Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study aimed to adapt the "Disaster Resilience Scale for Individuals, Short Form," developed by Matsukawa et al. [1], to Turkish culture and to examine its psychometric properties in order to assess individuals' preparedness, behavior, and adaptation capacities in the face of disasters. The adaptation process consisted of content validity, linguistic validity (translation-back translation), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability, and criterion validity. Data collection was carried out by distributing an online form prepared via Google Forms to the adult population through social media and other digital platforms. Analyses were conducted on two samples (Sample A: 340, Sample B: 230). The Individual Disaster Resilience Scale-Short Form (IDRS-SF) is an assessment tool consisting of three sub-dimensions (Knowledge, Preparedness, Action) and eight items. The scale is rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = Inappropriate, 4 = Appropriate), with total scores ranging from 8 to 32. Higher scores indicate that individuals have a higher level of personal resilience to disasters. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) results revealed that the three-factor structure exhibited acceptable fit indices (χ²/df = 2.216; RMSEA = .060; CFI = .96; TLI = .93; GFI = .97; SRMR = .046). The scale has a Cronbach α of .76 and McDonald’s ω of .74 at the total score level, demonstrating sufficient internal consistency. Test-retest results showed ICC values of “good” (ICC = .79–.82). In terms of criterion validity, significant and positive correlations were found between the total score of the Disaster Resilience Scale (DRS) and perceived social support and psychological resilience. These results indicate that the Turkish form of the DRS is a valid and reliable measurement tool for assessing individual disaster resilience. The scale offers a practical and concise assessment tool for use in studies in the fields of disaster management, community risk reduction, disaster education, and community mental health.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Torpuş et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: