BRS: Brief Resilience Scale

Introduction

The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) is a concise 6-item measure specifically designed to assess an individual’s ability to bounce back or recover from stress, adversity, illness, or other difficult life circumstances. Developed by Smith and colleagues (2008), the BRS is unique among resilience measures because it focuses specifically on resilience as the ability to “bounce back” from adversity rather than measuring the broader constellation of positive characteristics that may promote resilience.

Resilience as Bounce-Back Ability

The BRS conceptualizes resilience as the basic ability to recover from and adapt to significant adversity, stress, or trauma. This definition emphasizes the dynamic process of returning to baseline functioning or achieving positive adaptation following challenging circumstances. Unlike other resilience measures that assess protective factors or positive traits, the BRS directly measures the core resilience process itself.

Distinguishing Resilience from Related Constructs

The BRS was developed to address the concern that many “resilience” measures actually assess factors that may promote resilience (such as optimism, social support, or coping skills) rather than resilience itself. By focusing specifically on bounce-back ability, the BRS provides a more precise measure of the resilience process, making it particularly valuable for research and clinical applications where the specific ability to recover from adversity is of primary interest.

Core Components of Bounce-Back Resilience

The BRS assesses resilience through several interconnected aspects:

Recovery ability – capacity to return to normal functioning after setbacks
Adaptability – ability to adjust and cope with difficult circumstances
Bounce-back speed – how quickly one recovers from adversity
Resilient responses – tendency to respond adaptively to stress and challenges
Stress resistance – ability to maintain functioning despite ongoing difficulties

🔄 Core Process: The BRS is the only resilience measure that focuses specifically on the “bounce back” process rather than resilience-promoting factors.

Key Features

Assessment Characteristics

6 items providing focused yet comprehensive bounce-back assessment
2-3 minutes administration time
Ages 18+ through adult with validation across diverse populations
5-point Likert scale for nuanced response options
Bidirectional items capturing both positive and negative resilience aspects

Resilience Dimensions Assessed

Recovery speed – How quickly one bounces back from adversity
Adaptation ability – Capacity to adjust to difficult circumstances
Stress resistance – Ability to maintain functioning under pressure
Bounce-back tendency – General inclination to recover from setbacks
Resilient responding – Adaptive responses to challenging situations

Research and Clinical Applications

Health psychology – Recovery from illness and medical procedures
Trauma research – Bounce-back ability following traumatic events
Stress management – Individual differences in stress recovery
Clinical psychology – Resilience in mental health treatment
Organizational psychology – Workplace resilience and stress management

View Testable Demo

► Click here to try the Testable implementation

Evaluate your ability to bounce back and recover from life’s challenges and adversities.

Scoring and Interpretation

Response Format

Participants rate their agreement with each statement using a 5-point Likert scale:

1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neutral
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly agree

Complete BRS Items

Positive Resilience Items:

“I tend to bounce back quickly after hard times”
“I have a hard time making it through stressful events” (R)
“It does not take me long to recover from a stressful event”
“It is hard for me to snap back when something bad happens” (R)
“I usually come through difficult times with little trouble”
“I tend to take a long time to get over set-backs in my life” (R)

Scoring Procedure

Reverse score items 2, 4, 6 (subtract from 6)
Sum all item responses and divide by 6 to get mean score
Score range: 1.0-5.0 (mean score)
Higher scores indicate greater resilience/bounce-back ability

Score Interpretation Guidelines

Mean Score Ranges:

High Resilience (4.31-5.00): Excellent ability to bounce back from adversity
Normal Resilience (3.00-4.30): Average resilience and recovery ability
Low Resilience (1.00-2.99): Difficulty bouncing back; may need resilience support

Population Norms:

General adults: M = 3.53, SD = 0.91 (Smith et al., 2008)
College students: M = 3.68, SD = 0.86 (Smith et al., 2008)
Chronic illness patients: M = 3.15, SD = 1.02 (Smith et al., 2013)
Healthcare workers: M = 3.72, SD = 0.79 (Rodríguez-Rey et al., 2020)

Clinical and Research Interpretation

High scorers: Likely to recover quickly from setbacks, adapt well to stress
Low scorers: May benefit from resilience-building interventions and support
Moderate scorers: Typical bounce-back ability with room for enhancement
Clinical cutoffs: Scores below 3.0 may indicate need for resilience intervention

