The Brief Resilience Scale measures resilience in its most literal sense: how readily a person bounces back or recovers from stress, rather than the optimism, support, or coping resources that are thought to promote recovery.
It was developed by Bruce Smith and colleagues at the University of New Mexico and validated in undergraduate, cardiac rehabilitation, and fibromyalgia samples, with a Chinese adaptation extending the evidence beyond the United States.
The scale is unidimensional and internally consistent, and it correlates in the expected directions with resilience resources, distress, and health indicators; in Chinese undergraduates it predicted physical health beyond optimism and self-esteem.
Its published interpretation bands are descriptive, not clinical cutoffs, and the validation evidence is largely cross-sectional and adult; balanced positive and negative item wording makes correct reverse-scoring essential.
At a Glance
Items
6 (items 1, 3, and 5 positively worded; items 2, 4, and 6 negatively worded and reverse-coded)
Administration time
About 2-3 minutes (estimate; not stated in the development article)
Single total score: mean of the six items (range 1.00-5.00); the scale is unidimensional, with no subscales
Validated populations
Adults (undergraduates, cardiac rehabilitation patients, women with fibromyalgia, healthy controls; Chinese undergraduate samples)
License
Free for research and clinical use with citation; the items were published in full in the development article
Original citation
Smith et al. (2008), International Journal of Behavioral Medicine
Introduction
The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) is a 6-item self-report measure of the ability to bounce back or recover from stress, developed by Bruce Smith and colleagues in the Department of Psychology at the University of New Mexico (Smith et al., 2008). Where most resilience questionnaires inventory the personal resources thought to promote resilience, the BRS asks directly about the recovery process itself: how quickly and how easily a person returns to functioning after stress, adversity, or illness.
Understanding Resilience as Bounce-Back
The BRS was developed to address a specific measurement concern: many instruments labeled “resilience” measures actually assess factors that may promote resilience, such as optimism, social support, or coping skills, rather than resilience itself (Smith et al., 2008). By restricting its item content to bounce-back ability, the BRS aims to isolate the outcome of interest from its presumed antecedents, which makes it possible to study how resilience resources relate to actual recovery rather than folding the two together. The item set is deliberately balanced, with three positively and three negatively worded statements, to reduce the effects of social desirability and positive response bias (Smith et al., 2008).
Theoretical Foundation
The developers position the BRS as a return to the original and most basic meaning of resilience: the ability to bounce back or recover from stress (Smith et al., 2013). On this view, resilience is an outcome-oriented construct, conceptually distinct from the protective resources that may support it. Later users of the scale have adopted the same framing; Lai & Yue (2014) describe the BRS as relating more closely to the original meaning of resilience than resource-based inventories. Consistent with the intent to measure a single recovery construct, the scale is unidimensional in the development samples and in subsequent validation work (Smith et al., 2008; Lai & Yue, 2014).
🔄 Key insight: According to its developers, the BRS was designed to capture the original and most basic meaning of resilience, the ability to bounce back or recover from stress, rather than the resilience-promoting factors assessed by most other measures (Smith et al., 2013; Lai & Yue, 2014).
Key Features
Assessment Characteristics
6 statements about recovery from stress, three positively and three negatively worded (Smith et al., 2008)
5-point agreement scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree
One score, no subscales: the mean of the six items after reverse-coding
About 2-3 minutes to complete (estimate); developed and validated in adult samples
Freely usable with citation; the full item set was published in the development article
Dimensions Assessed
Bounce-back ability – a single dimension covering the speed and ease of recovery from stressful events and setbacks. Factor analyses in the development and Chinese validation samples support one factor, so the BRS yields one total score rather than a profile (Smith et al., 2008; Lai & Yue, 2014)
Versions & Adaptations
Original 6-item BRS (Smith et al., 2008)
Chinese adaptation, validated in Hong Kong and mainland Chinese undergraduate samples (Lai & Yue, 2014)
No short forms or alternate-length versions were identified during verification
Research Applications
Health and clinical research – the development and validation work spans cardiac rehabilitation patients, women with fibromyalgia, and healthy comparison groups (Smith et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2013)
Stress and individual-differences research – separating recovery ability from the resources (optimism, coping, support) thought to produce it
Cross-cultural measurement research – the Chinese adaptation tests whether the bounce-back construct travels beyond U.S. samples (Lai & Yue, 2014)
Evaluate your ability to bounce back and recover from life’s challenges and adversities.
