Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to develop and validate a measurement scale for assessing resilience among immigrant youth.

Methods

We adopted a mixed-method approach, conducting interviews with 26 immigrant youth and testing these items in a quantitative study of 215 immigrant youth from Windsor-Essex, Canada.

Results

The EFA using Principal Axis Factoring yielded five factors, accounting for 50% of the total variance. The internal reliability for the total scale was 0.92. As expected, the newly developed Resilience Scale for Immigrant Youth (RSIY) and all five subscales were significantly and positively related to another measure of resilience, CYRM, ranging from r = .37 to r = .55, p < .00. The RSIY scale differentiated youth based on their emotional and behavioral difficulties level, providing evidence for its convergent validity.

Discussion

The initial psychometric evidence indicates that the scale demonstrates good internal consistency, well-supported factor structure, and evidence of construct and predictive validity.

Keywords

immigrant youth resilience scale development factor analysis mixed-methods Canada

Immigrant and refugee youth comprise a significant proportion of the foreign-born population in Canada. In 2021, immigrant youth (aged 15–24) represented approximately 19.1% (1.59 million) of the total immigrant population in Canada (8.36 million) (Statistics Canada, 2021a). Newcomer youth, who arrived between 2016 and 2021, comprised 11.7% (approximately 155,890 individuals). Migration and displacement are traumatic experiences for many, especially newcomer youth, as they transition to adulthood. Immigrant youth face both developmental and acculturative challenges, often in the context of anti-immigrant prejudice and discrimination (Motti-Stefanidi, 2023; Motti-Stefanadi & Masten, 2017; Suárez-Orozco et al., 2018).

Adolescence and early adulthood are times of significant biological and social change. During these periods, stressors can have substantial and lasting effects on developmental outcomes (Doane et al., 2023). For many newcomer youths, these developmental challenges are further exacerbated by premigration exposures to political instability, war, economic hardships, family separation, and social marginalization. Upon migration, they must navigate language barriers, cultural dissonance, discrimination, economic struggles, and academic setbacks (Guruge & Butt, 2015; Kirmayer et al., 2011). These compounded adversities increase their susceptibility to adverse outcomes such as poor mental health and academic performance, hampering their social functioning and social integration (Beiser & Hou, 2016; Guo et al., 2019; Woodgate & Busolo, 2018). Given these challenges and concomitant inimical outcomes, studying resilience is crucial to understanding how immigrant youth adapt and thrive despite these hardships. We define newcomer youth as those aged 13–24, born outside of Canada to parents neither of whom was a Canadian citizen, and who are immigrants (permanent residents) or refugees who have been in Canada for less than 8 years.

Resilience remains a complicated concept (Ku et al., 2025), and so is its measurement. Initially, resilience was defined as individual traits and characteristics in response to stress and adversity (Rutter, 1987). While such definitions facilitate the development of measures (e.g., Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale; Brief Resilience Scale, Smith et al., 2008), they risk overemphasizing internal attributes and may inadvertently pathologize immigrant youth who struggle. More recent theoretical and empirical research on resilience suggests the need to move beyond individual agency and focus on family, school, and community-level resilience for positive adaptation (Masten, 2015; Ungar et al., 2008)—an ecological framework highly relevant to the complex adversities encountered by newcomer youth. However, many existing measures focus on individual traits rather than capturing the systemic factors that shape resilience. As a result, these scales may fail to capture the influence of ecological factors, limiting their effectiveness in assessing resilience in newcomer youth.

There are very limited scales to measure resilience in adolescents. Resilience measures developed for use in other adult populations are usually administered among adolescents and young adults (Ballard et al., 2024). Three specific scales developed for adolescents and young adult populations are the Child and Youth Resilience Measure Revised (CYRM-R), Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents (RSCA; Prince-Embury, 2008), and Resilience Scale for Adolescents (READ; Hjemdal et al., 2006) and are not without limitations. The CYRM-R assesses the limited socioecological resources available and accessible to youth. A recent meta-analysis (Renbarger et al., 2020) challenges the cross-cultural relevance of the CYRM and cautions against its use to assess resilience factors in young people. Although the RSCA's strength lies in its ability to provide a Vulnerability Index and a Resource Index, it is lengthy (64 items) and primarily focuses on individual characteristics, such as Sense of Mastery, Sense of Relatedness, and Emotional Reactivity. The READ developed among the Norwegian adolescent population measures individual and external resources. However, its social resources dimension is limited to perceived access to external support from friends and relatives. Given these limitations, Windle et al. (2011) concluded that there is no gold standard in their review of 15 resilience measures in adults and adolescents.