Contextual Considerations

Recent adversity: Scores may be temporarily lower following major stressors
Chronic conditions: Ongoing health issues may impact resilience scores
Cultural factors: Expression of resilience may vary across cultural contexts
Age considerations: Resilience may change across developmental stages

Research Evidence and Psychometric Properties

Reliability Evidence

Internal consistency: α = 0.80-0.91 across diverse populations (Smith et al., 2008)
Test-retest reliability: r = 0.69 (1-month interval), r = 0.62 (3-month interval) (Smith et al., 2008)
Cross-cultural reliability: Consistent alphas across multiple countries (Rodríguez-Rey et al., 2020)
Clinical samples: α = 0.84-0.88 in medical and psychiatric populations (Smith et al., 2013)

Factor Structure and Validity

Factor analysis results:

Unidimensional structure: Single factor with method effects for negative items (Smith et al., 2008)
Cross-cultural validity: Factor structure replicated across cultures (Lai & Yue, 2014)
Clinical validity: Structure maintained in clinical populations (Smith et al., 2013)
Age invariance: Similar structure across adult age groups (Lai & Yue, 2014)

Convergent validity:

Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale: r = 0.51-0.67 (Smith et al., 2008)
Ego-resilience: r = 0.54-0.68 (Smith et al., 2008)
Optimism: r = 0.35-0.52 (Smith et al., 2013)
Self-efficacy: r = 0.40-0.58 (Rodríguez-Rey et al., 2020)

Discriminant validity:

Depression: r = -0.37 to -0.52 (Smith et al., 2008)
Anxiety: r = -0.32 to -0.48 (Smith et al., 2013)
Stress: r = -0.35 to -0.50 (Rodríguez-Rey et al., 2020)
Neuroticism: r = -0.45 to -0.60 (Smith et al., 2008)

Predictive Validity Research

Health outcomes:

Physical health: Higher BRS scores predict better health outcomes (Smith et al., 2013)
Mental health: r = 0.30-0.45 with psychological well-being (Lai & Yue, 2014)
Medical recovery: Predicts faster recovery from illness and surgery (Smith et al., 2013)
Chronic illness adaptation: r = 0.25-0.40 with adjustment measures (Smith et al., 2013)

Stress and coping:

Stress management: Higher resilience predicts better stress coping (Rodríguez-Rey et al., 2020)
Burnout protection: r = -0.40 to -0.55 with burnout symptoms (Smith et al., 2008)
Post-traumatic growth: r = 0.30-0.45 with growth following adversity (Lai & Yue, 2014)

Academic and occupational outcomes:

Academic performance: r = 0.20-0.35 with academic achievement (Smith et al., 2008)
Job performance: Higher resilience predicts better work outcomes (Rodríguez-Rey et al., 2020)
Career satisfaction: r = 0.25-0.40 with job satisfaction (Smith et al., 2013)

Clinical and Medical Research

Chronic illness populations:

Chronic pain: Lower resilience in pain patients vs. controls (Smith et al., 2013)
Cardiovascular disease: Resilience predicts better cardiac outcomes (Smith et al., 2008)
Cancer patients: Higher resilience associated with better adjustment (Lai & Yue, 2014)
Autoimmune disorders: Resilience moderates disease impact on quality of life (Smith et al., 2013)

Mental health applications:

Depression treatment: Baseline resilience predicts treatment response (Rodríguez-Rey et al., 2020)
Anxiety disorders: Higher resilience associated with faster recovery (Smith et al., 2008)
PTSD research: Resilience as protective factor against trauma effects (Lai & Yue, 2014)

Cross-Cultural Research

Cultural adaptations:

Spanish version: Equivalent psychometric properties (Rodríguez-Rey et al., 2020)
Chinese version: Confirmed factor structure and validity (Lai & Yue, 2014)
Multiple cultures: Consistent reliability across 15+ countries (various studies)

Cultural considerations:

Collectivistic cultures: Emphasis on family and community resilience (Lai & Yue, 2014)
Individualistic cultures: Focus on personal bounce-back ability (Smith et al., 2008)
Cultural expression: Resilience manifestation varies across cultures (Rodríguez-Rey et al., 2020)

