Methodological Issues in Assessing Resilience in Maltreated Children

PII S0145-2134(98)00048-9

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN ASSESSING RESILIENCEIN MALTREATED CHILDREN

E. MILLING KINARD

Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA

ABSTRACT

Objective: Efforts to assess resilience in maltreated children reveal methodological difficulties in developing operationaldefinitions of resilience. This paper discusses six methodological issues: (1) distinguishing between resilience and factorspromoting or reducing resilience; (2) choosing sources of measures; (3) determining how many sources and measures to use;(4) selecting scoring criteria to indicate resilience; (5) determining when to measure resilience; and (6) examining thestability of resilience over time.Conclusions:Understanding resilience in maltreated children is important for developing ways to promote competence inmore vulnerable maltreated children. Although the classification of children as resilient depends on how resilience isdefined, there is no consensus regarding operational definitions of resilience. By focusing more attention on the issue ofresilience, research on maltreated children can help resolve methodological difficulties in defining and measuring theconcept. © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd

Key Words—Child maltreatment, Resilience, Methodology.

INTRODUCTION

UNDERSTANDING RESILIENCE AND adaptation in children facing adversity is an importantcomponent of a complete picture of children’s functioning. Over the past two decades, research onchildren’s responses to stress and adversity has moved toward examining pathways to competenceand adaptation as well as maladaptation (Baldwin, Baldwin, & Cole, 1990; Bambring, Lo¨sel, &Skowronek, 1989; Belle, 1989; Garmezy & Masten, 1990; Garmezy & Tellegen, 1984; Kimchi &Schaffner, 1990; Lo¨sel, Bliesener, & Ko¨ferl, 1989; Luthar & Zigler, 1991; Masten, Morison,Pellegrini, & Tellegen, 1990; Rutter, 1987; Werner, 1989). Increasing attention to research onchildren’s resilience has brought about continuing efforts to clarify and refine the concept ofresilience.

As research on resilience has evolved, investigators have moved away from viewing resilienceas simply the absence of psychopathology and toward seeing it as a manifestation of competenceand adaptive behavior (Grizenko & Fisher, 1992; Luthar, 1993; Luthar & Zigler, 1991). Various

The research was supported by grant MH42739 from the National Institute of Mental Health and conducted while the authorwas at the New England Research Institute in Watertown, MA.

The preparation of this manuscript was supported in part by grant MH15161 from the National Institute of Mental Health.

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Fourth International Family Violence Research Conference, Durham,NH, July 1995.

Received for publication May 13, 1996; final revision received August 29, 1997; accepted January 9, 1998.

Reprint requests should be addressed to E. Milling Kinard, Ph.D., Family Research Laboratory, 126 Horton Social ScienceCenter, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824.

PergamonChild Abuse & Neglect, Vol. 22, No. 7, pp. 669–680, 1998

Copyright © 1998 Elsevier Science LtdPrinted in the USA. All rights reserved

0145-2134/98 $19.001 .00

669

terms have been considered synonymous with resilience: invulnerability, stress-resistance, com-petence, and adaptive behavior. However, the notion of invulnerability has gone out of favorbecause it implied an absolute resistance to negative consequences from stress, whereas resilienceis now recognized as encompassing a wide range of responses that vary according to the nature ofthe adverse circumstances (Garmezy & Tellegen, 1984; Rutter, 1993; Smith & Prior, 1995).Masten, Best, and Garmezy (1990) distinguish three types of resilience: (1) positive outcomesdespite experiencing high-risk environments; (2) competent functioning in the face of acute orchronic major life stressors; and (3) recovery from trauma. These authors classify maltreatment astrauma. Radke-Yarrow and Sherman (1990) portray children who have successfully adapted toadversity as survivors rather than as resilient because their experiences of stress and adversity havenot been without consequences.

Investigations of resilience and adaptation in children facing stress are now common, but studiesof resilience focusing on maltreated children are still relatively rare. Studies of the sequelae of childmaltreatment have generally focused on negative outcomes. However, evidence that some mal-treated children seem to be resilient despite their experiences of maltreatment is beginning toaccumulate (Cicchetti, Rogosch, Lynch, & Holt, 1993; Egeland, Carlson, & Sroufe, 1993; Her-renkohl, Herrenkohl, & Egolf, 1994; Herrenkohl, Herrenkohl, Egolf, & Wu, 1991; Kaufman, Cook,Arny, Jones, & Pittinsky, 1994; Moran & Eckenrode, 1992; Spaccarelli & Kim, 1995).

Despite the proliferation of studies on resiliency, there is no consensus regarding its definition(Fergusson & Lynskey, 1996; Grizenko & Fisher, 1992; Kaufman et al., 1994; Luthar, 1993; Luthar& Zigler, 1991; Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990; Rutter, 1993; Smith & Prior, 1995; Spaccarelli& Kim, 1995). In general, children facing adversity are considered resilient if they are functioningwithin normal or acceptable bounds on measures of competence with respect to behavioral, social,and/or cognitive functioning. The question of how to define resilience is crucial, but choosing anoperational definition is no simple task. Any consideration of operational definitions makesmethodological difficulties readily apparent. Resilience in whose eyes? By whose standards?Compared to what? Operational definitions of resilience seem to be as numerous as studiesexamining this construct. Six key issues must be addressed in formulating operational definitions:

(1) distinguishing between factors defining resilience and factors related to resilience(2) selecting sources of data(3) deciding how many sources of data to use(4) choosing scoring criteria to indicate resilience(5) determining when to measure resilience(6) examining resilience over time.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss these methodological issues in the context of childmaltreatment, drawing illustrative examples from the author’s Child Development Study. Thislongitudinal study investigated the role of maternal and child competence and social support inameliorating the potentially negative consequences of maltreatment for children’s psychologicalfunctioning and academic performance (Kinard, 1995a, 1995b, 1996, in press).