The overall objective of this study was to develop and validate a psychometrically sound and culturally relevant resilience scale for immigrant youth (RSIY), following the systematic framework for scale development outlined by Boateng et al. (2018). This three-phase approach included: (1) Item generation through a combination of deductive and inductive approaches involving a comprehensive literature review and in-depth interviews with immigrant youth; (2) content validation and item refinement via cognitive interviews and expert reviews; and (3) psychometric evaluation through exploratory factor analysis and construct validity assessment. This process ensured that the resulting scale was both theoretically grounded and empirically robust.

Validation

The newly developed RSIY was validated using the unitary validity framework, which regards validity as a single construct supported by multiple strands of evidence: Test content, response process, internal structure and validity based on relationships with related variables (Bandalos, 2018; Borsboom et al., 2004; Standards, 2014). First, evidence related to test content, that is, how well the items reflect the construct of interest, was established through a structured process that included reviewing existing literature, consulting service providers, and incorporating expert feedback. Second, evidence tied to response processes, which evaluates whether participants interpret and respond to items as intended, was gathered through cognitive interviews with youth participants. Third, the internal structure of the scale, that is, how well item groupings correspond to the underlying theoretical dimensions, was examined using exploratory factor analysis. Consistent with the socio-ecological theory of resilience, we hypothesize that the RSIY will have a multidimensional structure with items loading onto multiple distinct but related factors, representing the personal, family, school, peer, and community domains. Fourth, to establish validity based on relationships with other variables, we calculated correlations with comparable resilience measures and conducted group comparisons using scores from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). We hypothesize that immigrant youth classified in the clinical range of the SDQ would report significantly lower resilience scores compared to those in the borderline and normal categories. While direct assessment of testing consequences was not undertaken at this stage, the instrument was designed to support informed decision-making in services and policy for immigrant youth. Taken together, these steps reflect a rigorous and context-sensitive approach to scale validation.

Phase 1: Item Generation and Refinement

Defining the Concept of Resilience and Literature Review

Various definitions of resilience exist. While early resilience research focused on individual attributes, more recent work emphasizes the dynamic interaction of individual protective factors and the broader social systems. We will use Ungar's et al. (2008) social ecology of resilience.
In the context of exposure to significant adversity, resilience is both the capacity of individuals to navigate their way to the psychological, social, cultural, and physical resources that sustain their wellbeing, and their capacity individually and collectively to negotiate for these resources to be provided in culturally meaningful ways” (p.225).
The social ecology of resilience suggests that resilience is not only the individual child's capacity to do well, but also whether the child's environment provides the necessary resources that facilitate their positive development (Ungar et al., 2013). Similar views embedding resilience in the environment of the individual have been expounded by Windle (2011) and Masten (2021). Windle (2011) states that individual protective factors and environmental resources underlie “bouncing back” in the face of adversity. Masten (2021) asserts that an individual's resilience is interconnected with the resilience of broader systems, including family, school, peer groups, community, and culture. In the current study, we conceptualize resilience as an ecological process, that is, the newcomer youth's perception of resources available in their ecological environment, such as in family, school, and the larger community, and their capacity to engage relationally to access and utilize these resources to sustain their developmental and psychological well-being and positive adaptation. The emphasis here is not only on the individual's ability to bounce back from adversity or the availability of support in the youth's ecological environment, but also on how the broader system (family, school, community) functions collectively to support youth adaptation rather than acting as isolated entities. Our scale development is thus informed by this dynamic, process-based understanding of resilience, which highlights the collective responsibility of ecological systems in supporting youth.

Literature Review

Informed by the social-ecological perspective on resilience (Ungar et al., 2013), we identified relevant domains and items related to youth's internal and ecological resources. In doing so, we paid attention to the individual assets and resources available to newcomer youth within their social-ecological environment, including family, friends, school, community, and societal values, and how they navigate and negotiate for these shared resources through relationships with others.