Scoring and Interpretation
Response Format
Respondents rate their agreement with each statement on a 5-point scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree (Smith et al., 2008).
Complete BRS Items
The six items were published in full in the development article (Smith et al., 2008); items 2, 4, and 6 are reverse-scored:
“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-code items 2, 4, and 6 by subtracting each response from 6.
Average the six responses. The total score is the mean, ranging 1.00-5.00; higher scores indicate greater bounce-back ability (Smith et al., 2008).
Sum metric. Some studies report BRS scores as a sum on a 6-30 metric instead (e.g., Lai & Yue, 2014); dividing the sum by the number of items answered yields the identical mean-score metric.
Score Interpretation
Mean score
Band
Source
1.00-2.99
Low resilience
Smith et al. (2013), pp. 176-177
3.00-4.30
Normal resilience
Smith et al. (2013), pp. 176-177
4.31-5.00
High resilience
Smith et al. (2013), pp. 176-177
These bands were proposed by the scale’s developers, who suggested that “scores below 3.00 be considered low and scores above 4.30 be considered high in resilience,” on the basis of a combined sample of 844 participants with a near-normal distribution and an overall mean of 3.70 (Smith et al., 2013, pp. 176-177). They are descriptive bands, not validated clinical cutoffs: no validated clinical or treatment-decision threshold exists for the BRS, and the instrument is not diagnostic.
Population Norms
Descriptive sample means on the 1-5 mean metric (these characterize specific study samples and are not normative standards):
Sample
N
M
SD
Source
Undergraduate students (Sample 1)
128
3.53
0.68
Smith et al. (2008)
Undergraduate students (Sample 2)
64
3.57
0.76
Smith et al. (2008)
Cardiac rehabilitation patients
112
3.98
0.68
Smith et al. (2008)
Women with fibromyalgia
20
3.09
0.93
Smith et al. (2008)
Healthy control women
30
3.96
0.58
Smith et al. (2008)
College students
259
3.56
0.67
Smith et al. (2013), Table 13.1
Healthy women
51
3.93
0.66
Smith et al. (2013), Table 13.1
Women with fibromyalgia
32
3.18
0.90
Smith et al. (2013), Table 13.1
Cardiac patients
228
3.87
0.69
Smith et al. (2013), Table 13.1
First-generation college students
151
3.54
0.63
Smith et al. (2013), Table 13.1
Urban firefighters
123
3.95
0.49
Smith et al. (2013), Table 13.1
Combined sample (six groups above)
844
3.70
0.68
Smith et al. (2013), Table 13.1 and p. 177
Chinese undergraduate samples, reported on the 6-30 sum metric:
Sample
N
M
SD
Source
Hong Kong undergraduates
547
19.28
3.58
Lai & Yue (2014), Table 1
Mainland (Nanjing) undergraduates
268
19.99
3.11
Lai & Yue (2014), Table 1
Research Evidence and Psychometric Properties
Reliability Evidence
Internal consistency (development samples): Cronbach’s α = .84, .87, .80, and .91 across the four development samples (Smith et al., 2008)
Internal consistency (additional samples): α = 0.70-0.90 across six healthy, patient, and at-risk samples (combined n = 844), including women with fibromyalgia (α = 0.88) and cardiac patients (α = 0.80) (Smith et al., 2013, p. 172)
Test-retest reliability: ICC = 0.69 over 1 month (n = 48) and 0.62 over 3 months (n = 61) (Smith et al., 2008)
Chinese version: α = 0.76 (Hong Kong, n = 547) and 0.72 (mainland, n = 268) (Lai & Yue, 2014, Table 1)
Factor Structure
Unidimensional in development: a one-factor solution in all four development samples, explaining 55-67% of variance, with item loadings 0.68-0.91 (Smith et al., 2008)
Replicated in Chinese samples: a single factor explaining 46.7% of variance in Hong Kong and 42.2% in mainland China, with item loadings 0.42-0.81 (Lai & Yue, 2014, Table 3)
Convergent Validity
Other resilience measures: Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale r = 0.59 (Sample 1); ego-resiliency r = 0.51 and 0.49, moderate correlations consistent with related but distinct constructs (Smith et al., 2008)
Optimism: r = 0.45-0.69 across the four development samples (Smith et al., 2008); r = 0.575 in the combined sample of 844 (Smith et al., 2013, Table 13.2); r = 0.31 (Hong Kong) and 0.51 (mainland) in Chinese undergraduates (Lai & Yue, 2014, Table 2)