Factors Defining Resilience and Factors Related to Resilience

The distinction between factors defining resilience and factors promoting or reducing resilienceis sometimes blurred. For example, some investigators reported higher cognitive ability as beingrelated to resilience (Fergusson & Lynskey, 1996; Herrenkohl et al., 1994), while others identifiedresilient children as those with higher cognitive ability (Bradley, Whiteside, Mundfrom, Casey,Kelleher, & Pope, 1994; Garmezy & Tellegen, 1984; Masten, Morison, Pellegrini, & Tellegen,1990; Radke-Yarrow & Sherman, 1990; Werner, 1989). Similarly, positive self-esteem is some-times considered an antecedent of resilience (Fergusson & Lynskey, 1996; Moran & Eckenrode,

670 E. Milling Kinard

1992) and sometimes a criterion for defining resilience (Radke-Yarrow & Sherman, 1990).Whatever the investigator’s choice, a clear rationale should be presented regarding the componentsof resilience. Greater conceptual clarity is needed concerning the distinction between what definesresilience and what is associated with resilience (Fergusson & Lynskey, 1996; Gore & Eckenrode,1994).

Sources of Data

Studies of resilience have used various sources of data for measuring the construct: maternalratings, teacher ratings, peer ratings, children’s self-reports, intelligence tests, achievement tests,and school performance. If the goal is to create an objective definition of resilience, then whichsources of information are most likely to meet this goal?

Behavior.In assessing behavioral competence, investigators must recognize that ratings may beinfluenced by characteristics of the rater. For example, agreement between parent and teacherratings of child behavior is relatively low, but it is difficult to determine whether this is due to actualdifferences in children’s behavior in different environments or to rater characteristics (Achenbach,1991a; Hinshaw, Han, Erhardt, & Huber, 1992; Loeber, Green, Lahey, & Stouthamer-Loeber,1991; Offord, Boyle, Racine, & Szatmari, 1996; Phares, Compas, & Howell, 1989). One factorfrequently associated with maternal ratings of child behavior problems is maternal depression, withdepressed mothers reporting more behavior problems in their children than nondepressed mothers(Compas, Phares, Banez, & Howell, 1991; Fergusson, Horwood, Gretton, & Shannon, 1985;Friedlander, Weiss, & Traylor, 1986; Offord et al., 1996; Reid, Kavanagh, & Baldwin, 1987;Richters & Pellegrini, 1989; Salzinger, Kaplan, Pelcovitz, Samit, & Krieger, 1984; Webster-Stratton & Hammond, 1988). Previous analyses in the Child Development Study support thesefindings (Kinard, 1995a). Moreover, depression is commonly reported among mothers of mal-treated children (Conger, Lahey, & Smith, 1981; Estroff, Herrera, Gaines, Shaffer, Gould, & Green,1984; Kaplan, Pelcovitz, Salzinger, & Ganeles, 1988; Kinard, 1996; Walker, Downey, & Bergman,1989; Wolfe, 1984; Wolfe, Jaffe, & Wilson, 1984). Although these findings raise concerns thatmothers may not be accurate reporters of their children’s behavioral functioning, a review of thecumulative research regarding maternal depression did not find conclusive evidence that depressedmothers overestimated their children’s behavior problems (Richters, 1992). Maltreatment andmaternal depression have been found to have independent effects on assessments of child behav-ioral problems (Kashani, Shekim, Burk, & Beck, 1987; Kinard, 1995a). Similarly, questions mayarise about whether teachers’ evaluations accurately reflect children’s overall behavioral function-ing when their knowledge is derived primarily from limited contact in a classroom setting. Thereis evidence that teacher ratings are influenced by characteristics of children’s families, such as childgender, socioeconomic status, or ethnicity (Kinard, 1995a; Offord et al., 1996; Wodarski, Kurtz,Gaudin, & Howing, 1990). These characteristics may differ from those affecting other raters.However, researchers and clinicians alike agree that multiple perspectives are necessary to developa comprehensive assessment of children’s functioning (Achenbach, McConaughy, & Howell,1987; McMahon, 1984; Offord et al., 1996; Ollendick & Hersen, 1984).

Cognitive ability.Intelligence tests, academic achievement tests, grades in school, and parent andteacher ratings are commonly used to define resilience with respect to cognitive functioning.However, these measures do not necessarily tap the same aspects of cognitive functioning. Shouldresilience be defined as innate ability or current performance? Intelligence or achievement tests aredesirable because they are standardized measures with considerable normative data, but there arequestions of cultural bias in these tests. School grades reflect performance, but grading standardsdiffer within and across school systems, making it difficult to compare children from different

Assessing resilience in maltreated children 671

schools. Moreover, children in special education classrooms may be graded according to differentstandards. These children may have high grades because they are ranked in comparison to theirspecial education classmates rather than to children in regular classes.

Children may score within an acceptable range on intelligence or achievement tests, but performpoorly in school in terms of grades or vice versa. Among the maltreated children in the longitudinalsample of the Child Development Study, a few scored at or above grade level on the Wide RangeAchievement Test (WRAT) subscales, but had failing or marginal grades in school at Time 1: thepercentages were 4% (n5 6) for reading and 7% (n5 10) for arithmetic. Discrepancies were greaterfor those scoring below grade level on the WRAT, but having subject grades of average or above:38% (n5 57) for both reading and arithmetic. Similarly, teacher ratings of overall academicperformance did not entirely correspond to rankings of maltreated children’s scores on the WRAT.About 10% (9.5% for reading and 10.8% for arithmetic) whose WRAT scores were at or abovegrade level were rated by teachers in the clinical range for overall academic performance.Somewhat larger proportions (13.5% for reading and 20.3% for arithmetic) of maltreated childrenwith WRAT scores below grade level were considered in the normal range by teachers. In anotherstudy of maltreated children, Kaufman and her colleagues reported that 64% were classified asresilient on a standardized test of cognitive functioning, but only 43% were considered resilientaccording to teacher assessments of overall academic performance (Kaufman et al., 1994). Thus,the definition of resilience may result in different classifications depending on the source ofinformation. As with assessments of behavioral functioning, it would be preferable to utilizemultiple measures of cognitive ability, such as standardized tests, grades, and teacher ratings, inclassifying resilience. Using separate indicators permits a determination of the extent of children’sresilience in academic settings.

