
12.9
3(3.3
2)b
12.7
6(3.0
9)b
11.5
3(2
.86)c
14.3
0(4.1
2)a
4.9
1(3,
241)
.003
.06
[.01,.1
1]
Resilience
Total
32.7
4(6.9
1)c
36.0
5(5.8
5)b
29.6
8(7
.36)d
39.1
2(7.2
7)a
16.9
0(3,
241)