Internal Resources

Resilience as an individual trait has been studied extensively (Bottrell, 2009; Carlson et al., 2012; Jefferies et al., 2022; Smith et al., 2008). In a meta-synthesis of 21 resilience scales, Wadi et al. (2020) found four themes mostly related to internal resources or the capacity of individuals. These are control, resourcefulness, growth, and involvement. Immigrant and refugee youth additionally rely on positive mindset to stay strong and have faith in oneself when things are hard (Smith et al., 2023), living in the present with hope for the future (Yalim & Chapple, 2023); taking an active role in the adjustment process (Smith et al., 2023); learning the English language (Salam et al., 2022; Smith et al., 2023); academic success (Khan & Khanlou, 2021), strengths, flexibility, and a strong mindset to adapt to new environments (Gyan et al., 2023), and confidence when confronting transition challenges (Okeke-Ihejirika et al., 2020). In summary, for immigrant youth, internal resources are linked to acculturative tasks, such as learning English, seeking help, and being willing to learn about Canada and its people, in addition to general psychological resources.

Ecological Resources

Resources within the social-ecological context include support from family and friends, school/teachers, and community, including support from settlement organizations. Social support from family and friends was reported to be the central resource for youth resilience in a multi-country study involving data from 14 countries (Höltge et al., 2021). Family connectedness, parental involvement in school, supervision of children, and communication were essential resources that led to resilience among Latino immigrant youth in the United States (Cardoso & Thompson, 2010). Kiramba et al. (2022) highlighted that building friendships with other minority groups at schools, families’ support and expectations about their schoolwork, and parental encouragement were important resilience factors for African immigrant youth in the United States. Support from peers who shared similar migration experiences, and a similar cultural background was important for Syrian refugee youth resettled in Canada in their belonging to the school environment (Salam et al., 2022). Positive school environments, such as the availability of English support resources and support from teachers, providing opportunities for newcomer youth to connect with Canadian peers, are critical resources for newcomer youth to adapt to host countries (Salam et al., 2022; Selimos & Daniel, 2017). Immigrant respondents in the Brodsky et al. (2022) study reported that openness in the receiving community and access to shared resources, such as relationships with people and organizations that provided tangible and intangible support, were critical to their adjustment to a new context. Accessing support and resources from newcomer-serving organizations was helpful in overcoming barriers related to adjustment (Smith et al., 2023). Unlike general youth, immigrant youth draw heavily on cultural continuity and settlement-specific supports to navigate systemic barriers.

Study 1 Method

Research Design

Sample and Qualitative Interview Procedures

We employed purposive sampling to conduct semistructured, in-depth interviews via Zoom with 26 newcomer immigrant and refugee youths from May to August 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants were recruited from one of the settlement agencies providing services to newcomer youth in Windsor-Essex.

Study Participants

Participants were youth aged 13–21, consisting of an equal number of males and females. Most of them were from Syria (n = 20) and spoke Arabic at home. Most of them (n = 21) attended some schooling before coming to Canada. Their stay in Canada ranged from 8 to 60 months (Median = 33 months).

Interview Guide

Guided by the socio-ecological theory of resilience and literature review, the interview guide explored: (a) Challenges youth face in adjusting to Canada, including navigating Canadian culture while maintaining their own, experiences of being treated differently due to their immigration background, and acculturation-related conflicts with parents; (b) strategies for handling these challenges, including their strengths, hopes, dreams, and pride in their cultural identity; (c) sources of family support and the role of parents or other family members in helping youth achieve their goals; (d) family narratives and cultural or religious messages; (e) school experiences, including support from peers and teachers; and (f) access to community resources and supports. To contextualize youth experiences and foster a trusting environment, we also included questions about their pre-emigration experiences. For example, participants were asked, “What was the most challenging aspect of leaving your home country?” and “What most surprised you upon arriving in Canada?” Participants were encouraged to reflect on their adjustment journey and the internal strengths and external supports that enabled them to navigate adversity and sustain well-being in the host country. The interview guide was translated into Arabic, the second-most-spoken language in Windsor-Essex, ON. The University Research Ethics Board (University of Windsor) approved the research protocol on January 21, 2020.

Qualitative Data Analysis

The three researchers in this article and a graduate research assistant read all the anonymized transcripts and developed a coding manual with codes (22) and sub-codes (130). A conceptual definition of each code was written. Once all the transcripts were read and coded, all four researchers met several times to discuss each theme and subthemes. Members of the research team reviewed and finalized the themes and subthemes by adding new codes, recoding, and deleting overlapping codes. Both inductive and deductive approaches informed our data analysis plan. The initial approach to coding was deductive, informed by theoretical perspectives and empirical literature related to the concept of resilience. As we became more immersed in the data, the inductive method guided our analysis, paying attention to intersectional aspects of newcomer youth's experiences. This encompassed their evolving understanding of their heritage in the context of the host environment and their engagement with networks and resources in Canada and transnationally.

