The Brief Resilience Scale: the ability to bounce back
The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) asks six questions about your ability to recover from hard times. It's short, focuses on resilience as an outcome and is well rated in methodological reviews.
Where the scale comes from
Resilience is a broad concept. Developmental research showed that adapting in the face of adversity is common and relies on everyday resources such as relationships, skills and community support; Ann Masten called it "ordinary magic" (Masten, 2001). George Bonanno showed that after loss and traumatic events many people keep functioning relatively steadily, and that resilience is more common than once thought (Bonanno, 2004).
Most resilience scales measure resources that help people cope, like optimism or social support. In 2008 Bruce Smith and colleagues built the Brief Resilience Scale with a different aim: to measure the ability to recover directly, to "bounce back" after stress (Smith et al., 2008). It has six statements, three positive and three negative, answered from 1 to 5; the negative ones are reverse-scored and the result is the average, from 1 to 5.
What the research says
In the original study of four samples, including students and patients, the scale showed good internal consistency and reasonable stability over several weeks. Higher scores were linked to less anxiety, depression and negative affect and to more social support and optimism (Smith et al., 2008).
A methodological review of 15 resilience scales found the BRS among the three with the best psychometric ratings, though none of the scales had complete evidence (Windle, Bennett & Noyes, 2011).
Limits of the concept
The BRS measures how you perceive your recovery, not what actually happens in a crisis. Resilience is also neither a fixed trait nor a duty: it depends on context, support and resources that aren't always in a person's hands. A low score is not a character flaw.
Limitations
With only six items, the scale is sensitive to when you answer: a hard week can lower the average. The result doesn't assess trauma, depression or other mental health problems, and it doesn't predict how you'll react to future events. If you feel unable to recover from something you've been through, please seek professional support.
How Ethea adapts the model
Ethea presents the six items with the original response options, reverse-scores the negative items and computes the 1–5 average, as in the publication, with indicative ranges. This questionnaire was not created by Ethea: credit goes to Smith and colleagues. The result texts treat resilience as something built with support, not a test of personal toughness.
Ethea is not affiliated with the scale's authors.
References
Links with a DOI go to the original article. Where no DOI is given, the link opens a Google Scholar search.
- Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The brief resilience scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15(3), 194–200. DOI: 10.1080/10705500802222972(opens in a new tab)
- Windle, G., Bennett, K. M., & Noyes, J. (2011). A methodological review of resilience measurement scales. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 9, 8. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-9-8(opens in a new tab)
- Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227–238. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227(opens in a new tab)
- Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events?. American Psychologist, 59(1), 20–28. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.20(opens in a new tab)