Children’s self-reports.Children’s self-reports about behavior, self-esteem, locus of control, ordepression are sometimes used to define resilience and sometimes regarded as protective factorsleading to resilience. If children’s own self-perceptions are used to define resilience, then whatabout the possibility that children may overrate or underrate themselves? In a study of maltreatedchildren in a residential treatment setting, the children perceived themselves as competent, butsimilar ratings by the children’s caregivers suggested that the children overestimated their levels ofcompetence (Scholz, 1983). The investigators concluded that the children’s rather high self-ratingsmay be due to the positive influence of the treatment setting. On the other hand, perhaps thesechildren were competent prior to experiencing maltreatment. In other studies, children’s self-reports of competence did not necessarily match external assessments based on other raters orsources of data (Compas et al., 1991; Kaufman et al., 1994; Phillips & Zimmerman, 1990;Spaccarelli & Kim, 1995). Maltreated children were three times more likely to perceive themselvesas resilient in the domain of social competence than were their teachers: 61% compared to 21%(Kaufman et al., 1994). In the Child Development Study, maltreated and nonmaltreated childrendiffered significantly on maternal and teacher ratings of behavior problems (Kinard, 1995a) and onmeasures of academic performance (Kinard, in press), but the two groups did not differ onchildren’s self-perceptions of competence or depression (Kinard, 1995b).

One research question of interest may involve comparing resilient children and more vulnerablechildren in terms of their own self-perceptions. Another may focus on discrepancies betweenchildren’s internal views of themselves and external measures of functioning. If self-perceptionsare used to define resilience, then this question cannot be addressed.

Number of Data Sources

Some studies used only one measure or one rater to define resilience (Baldwin et al., 1990;Herrenkohl et al., 1994; Lo¨sel et al., 1989), while others used several (Bradley et al., 1994;


Cicchetti et al., 1993; Fergusson & Lynskey, 1996; Garmezy & Tellegen, 1984; Kaufman et al.,1994; Masten, Morison et al., 1990; Radke-Yarrow & Sherman, 1990; Smith & Prior, 1995;Spaccarelli & Kim, 1995; Wyman, Cowen, Work, Raoof, Gribble, Parker, & Wannon, 1992). Asingle measure in one domain may make it easier to classify subjects, but it ignores other aspectsof the child’s functioning that may be relevant for resilience. On the other hand, using multipledomains and sources is likely to reduce the number of children identified as resilient. Althoughmultiple sources of data are desirable in research, there are limits to the number of different sourcesthat can be used to construct a definition of resilience because of disagreements across sources.

If multiple sources are used, then how does the investigator decide on criteria for definingresilience? Does a child have to meet criteria for resilience on every measure, on most of themeasures, on half the measures? If both behavior and cognitive functioning are assessed, then mustchildren be considered resilient only if they meet criteria for both domains? In some studies,resilience was classified separately for each source of ratings and analyses conducted separately foreach classification (Compas et al., 1991; Kaufman et al., 1994; Offord et al., 1996; Smith & Prior,1995; Spaccarelli & Kim, 1995). This approach eliminates the difficulties encountered in disagree-ments among multiple raters. Other investigations used multiple measures of behavior or adjust-ment in cluster analyses to develop profiles of competent functioning (Farber & Egeland, 1987;Magnusson & Bergman, 1988). Still another approach involved constructing a summary variablereflecting the number of different areas in which children demonstrated competence (Cicchetti etal., 1993; Kaufman et al., 1994).

In the Child Development Study, measures of children’s behavioral functioning included theparent and teacher versions of the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist. If resilience were definedas being in the normal (nonclinical) range on both broad domains of behavior (internalizing andexternalizing) at Time 1, then maternal ratings identified 46.2% (n5 72) of the maltreated childrenas resilient and teacher ratings classified 60.9% (n 5 95) as resilient. When the two measures wereconsidered together, the percentage of maltreated children rated as normal by both mothers andteachers dropped to 34.6% (n 5 54). When the criteria for resilience was expanded to includescoring at or above grade level on all three WRAT subscales, the proportion of resilient childrendecreased to 17.3% (n 5 26). Kaufman and colleagues (1994) noted a similar decline in theproportion of maltreated children meeting criteria for resilience as the number of domains andmeasures increased. Determining the number of domains in which children were classified asresilient revealed that 37% were resilient in only one domain. Broadening the definition to includetwo domains reduced the resilient group to 13% and expanding to all three domains yielded only5% in the resilient group.

Given that multiple sources of data are preferable, then separate classifications of resilience bysource are likely to yield the greatest understanding of the development of resilience in children.Again, factors associated with resilience are likely to differ according to the source of data. Thus,combining different domains or sources of information to produce an overall index of resilience islikely to mask these important distinctions (Luthar, 1993; Offord et al., 1996; Smith & Prior, 1995).

Scoring Criteria for Defining Resilience

Once measures have been chosen to define resilience, what scoring criteria should be used toclassify resilience? Measures with commonly used cutoff scores to indicate problems offer a clearrationale for classifying resilience. For example, the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist hascutoff points for clinical behavior problems (Achenbach, 1991b, 1991c, 1991d). Children scoringin the normal range would be considered resilient, while those in the problem range would beconsidered nonresilient. A number of studies utilized this approach to defining resilience, thoughnot all used standard cutoff points (Bradley et al., 1994; Compas et al., 1991; Grizenko & Pawlink,1994; Kaufman et al., 1994; Lo¨sel et al., 1989; Smith & Prior, 1995; Spaccarelli & Kim, 1995).