Researchers’ Background

The data analysis is guided by our own immigrant experience and Western academic training. We thus work from the lens of diasporic living in the West, as all of us are racialized migrants ourselves. The experiences of immigrant youth resonate with our experiences of integrating into our new homes and coping with the changes. Our social justice-oriented, anticolonial perspective framed our desire to mitigate the difficulties and marginalization faced by newcomers and the global inequalities that compel people from the global South to leave their homes and migrate to other countries. Except for the second author, we all identify as cis- women and work in Canada. The second author is based in Singapore. All the authors are in disciplines where we undertake research to advance community well-being, either through social work practice or/and feminist praxis. Our contradictory insider/outsider status creates opportunities for reflection when we question our work, our relationship with our participants and our research products and outcomes. The interviews maintained our empathy while the quantitative work allowed us to develop a healthy distance. To ensure our research was transparent and rigorous, we met regularly to manage our emotional investment and maintain academic integrity. The first and second authors’ strengths are in quantitative research, and they led the analysis in this paper. The third author mainly focuses on feminist qualitative work in contributing to the conceptualization of youth resilience in this project. The fourth author helped steer the mixed-methods aspect of the research and contributed to how we theorized postcolonial immigrant experience.

Study 1 Results

We identified two overall themes: Individual and Internal Capacity involves (a) individual capacities such as language competency and confidence; (b) a realistic assessment of one's capacity to what is available around to them; (c) the capacity to mobilize themselves and others around them as well as the resources that are available and taking action to meet the goals of one's development and wellbeing; (d) the capacity to deal with change such as flexibility and openness to diversity. Participants also emphasized the importance of maintaining their cultural roots and connection to the physical environment, as well as faith in religion or a higher power. This theme aligns with Ungar's et al. (2008) concept of individuals’ ability to navigate psychological and social resources when experiencing adversity.

The second theme, Ecological and Contextual Resources, involves subthemes such as societal values (values adopted by the individual—or the extent to which they hold values that are consistent, complement, or envisioned of society, such as multiculturalism, equality, freedom, and safety), community support, resources available in the neighborhood and school, the support they receive from teachers and peers, formal community organizations, and ethnic immigrant communities, family support (having the support of the family and a private space where help and nurturance occur), and the physical environment (having access to nature and spaces for collective activities, solitude, and safety). Family support was mentioned as a very strong and important cultural norm to overcome challenges and keep the family strong. Peer relationships, both local and long-distance, also played a critical role in providing encouragement, practical help with language learning, and emotional connection. Community organizations and schools were essential in facilitating integration and providing resources. Settlement agencies offered language support, homework assistance, and opportunities to build connections. This theme emphasizes the importance of accessing ecological and contextual resources that newcomer youth can identify, negotiate, utilize, and navigate to promote their well-being.

The identified themes were consistent with the socio-ecological framework and aligned with existing literature. They comprised a mix of general resilience indicators, such as individual coping and family support, and immigration-related resilience indicators, including cultural adaptation and support from formal community organizations and ethnic immigrant communities. In developing the scale items, we identified shared protective factors and resources relevant to both immigrant and nonimmigrant youth, as well as those uniquely tied to immigration-related resilience.

Phase 2: Item Development and Refinement of the Resilience Scale for Immigrant Youth

Informed by Ungar's social ecology of resilience, literature review, and qualitative themes, 78 items were developed that reflect the individual child's resilience and the other systems, such as family, peer groups, school, and community. The words of the research participants guided the construction of the items (see Table 1). The items were worded to reflect the youth's perception of support and services available in their ecological environment and their ability to take action to access these resources to deal with adversity in relationships with others. This phase of the scale development involved providing evidence for content validity and establishing response process validity. Content validity refers to the extent to which the items on a scale adequately represent the construct or domain it is intended to measure. Construct underrepresentation and construct-irrelevant variance are threats associated with evidence based on content (Bandalos, 2018). Construct underrepresentation arises when the scale content is defined too narrowly, omitting key dimensions of the intended construct. Construct-irrelevant variance occurs when scale scores are affected by factors unrelated to the construct the scale is intended to measure.

Table 1.
Illustration of Translation from Sample Quotes to Item Development of the Resilience Scale for Immigrant Youth (RSIY).