Other resilience resources (combined sample, n = 844): mood clarity r = 0.49, mindfulness r = 0.35, active coping r = 0.34, purpose in life r = 0.29, positive relations r = 0.23, social support r = 0.21 (Smith et al., 2013, Table 13.2)
Self-esteem and health (Chinese samples): self-esteem r = 0.34 (Hong Kong) and 0.54 (mainland); physical health r = 0.31 and 0.36 (Lai & Yue, 2014, Table 2)
Inverse Associations
Distress and symptoms (development samples): perceived stress r = -0.60 to -0.71; depression r = -0.41 to -0.66; anxiety r = -0.46 to -0.60; physical symptoms r = -0.28 to -0.50 (Smith et al., 2008)
Pessimism (hopelessness): r = -0.35 (Hong Kong) and -0.54 (mainland) (Lai & Yue, 2014, Table 2)
Predictive and Incremental Validity
Physical health (Chinese undergraduates): BRS scores predicted physical-health variance beyond gender, age, optimism, and self-esteem (ΔR² = 0.054, Hong Kong; ΔR² = 0.036, mainland) and mediated the effect of optimism and self-esteem on physical health (Lai & Yue, 2014, Table 4 and path models)
Caveat: the development evidence is cross-sectional; the developers named longitudinal prediction of recovery as a direction for future research (Smith et al., 2008)
Clinical Comparisons
Fibromyalgia: women with fibromyalgia scored substantially lower than healthy controls (M = 3.09 vs. 3.96, d = 1.12, p < .001; Smith et al., 2008); the pattern replicated in the later combined-sample work (fibromyalgia M = 3.18 vs. healthy women M = 3.93; Smith et al., 2013, Table 13.1)
Cardiac rehabilitation: in 112 cardiac rehabilitation patients, higher BRS scores were associated cross-sectionally with lower distress and fatigue and with more exercise days (r = 0.23), and Type D (distressed) patients scored lower (d = 1.32) (Smith et al., 2008)
Cross-Cultural Evidence
Chinese adaptation: the adapted BRS measured a single construct and showed convergent validity in both Hong Kong (n = 547) and mainland (n = 268) undergraduate samples (Lai & Yue, 2014)
Usage Guidelines and Applications
Primary Applications
Measuring recovery from stress as an outcome in health, clinical, and stress research, separate from the resources presumed to promote it
Comparing resilience across healthy, patient, and at-risk groups, as in the fibromyalgia and cardiac rehabilitation work (Smith et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2013)
Brief resilience assessment where testing time is constrained, given the 6-item length
Research Design Considerations
Report the metric used: both the 1-5 mean metric (Smith et al., 2008) and the 6-30 sum metric (Lai & Yue, 2014) appear in the literature; they are arithmetically equivalent but not directly comparable as printed numbers
Verify reverse-coding of items 2, 4, and 6 before computing scores; half the item set is negatively worded
Treat the interpretation bands as descriptive: no validated clinical or intervention cutoff exists for the BRS (Smith et al., 2013)
Mind the cross-sectional evidence base: claims about the BRS predicting later recovery outcomes go beyond the published validation data (Smith et al., 2008)
Cultural Considerations
The Chinese adaptation supports the unidimensional structure and convergent validity outside U.S. samples, though with somewhat lower internal consistency (α = 0.72-0.76) than the U.S. development samples (Lai & Yue, 2014)
Check for a published local validation before using a translation; validation evidence verified for this page covers the English original and the Chinese adaptation
Limitations and Cautions
Narrow construct coverage by design: the BRS measures bounce-back ability only, not the broader set of resilience resources; pair it with resource measures when those are of interest
Self-report: responses reflect respondents’ appraisal of their own past recovery, and current stress levels may color the ratings
Adult samples only: the development and validation samples were all adults; no child or adolescent validation was identified during verification
Moderate temporal stability: test-retest ICCs of 0.62-0.69 (Smith et al., 2008) suggest scores are not fixed trait constants; interpret change scores accordingly
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.