Some studies chose a specific percentage of the sample distribution to define resilience. That is,children in the highest one-third or one-quarter or 30% or 40% of scores were labeled resilient(Cicchetti et al., 1993; Herrenkohl et al., 1991, 1994; Wyman et al., 1992). Some divided theremaining sample into low functioning and middle functioning groups (Herrenkohl et al., 1994);others used the same percentage for lowest scores as that used to designate the highest scores andomitted any middle group (Wyman et al., 1992). Still others divided the entire sample at the meanand classified those above the mean as resilient and those below the mean as nonresilient (Baldwinet al., 1990; Masten, Morison et al., 1990).

Should children be considered nonresilient if they do not fit the criteria for resilience, or should theybe required to meet specific criteria for being at the bottom of scores? Using criteria indicating thepoorest scores would yield a comparison group of nonresilient children that would presumably providethe greatest contrast to those defined as resilient. However, it would also be informative to compareresilient children with those whose functioning is neither high nor low, but rather is in a middle range.

One difficulty with using criteria based on actual sample distributions is that the classification isthen unique to a particular sample, reducing comparability with other studies. Using measures withstandard cutoff scores yields consistency across studies. However, even when such measures wereused, not every study selected cutoff points recommended by the test authors. For example, onestudy of maltreated children used the Teacher Report Form of the Achenbach Child BehaviorChecklist, but developed its own scoring system rather than using the standard cutoff scores(Herrenkohl et al., 1991, 1994).

In studies using multiple measures, criteria for defining resilience can become rather complicated. Forexample, one study defined resilience as being in the top one-third of scores on two out of threemeasures of adjustment and no lower than the middle one-third on the third measure (Wyman et al.,1992). Another investigation used seven separate measures of competence, some of which were basedon composite scores across different raters, as well as a summary index representing the total numberof domains in which competence was achieved (Cicchetti et al., 1993). If both behavior and cognitivefunctioning are assessed, then must children be considered resilient only if they meet criteria for bothdomains? Should resilience be examined for one domain at a time? Using a single overall index ofresilience across different domains and raters certainly simplifies data analyses, but this strategy mayobscure differences in different areas of functioning as well as differences in factors associated withresilience in different areas. Findings revealing differences between maltreated and nonmaltreatedchildren in some, but not all, domains of competence (Cicchetti et al., 1993) underscore the importanceof examining resilience separately for different domains.

With respect to cognitive functioning, what constitutes resilience? Passing grades in school?Performing at or above grade level or scoring in a specified percentile on standardized tests? Whatabout children who have been in special education or repeated a grade in the past? Are theyconsidered nonresilient because they have failed in the past? What if they are currently performingat grade level? Should assessments of cognitive functioning take into account ability in relation toperformance? Different approaches were used in studies assessing cognitive competence. Someinvestigators rated cognitive functioning in relation to performance at grade level (Paradise, Rose,Sleeper, & Nathanson, 1994; Radke-Yarrow & Sherman, 1990). Most used composite indices ofcognitive functioning derived from multiple sources, such as teacher and/or peer ratings, grades,and scores on standardized achievement tests (Baldwin et al., 1990; Cicchetti et al., 1993; Garmezy& Tellegen, 1984; Masten, Morison et al., 1990; Phillips & Zimmerman, 1990). Others usedstandardized intelligence tests (Bradley et al., 1994).

Timing of Measuring Resilience

One difficulty with assessing resilience in maltreated children concerns determining their levelof competence prior to the maltreatment. Most studies of maltreated children select samples after


maltreatment has occurred and thus do not have measures prior to the maltreatment. But ifmaltreated children were not functioning within normal limits prior to maltreatment, then how canthey be considered resilient after the experience of maltreatment? Should resilience for maltreatedchildren mean not doing worse than they were prior to maltreatment?

For example, maltreated children have often been found to have greater cognitive deficits thannonmaltreated children (Barton & Zeanah, 1990; Kinard, in press; Kurtz, Gaudin, Wodarski, &Howing, 1993; Salzinger, Feldman, Hammer, & Rosario, 1991; Salzinger et al., 1984; Wodarski etal., 1990). If these cognitive deficits were present prior to the maltreatment and higher cognitiveability is used to define resilience, then how could maltreated children with low cognitive abilityever be defined as resilient? Similarly, if behavior problems are present in maltreated children aftermaltreatment, then these children are unlikely to be considered resilient even though their behaviorproblems may not have increased compared to their status prior to maltreatment.

Stability of Resilience Over Time

Longitudinal studies are important to determine whether resilience is maintained or shifts overtime. In a study of maltreated children, those identified as resilient in elementary school were lesslikely to engage in delinquent behavior and to drop out of school in adolescence than werenonresilient maltreated children (Herrenkohl et al., 1994). However, some in the resilient group didnot do well scholastically in adolescence. Another study following children from infancy to schoolentry found that none of the maltreated children in the sample exhibited competent functioningthroughout the entire study period (Egeland et al., 1993; Farber & Egeland, 1987). In fact, theproportion of competent maltreated children steadily declined over time, with 53.7% judgedcompetent at 12 months and 22.2% at preschool (Farber & Egeland, 1987). The investigatorspointed out that the findings would have been misleading if competence had been assessed at asingle point in time.

In the Child Development Study, mothers rated 38.2% (n5 63) of the maltreated children asnormal on behavior at both time periods. Teachers rated 45.9% (n5 62) as normal at both times.Only 26.7% (n5 44) scored at or above grade level on three WRAT subtests at both times. Whenall three of these measures were considered together, only seven children (5.5%) were classified asresilient across time.