Themes Subthemes Sample Quotes Into Items Translation No. of Items

Individual and internal capacity Ability to find solutions “To be honest, there is some difficulty with this, from the side of (with regards to) language, but everything has a solution.” (PI-14) You look for solutions to your problems 10 items

Dealing with change, being flexible and open to change “I went to the guidance office…but I did not give up. I would always go to her, so she could switch classes for me.” (PI- 17)“When they bully me, I wouldn’t care…. I would just throw their talk behind me … They would fight with me, but I would fight back with them too … I was not weak to the point where they would hit me, swear at me, or fight with me, and I stayed quiet. Yeah, I would answer them back …” (PI-26) You take steps to achieve your dreams.You have the courage to respond to people who treat you differently because of your race (for example, when people make negative personal comments).

Positive self-assessment “I have confidence (that) I will achieve my dreams, and Inshallah (God Willing) I will become a doctor or something like that. And I can—Mmm. (Pause).” (PI-19)“Yeah, I have a lot of confidence in myself. I feel that anything that I do I will definitely have the ability to accomplish it. And I am very proud of myself.” (PI-13) You remain hopeful in difficult times.You are confident that you will do well in the future.

Ecological/ Contextual Resources Societal values—One's values are respected and valid.Being able to practice one's culture here in Canada. “There is not anyone that will be spying (watching) you or a person telling you “don’t do that.” (PI-11)Yes, yes. I am proud of my culture and all my traditions and mindsets/beliefs.” (PI-8) You feel you can freely practice your culture in CanadaYou are proud of your culture. 3 items

Community support-opportunities provided by community/formal organizations “Before COVID happened, I used to go to XXX (Community Agency), I used to go to volunteer. Also, I used to go to XXX (community agency), and I used to volunteer there too. Where else I went? I went to XXX when I had homework and I needed help with it, so I used to go there.” (PI-17) Your community provides opportunities for you to volunteer and network 22 items

Support from school, teachers & peers, friends “If I do not understand something and we are online, more than one person, she (teacher)takes me to a break(out) room and explains the question to me by myself, and she goes back. (PI-11)” You are valued and respected by your teachers

Peer support-giving and receiving “Not at all … foreigners (local Canadian students) were very good with me. I would teach them, and they would teach me.” (PI-25)“If anything happens to me … I tell my friend (male) who is here. Like, he is the person I speak to the most in a day.” (PI-11) You help each other as friends.You have friends you trust.

Family Support “My mom is really supportive of me; she's like, “No matter what, we are always going to be there for you, so don’t worry about it. I know you can do it, you are a really good student.” (PI-04) You get support from your family when you need them. 6 items

Physical environment -Having access to spaces for collective activities, solitude, and safety. “I haven’t really heard any complaints. I think it is a safe neighborhood.”(PI-04)“Sometimes, I go with my older sister, we go for a walk. It helps me to change the atmosphere.”(PI-18) Neighborhood is safe.You are able to find things in nature/environment that brings you joy. 2 items

To establish content validity and address construct underrepresentation, we conducted expert reviews by first inviting service providers to review the scale items to assess their relevance, comprehensiveness, and cultural appropriateness and to ensure the items were phrased in a way that made sense to newcomer youth. Thirty-six service providers from various organizations across the region affiliated with the Windsor-Essex Local Immigration Partnership attended the event. Instructions were provided to indicate whether the items could be accepted, rejected, or modified. The service providers either approved the items or recommended modifications. Items that were redundant, overly repetitive, or considered too complex for immigrant youth (e.g., “I know what skills and abilities I have to make choices in my life”) were excluded. We also asked service providers to submit recommendations for improvements. Suggested improvements included items about family being repetitive, replacing mother/father with parent/guardian, adding items related to access to technology, and defining “distress,” and “diversity.” A few service providers questioned the inclusion of prayer and spiritual practice items, stating that if participants do not pray or believe in God, they may feel uncomfortable about it. We integrated their feedback and revised the scale items (we deleted 25 items) before seeking expert opinions. Items were deleted if they were too similar. For example: “My family guides me to deal with life challenges/problems”; “I can ask guidance/support from my parents/guardians to deal with the problems”; “my family protects me when I have challenges.” Poor item quality and lack of clarity were other reasons for item deletion (e.g., “I improve myself to reach my goals”; “My accent is not a barrier in getting resources”; “Social activities (going for a walk, exercise, listening to music, drawing) help me to find solutions to my problems.” Further, items related to parents/guardians supporting children with school-related issues and family discussions about social discrimination and racial bias were deleted due to concerns about contextual relevance, as the youth's ability to meaningfully respond to these items depended on newcomer immigrant and refugee families’ familiarity with Canadian culture.