The BRS items were published in full in the original development article (Smith et al., 2008) and the scale circulates freely for research and clinical use with citation of that source. No formal license statement from the developers was located during verification; for commercial applications, it is advisable to contact the scale developers.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705500802222972
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705500802222972
Norms and Interpretation:
Smith, B. W., Epstein, E. M., Ortiz, J. A., Christopher, P. J., & Tooley, E. M. (2013). The foundations of resilience: What are the critical resources for bouncing back from stress? In S. Prince-Embury & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), Resilience in children, adolescents, and adults: Translating research into practice (pp. 167-187). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4939-3_13
Cross-Cultural Validation:
Lai, J. C. L., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014554386
Related Assessments: CD-RISC: Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (link added when its page goes live)
A kangaroo joyfully bouncing on a trampoline with its joey, symbolizing the ability to bounce back – the core idea of the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS)
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the BRS measure?
The Brief Resilience Scale measures a person's ability to bounce back or recover from stress, adversity, or illness. Unlike most resilience questionnaires, which assess resilience-promoting resources such as optimism, social support, or coping skills, the BRS asks directly about the recovery process itself (Smith et al., 2008). It yields a single score; the scale is unidimensional, with no subscales.
How is the BRS scored?
Reverse-code items 2, 4, and 6 (subtract each response from 6), then average the six responses to obtain a mean score from 1.00 to 5.00; higher scores indicate greater bounce-back ability. Some studies instead report a sum on a 6-30 metric, which is arithmetically equivalent once divided by the number of items answered.
What do BRS scores mean?
The developers proposed descriptive bands: below 3.00 low, 3.00-4.30 normal, and above 4.30 high resilience, based on a combined sample of 844 participants with an overall mean of 3.70 (Smith et al., 2013, pp. 176-177). These are descriptive bands, not validated clinical cutoffs; no diagnostic or treatment-decision threshold exists for the BRS.
Is the BRS free to use?
Yes for research and clinical use. The six items were published in full in the original development article, and the scale circulates freely with citation of Smith et al. (2008). No formal license statement from the developers was located during verification; for commercial applications, contact the scale developers.
How reliable is the BRS?
Internal consistency was Cronbach's alpha .80 to .91 across the four development samples (Smith et al., 2008) and 0.70 to 0.90 across six additional healthy, patient, and at-risk samples (Smith et al., 2013). Test-retest reliability was ICC = 0.69 over one month and 0.62 over three months (Smith et al., 2008). The Chinese adaptation showed alphas of 0.76 (Hong Kong) and 0.72 (mainland) (Lai & Yue, 2014).
How does the BRS differ from the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC)?
The BRS targets bounce-back ability specifically, whereas the CD-RISC is a 25-item measure of broader resilience-promoting factors, including personal competence, trust, acceptance of change, control, and spiritual influences. The two correlated moderately (r = 0.59) in the BRS development work (Smith et al., 2008), consistent with related but distinct constructs, and the BRS is considerably shorter at 6 items.
Has the BRS been validated outside the United States?
A Chinese adaptation was validated in 815 undergraduates across Hong Kong and mainland China: the scale measured a single construct, showed convergent validity with optimism, self-esteem, and physical health, and predicted physical health beyond gender, age, optimism, and self-esteem (Lai & Yue, 2014). Researchers using other translations should check for a published local validation first.