Not only may children’s status with respect to resilience change over time, but the operationaldefinition of resilience may require change at different times. That is, measures defining resilienceat one age or developmental stage may not be appropriate for later ages or stages. For example,assessments of competence in a study of children from birth through preschool were based ondevelopmental tasks salient at different ages: attachment at 12 and 18 months, autonomousfunctioning at 24 months, self-awareness and socialization at 42 months, and peer relations andsocialization at preschool (Farber & Egeland, 1987). As children grow older, potential sources ofinformation to assess resiliency expand to include teachers, school performance, and child self-reports. In a study tracing resilience in children from elementary school to late adolescence,resilience was determined using teacher ratings in elementary school and self-reports in adoles-cence (Herrenkohl et al., 1994). If children are followed over time, then it is important to take intoaccount intervening stressful experiences, particularly subsequent maltreatment, in evaluating theirstatus at follow-up.

DISCUSSION

Research on maltreated children needs to devote more attention to the issue of resilience.Understanding how some children manage to manifest competence in the face of maltreatment may


suggest ways to promote competence in more vulnerable maltreated children. As Rutter (1993)points out, the goal in examining resilience is to apply knowledge about how some childrensuccessfully cope with stress and adversity to prevention and intervention efforts in order tomaximize competence and adaptation. As they design and conduct studies on resilience, investi-gators need to address several methodological issues in developing operational definitions ofresilience: (1) distinguishing between resilience and factors promoting or reducing resilience; (2)choosing sources of measures; (3) determining how many sources and measures to use; (4)selecting scoring criteria to indicate resilience; (5) determining when to measure resilience; and (6)examining the stability of resilience over time.

It seems clear that it is possible to identify a subset of maltreated children who seem to be withinthe boundaries of normal functioning. However, the designation of children as resilient depends onthe operational definition. Greater conceptual clarity is needed to differentiate resilience fromfactors related to resilience. Numerous variables have been found to be associated with competencein positive (protective) or negative (risk) ways, but analytic strategies need to focus on disentan-gling the complex interactions among these factors and their interactions with particular stressors(Fergusson & Lynskey, 1996; Gore & Eckenrode, 1994; Grizenko & Fisher, 1992; Kimchi &Schaffner, 1990; Luthar, 1993; Luthar & Zigler, 1991; Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990; Wolfe &Jaffe, 1991).

Most researchers agree that resilience is a complex phenomenon that cannot be captured by asingle indicator (Fergusson & Lynskey, 1996; Luthar, 1993; Luthar & Zigler, 1991; Rutter, 1993;Smith & Prior, 1995; Spaccarelli & Kim, 1995). Although the use of different informants to assesschildren’s functioning inevitably results in disagreements among raters, it is necessary to obtain acomprehensive picture of functioning in different settings and situations. In some studies, summaryindices of children’s functioning were constructed across raters, but such procedures are notrecommended because they obscure differences in rater characteristics that may influence ratings(Compas et al., 1991; Luthar, 1993; Offord et al., 1996; Smith & Prior, 1995). Different domainsof functioning should also be assessed since children may show competence in one domain but notanother.

Should maltreated children be held to the same criteria for assessing resilience as nonmaltreatedchildren? That is, should investigators establish a gold standard for resilience regardless of thenature of stress or adversity experienced? Just as there is no single definition of mental health, itis unlikely that one definition of resilience would be applicable to all children across all circum-stances. For maltreated children, it may be more appropriate to consider recovery rather thanresilience following the experience of maltreatment, particularly if resilience implies the absenceof negative consequences (Masten, Best, & Garmezy, 1990).

It seems clear that research on resilience must take into account not only the multiplicity ofpotentially adverse experiences, but also differences in the nature of specific stressful experiences.For example, maltreatment frequently occurs in conjunction with other potential stressors, such aslow socioeconomic status or maternal depression. In the Child Development Study, maltreatedchildren of depressed mothers had more behavioral problems than maltreated children of nonde-pressed mothers (Kinard, 1995a). This finding suggests that experiencing both stressors had morenegative consequences than experiencing either one alone. Moreover, maltreatment experiencesdiffer according to type, severity, frequency, duration, and relationship between perpetrator andchild, all of which have been found to be related to adjustment in maltreated children (Barnett,Manly, & Cicchetti, 1993; Cicchetti & Barnett, 1991; Cicchetti et al., 1993; Crittenden, Claussen,& Sugarman, 1994; Manly, Cicchetti, & Barnett, 1994; Spaccarelli & Kim, 1995; Wolfe & Jaffe,1991; Wolfe & McGee, 1994). Thus, even within a group of children considered to be at riskbecause of exposure to a particular stressor, there is considerable variation in the extent and natureof the adverse experience (Fergusson & Lynskey, 1996; Gore & Eckenrode, 1994).

Understanding the development of resilience requires tracking its continuity over time (Cicchetti


et al., 1993; Grizenko & Fisher, 1992; Herrenkohl et al., 1994; Rutter, 1993). The ability tomanifest resilience is likely to change over time as children move from one developmental stageto another. Children may seem resilient at one point in time, but not necessarily over long periodsof time. Moreover, factors enhancing or reducing resilience are likely to change over time.

Despite their apparent resilience, maltreated children’s levels of competence may not becomparable to those of nonmaltreated children in the general population. Resilience does notnecessarily signify emotional health, especially with regard to internalizing problems like depres-sion (Losel et al., 1989; Luthar, 1993; Luthar & Zigler, 1991). Children may appear to becompetent according to external objective measures of functioning, but still suffer from lowself-esteem or depression. In a study of sexually abused girls, many of those who appearedcompetent based on age norms for parent ratings of competence in three arenas (activities, social,school) were classified as having clinical symptoms on parent ratings of anxiety and depression oraggression (Spaccarelli & Kim, 1995). The authors concluded that the absence of symptomatologyat the clinical level may be a more sensitive indicator of resilience than the achievement ofage-appropriate levels of competence.