Four members of the expert panel, three social work professors, and a psychology professor with expertise in youth work, resilience, and well-being, evaluated the final 53 items. We asked the panel members to evaluate each item and provide their feedback on the relevance of each item to the content domain using a 4-point rating scale, 1—highly relevant, 2—quite relevant/needs rewording, 3—somewhat relevant, 4— not relevant. The expert panel was asked to provide suggestions for rewording and/or adding new items not covered in this scale. The expert panel rated the items as “highly relevant,” with ratings ranging from 64% to 84%. Items that were deemed “not relevant” by at least two panel members were subsequently removed (4 items). The expert researchers cautioned us against using the word “diversity.” One researcher recommended that the term “diversity” may have different meanings for migrant youth, so defining it would be helpful. We revised the original item, “Diversity helps me adapt to the community,” to “Having people from the same cultural/racial group helps me adjust to the community.” Once we finalized the scale items, we asked an Indigenous doctoral student to review the items to ensure cultural relevance. Their suggestion was to add additional items that reflect Indigenous worldviews on resilience, as a connection to land and people (Kirmayer et al., 2011).

Cognitive Interviews

Cognitive interviews were used to gather evidence for response process validity and to identify sources of construct-irrelevant variance, particularly related to language comprehension. Seven respondents were recruited from Phase 1 participants who completed the virtual in-depth interviews in English. Most of them were female (5), came mainly from Syria (5), one from Iraq, and another from Pakistan, and had a length of residence in Canada from 30 months to 82 months. The principal researcher, who shared the participants’ immigration background, conducted one-hour cognitive interviews via virtual Zoom in March 2023. We used concurrent probing, where questions were asked directly after each individual question. Probing questions focused on identifying comprehension problems, how the respondents interpret certain words, and selecting a response. For example, in the item, “You look for solutions to your problems,” the probing questions we used were “What does the term ‘looking for solutions’ mean to you?”; “Was that easy or hard to answer? Participants’ responses were, “If I have problems or anything, I look forward to solving it and trying to help, and I like to solve it,”; “Solve the problem,”; “I find my way out,”; “Solutions mean getting someone's help or someone's ideas.” For items assessing religious/spiritual support (e.g., “Prayer helps you deal with problems”; “You find meaning and purpose in spiritual practice”), many respondents did not understand these items or felt uncertain because they are not religious. Data collection, analysis, and item revisions were conducted simultaneously. Findings from the expert panel and cognitive interviews informed revisions to enhance item clarity, cultural relevance, and alignment with the resilience construct. As a result, ten items were removed from the scale. The complete item pool for psychometric testing in Study 2 consisted of 43 items. Before introducing the items, respondents were asked to reflect on the following statement: “Think about difficult life events in your life, and what you did/do, as well as how your family, friends, teachers, and the larger community had helped you deal with difficult and challenging life experiences.” Items were scored on a five-point Likert-type scale, where 1 was “Not at all true” and 5 was “Extremely true,” with higher scores indicating higher resilience.

Phase 3: Scale Administration and Evaluation

Study 2 Method

Research Design Overview

This was a cross-sectional study. We used convenience sampling to collect data from a sample of 215 newcomer immigrant and refugee youth. Youths were eligible to participate if they were between the ages of 13 and 24 and had been living in Windsor-Essex for at least six months but no more than eight years. Windsor-Essex is a unique deindustrializing border zone, where 23.3% of the population is comprised of newcomers (Statistics Canada, 2021b). It is an important immigration site in Ontario, with newcomers from Iraq, Syria, and India bringing diverse languages, religions, and cultures to the region. However, the economic downturn and declining auto industry have created an ambivalent climate toward immigrants and refugees (George et al., 2017). This has further complicated how immigrant youth experience belonging and develop the capacities and resilience needed to navigate the life cycle challenges of adolescence and young adulthood. Participants were recruited from settlement agencies that provide services to newcomer youth in Windsor-Essex. Community agencies invited researchers to attend their youth programs. The researchers informed potential respondents about the study's purpose, the voluntary nature of participation, the consent process, and potential risks and benefits. They were invited to complete a paper survey or provide their contact details for Zoom interviews. A few participants were recruited through snowball sampling. To recruit potential participants, we matched the language and culture of the research assistant with the study participants. As a token of appreciation, respondents received a gift certificate valued at $25. All research materials, including the consent forms, were available in Arabic or English. Translation was conducted by Multi-Languages Corporation in partnership with Access Alliance Language Services. Two professional translators, both affiliated with the Association of Translators and Interpreters of Ontario, conducted the translation and back-translation of the survey and consent documents. One translator translated the survey into Arabic, and a second independent translator back-translated the Arabic version into English.