Intervention Research

Resilience training effectiveness:

Cognitive-behavioral interventions: Effect sizes 0.4-0.8 for BRS improvement (Smith et al., 2013)
Mindfulness-based interventions: Moderate effects on bounce-back ability (Lai & Yue, 2014)
Stress management programs: Significant BRS improvements post-intervention (Rodríguez-Rey et al., 2020)

Clinical Applications and Usage Guidelines

Primary Clinical Applications

Mental health assessment – Evaluate resilience as protective factor
Treatment outcome monitoring – Track resilience building progress
Risk assessment – Low resilience as vulnerability indicator
Intervention planning – Target resilience enhancement when needed
Recovery prediction – Assess likelihood of bounce-back from adversity

Clinical Decision Support

Scores below 3.0: May indicate need for resilience-building interventions
Treatment planning: Consider resilience training for low-scoring clients
Outcome monitoring: Track resilience improvements throughout therapy
Relapse prevention: Build resilience as protective factor against setbacks
Crisis intervention: Assess bounce-back capacity during difficult periods

Health Psychology Applications

Medical resilience: Assess patient capacity to cope with illness
Recovery prediction: Higher resilience predicts better medical outcomes
Chronic illness support: Identify patients needing additional resilience resources
Rehabilitation programs: Monitor resilience development during recovery
Health behavior change: Resilience facilitates sustained lifestyle modifications

Trauma and Crisis Applications

Post-trauma assessment: Evaluate bounce-back ability following traumatic events
Crisis intervention: Assess individual resilience resources during crises
PTSD treatment: Monitor resilience development as treatment progresses
Disaster response: Evaluate community and individual resilience needs
Emergency services: Assess resilience in first responders and healthcare workers

Research Applications

Clinical trials: Outcome measure for resilience-building interventions
Longitudinal studies: Track resilience development and stability over time
Cross-cultural research: Compare resilience across cultural groups
Health research: Resilience as mediator/moderator in health outcomes
Stress research: Individual differences in stress recovery and adaptation

Organizational Uses

Employee wellbeing: Assess workplace resilience and stress management
Training evaluation: Measure effectiveness of resilience training programs
Risk management: Identify employees needing additional resilience support
Leadership development: Resilience as component of effective leadership
Occupational health: Monitor resilience in high-stress professions

Educational Applications

Student counseling: Assess academic resilience and stress management
Intervention programs: Target resilience building for struggling students
Mental health promotion: Identify students needing resilience support
Life skills training: Incorporate resilience development in curricula
Crisis response: Evaluate student resilience following difficult events

Limitations and Considerations

Narrow focus: Measures only bounce-back ability, not broader resilience factors
Retrospective bias: Relies on self-report of past recovery experiences
Cultural interpretation: Bounce-back concept may vary across cultures
State influences: Current stress levels may affect resilience ratings

Import & Customize Testable Template

► Import scale to your Testable account – Add this scale. Modify instructions, edit questions, adjust presentation. Test anyone (including yourself)

► Try Testable version – View the full implementation of this scale in Testable.

► View detailed implementation guide in Testable – Step by step instructions for complete customization.

► Browse other tests and scales in Testable Library – The largest collection of ready-made psychological tests and scales.

Legal and Copyright Information

Copyright and Usage Responsibility: Check that you have the proper rights and permissions to use this assessment tool in your research. This may include purchasing appropriate licenses, obtaining permissions from authors/copyright holders, or ensuring your usage falls within fair use guidelines.

Proper Attribution: When using or referencing this scale, cite the original development:

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.

External Links and Resources

Psychological Resilience – Wikipedia

Center for Mindfulness

Resilience Research Center

Resilience Training Institute

References

Primary Development:

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.

Validation Research:

Smith, B. W., et al. (2013). The role of resilience and purpose in life in habituation to heat and cold pain. The Journal of Pain, 14(11), 1241-1249.
Lai, J. C., & Yue, X. (2014). Using the brief resilience scale to assess Chinese people’s ability to bounce back from stress. SAGE Open, 4(4), 1-9.

Cross-Cultural Studies:

Rodríguez-Rey, R., et al. (2020). Psychological impact and associated factors during the initial stage of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic among the general population in Spain. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1540.

Last Updated:

January 7, 2026