Luthar and Zigler (1991) caution that classifying children as resilient may reduce the likelihoodthat they will be targeted for intervention or prevention services. But if maltreated children whoappear resilient do not receive help in dealing with the aftermath of maltreatment, then they mayexhibit problems at a later point. Understanding pathways to resilience and adaptation in childrenfacing stress such as maltreatment will make important contributions to the development ofintervention strategies designed to maximize competence.

REFERENCES

Achenbach, T. M. (1991a).Integrative guide for the 1991 CBCL/4–18, YSR, and TRF profiles. Burlington, VT: Universityof Vermont Department of Psychiatry.

Achenbach, T. M. (1991b).Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4–18 and 1991 profile. Burlington, VT: University ofVermont Department of Psychiatry.

Achenbach, T. M. (1991c).Manual for the Teacher’s Report Form and 1991 profile. Burlington, VT: University of VermontDepartment of Psychiatry.

Achenbach, T. M. (1991d).Manual for the Youth Self-Report and 1991 profile. Burlington, VT: University of VermontDepartment of Psychiatry.

Achenbach, T. M., McConaughy, S. H., & Howell, C. T. (1987). Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems:Implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity.Psychological Bulletin, 101, 213–232.

Baldwin, A. L., Baldwin, C., & Cole, R. E. (1990). Stress-resistant families and stress-resistant children. In J. Rolf, A. S.Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. H. Nuechterlein, & S. Weintraub (Eds.),Risk and protective factors in the development ofpsychopathology(pp. 257–280). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bambring, M., Losel, F., & Skowronek, H. (Eds.). (1989).Children at risk: Assessment, longitudinal research, andintervention. Hawthorne, NY: Walter de Gruyter.

Barnett, D., Manly, J. T., & Cicchetti, D. (1993). Defining child maltreatment: The interface between policy and research.In D. Cicchetti & S. L. Toth (Eds.),Child abuse, child development, and social policy(pp. 7–74). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Barton, M. L., & Zeanah, C. H. (1990). Stress in the preschool years. In L. E. Arnold (Ed.),Childhood stress(pp. 193–221).New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Belle, D. (Ed.). (1989).Children’s social networks and social supports. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Bradley, R. H., Whiteside, L., Mundfrom, D. J., Casey, P. H., Kelleher, K. J., & Pope, S. K. (1994). Early indications of

resilience and their relation to experiences in the home environments of low birthweight, premature children living inpoverty.Child Development, 65, 346–360.

Cicchetti, D., & Barnett, D. (1991). Toward the development of a scientific nosology of child maltreatment. In W. M. Grove& D. Cicchetti (Eds.),Thinking clearly about psychology (Vol. 2). Personality and psychopathology: Essays in honor ofPaul Meehl(pp. 346–377). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Cicchetti, D., Rogosch, F. A., Lynch, M., & Holt, K. D. (1993). Resilience in maltreated children: Processes leading toadaptive outcome.Development and Psychopathology, 5, 629–647.

Compas, B. E., Phares, V., Banez, G. A., & Howell, D. C. (1991). Correlates of internalizing and externalizing behaviorproblems: Perceived competence, causal attributions, and parental symptoms.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19,197–218.

Conger, R. D., Lahey, B. B., & Smith, S. S. (1981).An intervention program for child abuse: Modifying maternaldepression and behavior. Paper presented at the First National Family Violence Research Conference, Durham, NH.


Crittenden, P. M., Claussen, A. H., & Sugarman, D. B. (1994). Physical and psychological maltreatment in middlechildhood and adolescence.Development and Psychopathology, 6, 145–164.

Egeland, B., Carlson, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1993). Resilience as process.Developmental Psychopathology, 5, 517–528.Estroff, T. W., Herrera, C., Gaines, R., Shaffer, D., Gould, M., & Green, A. H. (1984). Maternal psychopathology and

perception of child behavior in psychiatrically referred and child maltreatment families.Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Child Psychiatry, 23, 649–652.

Farber, E. A., & Egeland, B. (1987). Invulnerability among abused and neglected children. In E. J. Anthony & B. J. Cohler(Eds.),The invulnerable child(pp. 253–288). New York: Guilford Press.

Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., Gretton, M. E., & Shannon, F. T. (1985). Family life events, maternal depression, andmaternal and teacher descriptions of child behavior.Pediatrics, 75, 30–35.

Fergusson, D. M., & Lynskey, M. T. (1996). Adolescent resiliency to family adversity.Journal of Child Psychology andPsychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 37, 281–292.

Friedlander, S., Weiss, D. S., & Traylor, J. (1986). Assessing the influence of maternal depression on the validity of theChild Behavior Checklist.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14, 123–133.

Garmezy, N., & Masten, A. (1990). The adaptation of children to a stressful world: Mastery of fear. In L. E. Arnold (Ed.),Childhood stress(pp. 459–473). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Garmezy, N., & Tellegen, A. (1984). Studies of stress-resistant children: Methods, variables, and preliminary findings. InF. J. Morrison, C. Lord, & D. P. Keating (Eds.),Applied developmental psychology(pp. 231–287). Orlando, FL:Academic Press.

Gore, S., & Eckenrode, J. (1994). Context and process in research on risk and resilience. In R. J. Haggerty, L. R. Sherrod,N. Garmezy, & M. Rutter (Eds.),Stress, risk, and resilience in children and adolescents: Processes, mechanisms, andinterventions(pp. 19–63). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Grizenko, N., & Fisher, C. (1992). Review of studies of risk and protective factors for psychopathology in children.Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 37, 711–721.

Grizenko, N., & Pawlink, N. (1994). Risk and protective factors for disruptive behavior disorders in children.AmericanJournal of Orthopsychiatry, 64, 534–544.