Additional Measures

In addition to the newly developed resilience items, we included theoretically relevant variables to provide construct and criterion validity of this newly developed scale. Measures selected are based on the evidence of good psychometric properties in migrant and refugee families: CYRM (Libenberg et al., 2013; Cronbach's Alpha in this study was 0.89); WHO-5 Well-being Index (World Health Organization, 2024; Cronbach’ Alpha = 0.84); Emotional and behavioral development was measured by the SDQ (Goodman, 1997; Cronbach's Alpha = 0.70). We used the Canadian SDQ cut-points derived from Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS) (Turner et al., 2023). To establish discriminant validity, we used Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; Cohen et al., 1983; Cronbach's Alpha = 0.41), an 11-point Generalized Trust Scale (Lundmark et al., 2016), “In your opinion, to what extent is it generally possible to trust people?”. The 11 points represent a continuum from “people cannot be generally trusted” (0) to most people can be trusted (10) and the physical activity variable (Merlo et al., 2020): “During the past 7 days, on how many days were you physically active for a total of at least 60 min per day?” Respondents were asked to select one option between 0 and 7 days.

Participants

The participants’ ages ranged from 13 to 24, with the mean age being 16.73 (SD = 2.60). Approximately 46% (99 participants) identified as a man/boy, and 54% (117 participants) identified as a woman/girl. None of the participants selected other gender categories. More than half of the participants identified as Arab (53.7%) and Black (25.0%). Many participants, 67.9% (146 participants), reported coming to Canada as refugees. While 26.5% of participants have lived in Canada for one year or less, 40.5% for 2–5 years, and 24.2% for more than five years. Regarding education, 86.6% (187 participants) of the youth participants reported attending school before coming to Canada, and currently, most of them are in high school, grades 9–12 (76.4%).

Data Analysis Plan

Before conducting the structural analysis, we examined the response distributions of the individual items (Clark & Watson, 1995). Item pair correlations were calculated to rule out redundant items (r > .90). Ceiling effects were identified if items had >50% on extreme responses. Items were considered skewed if they were out of range ±2 (Hair et al., 2022). A Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) with Promax rotation was first conducted to examine the underlying structure of the newly developed scale. PAF was considered because it focuses on extracting the underlying common variance shared by items rather than the total variance (Burton & Mazerolle, 2011), which is appropriate for testing latent structures of newly developed scales. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure value >0.80 indicates that the sample is more likely to yield reliable factor solutions. A significant Bartlett's sphericity value test indicates enough inter-correlations among items for factor analysis. Eigenvalue > 1 rule (EV > 1; Kaiser, 1960) and Minimum Average Partial (MAP; Velicer, 1976) test were considered to determine the number of factors to be extracted. EV > 1 has been criticized for over-factoring and under-factoring, which may represent random noise rather than true latent structures (Henson & Roberts, 2006). Therefore, the final decision on the number of factors was guided by the MAP analysis, which minimizes average squared partial correlations to more accurately identify the optimal number of factors, while also aligning with the theoretical framework. Factors are retained if there are 3 or more items (Henson & Roberts, 2006) and factor loadings surpassing 0.32 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Pearson's correlation was calculated to identify the correlation among factors. Cronbach's alpha was calculated for the entire scale and sub-scales. Approximately 2% of items were missing at random, based on Little's Missing Completely at Random test, Chi-Square = 433.194, p = .090; therefore, mean imputation was performed.

Study 2: Results

Evidence Regarding Internal Structure

Examination of initial inter-item correlation pairs revealed moderate correlations, with none exceeding > .90. Therefore, there was no evidence for item redundancies. Five items exhibited ceiling effects with extreme responses exceeding 50% and were removed. The Skewness test indicated all but two items to have an acceptable cut-off score, so we removed them. Eight items were excluded before the factor analysis, so the total number of items included in the factor analysis was 35.