Herrenkohl, E. C., Herrenkohl, R. C., & Egolf, B. (1994). Resilient early school-age children from maltreating homes:Outcomes in late adolescence.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 64, 301–309.

Herrenkohl, R. C., Herrenkohl, E. C., Egolf, B. P., & Wu, P. (1991). The developmental consequences of abuse: The Lehighlongitudinal study. In R. H. Starr, & D. A. Wolfe (Eds.),The effects of child abuse and neglect: Issues and research(pp.57–85). New York: Guilford Press.

Hinshaw, S. P., Han, S. S., Erhardt, D., & Huber, A. (1992). Internalizing and externalizing behavior problems in preschoolchildren: Correspondence among parent and teacher ratings and behavior observations.Journal of Clinical ChildPsychology, 21, 143–150.

Kaplan, S. J., Pelcovitz, D., Salzinger, S., & Ganeles, D. (1988). Psychopathology of nonviolent women in violent families.In E. J. Anthony, & C. Chiland (Eds.),The child in his family: Perilous development: Child raising and identity formationunder stress(pp. 503–514). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Kashani, J. H., Shekim, W. O., Burk, J. P., & Beck, N. C. (1987). Abuse as a predictor of psychopathology in children andadolescents.Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 16, 43–50.

Kaufman, J., Cook, A., Arny, L., Jones, B., & Pittinsky, T. (1994). Problems defining resiliency: Illustrations from the studyof maltreated children.Development and Psychopathology, 6, 215–229.

Kimchi, J., & Schaffner, B. (1990). Childhood protective factors and stress risk. In L. E. Arnold (Ed.),Childhood stress(pp.475–500). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Kinard, E. M. (1995a). Mother and teacher assessments of behavior problems in abused children.Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34, 1043–1053.

Kinard, E. M. (1995b). Perceived social support and competence in abused children: A longitudinal perspective.Journalof Family Violence, 10, 73–98.

Kinard, E. M. (1996). Social support, competence, and depression in mothers of abused children.American Journal ofOrthopsychiatry, 66, 449–462.

Kinard, E. M. (in press). Psychosocial resources and academic performance in abused children.Children and Youth ServicesReview.

Kurtz, P. D., Gaudin, J. M., Wodarski, J. S., & Howing, P. T. (1993). Maltreatment and the school-aged child: Schoolperformance consequences.Child Abuse & Neglect, 17, 581–589.

Loeber, R., Green, S. M., Lahey, B. B., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1991). Differences and similarities between children,mothers, and teachers as informants on disruptive child behavior.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 19, 75–95.

Losel, F., Bliesener, T., & Ko¨ferl, P. (1989). On the concept of invulnerability: Evaluation and first results of the BielefeldProject. In M. Bambring, F. Lo¨sel, & H. Skowronek (Eds.),Children at risk: Assessment, longitudinal research, andintervention(pp. 186–219). New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Luthar, S. S. (1993). Annotation: Methodological and conceptual issues in research on childhood resilience.Journal ofChild Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 34, 441–453.

Luthar, S. S., & Zigler, E. (1991). Vulnerability and competence: A review of research on resilience in childhood.AmericanJournal of Orthopsychiatry, 61, 6–22.

Magnusson, D., & Bergman, L. R. (1988). Individual and variable-based approaches to longitudinal research on early riskfactors. In M. Rutter (Ed.),Studies of psychological risk: The power of longitudinal data(pp. 45–61). Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.


Manly, J. T., Cicchetti, D., & Barnett, D. (1994). The impact of subtype, frequency, chronicity, and severity of childmaltreatment on social competence and behavior problems.Development and Psychopathology, 6, 121–143.

Masten, A. A., Morison, P., Pellegrini, D., & Tellegen, A. (1990). Competence under stress: Risk and protective factors.In J. Rolf, A. S. Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. H. Nuechterlein, & S. Weintraub (Eds.),Risk and protective factors in thedevelopment of psychopathology(pp. 236–256). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of childrenwho overcame adversity.Development and Psychopathology, 2, 425–444.

McMahon, R. J. (1984). Behavioral checklists and rating scales. In T. H. Ollendick & M. Hersen (Eds.),Child behavioralassessment: Principles and procedures(pp. 80–105). New York: Pergamon Press.

Moran, P. B., & Eckenrode, J. (1992). Protective personality characteristics among adolescent victims of maltreatment.Child Abuse & Neglect, 16, 743–754.

Offord, D. R., Boyle, M. H., Racine, Y., & Szatmari, P. (1996). Integrating assessment data from multiple informants.Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 1078–1085.

Ollendick, T. H., & Hersen, M. (1984). An overview of child behavioral assessment. In T. H. Ollendick & M. Hersen (Eds.),Child behavioral assessment: Principles and procedures(pp. 3–19). New York: Pergamon Press.

Paradise, J. E., Rose, L., Sleeper, L. A., & Nathanson, M. (1994). Behavior, family function, school performance, andpredictors of persistent disturbance in sexually abused children.Pediatrics, 93, 452–459.

Phares, V., Compas, B. E., & Howell, D. C. (1989). Perspectives on child behavior problems: Comparisons of children’sself-reports with parent and teacher reports.Psychological Assessment, 1, 68–71.

Phillips, D. A., & Zimmerman, M. (1990). The developmental course of perceived competence and incompetence amongcompetent children. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. Kolligian, Jr. (Eds.),Competence considered(pp. 41–66). New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.

Radke-Yarrow, M., & Sherman, T. (1990). Hard growing: Children who survive. In J. Rolf, A. S. Masten, D. Cicchetti,K. H. Nuechterlein, & S. Weintraub (Eds.),Risk and protective factors in the development of psychopathology(pp.97–119). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Reid, J. B., Kavanagh, K., & Baldwin, D. V. (1987). Abusive parents’ perceptions of child problem behaviors: An exampleof parental bias.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15, 457–466.

Richters, J., & Pellegrini, D. (1989). Depressed mothers’ judgments about their children: An examination of the depression-distortion hypothesis.Child Development, 60, 1068–1075.

Richters, J. E. (1992). Depressed mothers as informants about their children: A critical review of the evidence for distortion.Psychological Bulletin, 112, 485–499.

Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316–331.Rutter, M. (1993). Resilience: Some conceptual considerations.Journal of Adolescent Health, 14, 626–631.Salzinger, S., Feldman, R. S., Hammer, M., & Rosario, M. (1991). Risk for physical child abuse and the personal

consequences for its victims.Criminal Justice and Behavior, 18, 64–81.Salzinger, S., Kaplan, S., Pelcovitz, D., Samit, C., & Krieger, R. (1984). Parent and teacher assessment of children’s

behavior in child maltreating families.Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 23, 458–464.Scholz, J. R. (1983). Competency of abused children in a residential treatment program. In J. E. Leavitt (Ed.),Child abuse

and neglect: Research and innovations(pp. 211–234). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Smith, J., & Prior, M. (1995). Temperament and stress resilience in school-age children: A within-families study.Journal

of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34, 168–179.Spaccarelli, S., & Kim, S. (1995). Resilience criteria and factors associated with resilience in sexually abused girls.Child

Abuse & Neglect, 19, 1171–1182.Walker, E., Downey, G., & Bergman, A. (1989). The effects of parental psychopathology and maltreatment on child

behavior: A test of the diathesis-stress model.Child Development, 60, 15–24.Webster-Stratton, C., & Hammond, M. (1988). Maternal depression and its relationship to life stress, perceptions of child

behavior problems, parenting behaviors, and child conduct problems.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 16,299–315.

Werner, E. E. (1989). Vulnerability and resiliency: A longitudinal perspective. In M. Bambring, F. Lo¨sel, & H. Skowronek(Eds.),Children at risk: Assessment, longitudinal research, and intervention(pp. 157–172). Hawthorne, NY: Walter deGruyter.

Wodarski, J. S., Kurtz, P. D., Gaudin, J. M., & Howing, P. T. (1990). Maltreatment and the school-age child: Majoracademic, socioemotional, and adaptive outcomes.Social Work, 35, 506–513.

Wolfe, D. A. (1984).Behavioral distinctions between abusive and nonabusive parents: A review and critique. Paperpresented at the Second National Family Violence Research Conference, Durham, NH.

Wolfe, D. A., & Jaffe, P. (1991). Child abuse and family violence as determinants of child psychopathology.CanadianJournal of Behavioural Science, 23, 282–299.

Wolfe, D. A., Jaffe, P., & Wilson, S. (1984).Predicting children’s adjustment to family violence: Beyond univariateanalyses. Paper presented at the Second National Family Violence Research Conference, Durham, NH.

Wolfe, D. A., & McGee, R. (1994). Dimensions of child maltreatment and their relationship to adolescent adjustment.Development and Psychopathology, 6, 165–181.

Wyman, P. A., Cowen, E. L., Work, W. C., Raoof, A., Gribble, P. A., Parker, G. R., & Wannon, M. (1992). Interviews withchildren who experienced major life stress: Family and child attributes that predict resilient outcomes.Journal of theAmerican Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 31, 904–910.


RESUME

Objectif: Lorsqu’on cherche a` evaluer la capacite´ qu’ont les enfants de “rebondir” une fois maltraite´s, on remarque qu’ilexiste des difficulte´s methodologiques pour ce qui est de de´velopper des de´finitions operationnelles de la notion deresilience. L’article aborde six questions me´thodologiques : (1) comment distinguer entre la capacite´ de rebondir et lesfacteurs qui promeuvent ou re´duisent cette capacite´; (2) comment choisir les bonnes sources pour trouver des instrumentsde mesure utiles; (3) comment de´terminer combien de sources et de mesures il faut utiliser; (4) comment choisir de bonscritecres pour mesurer la re´silience; (5) comment de´terminer quand il est approprie´ de mesurer la re´silience; et (6) examinerla stabilitede cette re´silience sur une pe´riode de temps.Conclusions: Il est important de comprendre le concept en question chez les enfants maltraite´s afin de de´velopper desfacons de promouvoir la compe´tence chez les enfants les plus vulne´rables. Bien que la classification des enfants selon leurcapacite´ de rebondir de´pend de la de´finition meme du concept, il n’existe aucun consensus concernant les de´finitionsoperationnelles. En portant plus d’attention sur la question, les recherches sur les enfants maltraite´s pourront aider a` resoudreles difficultes methodologiques pour de´finir et mesurer le concept de la re´silience.

RESUMEN

Objetivo: Los esfuerzos para evaluar la resiliencia en ninõs maltratados revelan dificultades metodolo´gicas en el desarrollode definiciones operacionales de la resiliencia. Este artıćulo comentaseis cuestiones metologicas: 1. Distinguir entre laresiliencia y los factores que la promueven o reducen, 2. Escoger las fuentes de las medidas, 3. Determinar cuańtas fuentasy cuantas medidas se van a utilizar, 4. Seleccionar los criterios de puntuacioń para indicar resiliencia, 5. Determinar cuańdose mide la resiliencia, y 6. Examinar la estabilidad de la resiliencia a lo largo del tiempo.Conclusiones: Es importante entender la resiliencia en ninõs maltratados para desarrollar formas de promover lacompetencia en los ninõs maltratados ma´s vulnerables. Aunque la clasificacioń de los ninõs como resilientes depende decomo se haya definido la resiliencia, no hay consenso respecto a la definicioń operacional de la resiliencia. Centrando ma´sla atencion en la cuestioń de la resiliencia, la investigacioń sobre los ninõs maltratados puede ayudar a resolver dificultadesmetodologicas en la definicioń y medicion de este concepto.


Documents

Methodological Issues in Assessing Resilience in Maltreated Children