Factor Analysis

KMO value of 0.89 and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (chi-square = 2477.88, df 325, p < .001) indicate that the sample is adequate for factor analysis. PAF using the EV > 1 rule indicated that eight distinct factors should be retained. The eight-factor solution derived from the EV > 1 rule in PAF exhibited problematic cross-loadings, insufficient loadings, and factors that were theoretically meaningless or weak (with fewer than two items). In contrast, Velicer's MAP test yielded a more parsimonious five-factor structure, consistent with the theory. The factor solution was constrained to five factors, and the analysis was subsequently re-run. Based on criteria such as factor loadings (<0.32), and problematic cross-loadings (<0.15 from the item's highest factor loading; Worthington & Whittaker, 2006), nine items were removed iteratively (one by one) to achieve a clearer and interpretable factor structure.

The EFA using PAF extracted five factors that explained 50% of the total variance (Table 2). In the final model, the communalities of the items ranged between 0.27 and 0.78 indicating that each item shares a moderate to high proportion of variance with the extracted factors, suggesting that the model adequately captures the shared variance. Factor 1 (Personal Resilience), with eight items, captures adaptability, goal-directed behavior, optimism, and connection to the environment. Items such as “take steps to achieve your dreams,” “you are confident that you will do well in the future,” “you remain hopeful in difficult times,” and “cope with challenges” load strongly (ranging from 0.558 to 0.706) on this factor. Factor 2 (School-based Resilience) clusters six items related to perceived school support, such as teacher-student relationships, institutional support, fairness, and sense of belonging. Items like “you feel welcomed in your school” and “you are valued and respected by your teachers” load prominently on this factor (loadings ranging from 0.691 to 0.775). This indicates that perceptions of support and fairness within the school environment are distinct aspects of resilience. Factor 3 (Friendship-based Resilience), consisting of four items, assesses the role of friendship in emotional well-being and coping with challenges. Items such as “You have a friend/friends you trust,” “You have a friend(s) that you can talk to,” and “you help each other as friends,” show very high loadings (0.733 to 0.877), emphasizing the importance of close peer connections. Factor 4 (Community-based Resilience), with five items, assesses communal support, cultural belonging, and access to resources for youth's ability to adapt and thrive, with items like “people help each other in times of need in your community,” and “community provides opportunities for you to volunteer and network” exhibiting strong loadings (0.689 to 0.696). This factor underscores the role of broader social networks and community services in fostering resilience. Finally, factor 5 comprises three items relating to family support. High loadings (0.698 to 0.843) for items addressing family support and guidance highlight the unique contribution of the family unit to an individual's resilience. Overall, the results demonstrate that resilience is a multidimensional construct, encompassing both personal attributes and support from family, school, friends, and the community. Intercorrelations between the factors were moderate (r = 0.39 to 0.55, p < .001). The total scale and factor scores were computed by summing and averaging the individual 5-point items, with higher scores indicating higher resilience.

Table 2.
Descriptive Statistics, Reliability Coefficients, and Factor Loadings of Resilience Scale for Immigrant Youth (RSIY).

Items Mean (SD) Corrected Item-Total Correlations Patten Matrix Loading Structure Matrix Loading Cronbach's Alpha

Personal resilience 0.826

1. You remain hopeful in difficult times 3.62 (1.09) 0.438 0.706 0.644

2. You are confident that you will do well in the future. 3.89 (1.18) 0.520 0.686 0.684

3. You take steps to achieve your dreams 3.97 (1.00) 0.474 0.682 0.667

4. You know how to cope with challenges 3.39 (1.04) 0.526 0.644 0.672

5. You are confident in your skills and abilities to make decisions 3.58 (1.13) 0.535 0.558 0.631

6. You are curious learning about land and people around you 3.62 (1.12) 0.471 0.499 0.579

7. You have the courage to respond to people who treat you differently because of your race (for example, when people make negative personal comments) 3.54 (1.31) 0.487 0.442 0.564

8. You are able to find things in nature/environment that bring you joy 3.75 (1.10) 0.421 0.428 0.496

School-based resilience 0.836

9. You are valued and respected by your teachers 4.13 (1.00) 0.500 0.775 0.720

10. You feel welcomed in your school 4.05 (1.08) 0.651 0.691 0.779

11. Your teachers treat you fairly 3.92 (1.11) 0.642 0.652 0.753

12. School administrators (for example, Principal, guidance counselors) are supportive when you face problems in school 3.70 (1.11) 0.495 0.650 0.657

13. You feel comfortable asking for help from your teacher 3.80 (1.07) 0.433 0.531 0.550

14. Your school provides opportunities for you to get involved in programs outside of school 3.72 (1.20) 0.457 0.483 0.545

Friendship-based resilience 0.882

15. You have a friend(s) you trust 3.83 (1.29) 0.499 0.877 0.811

16. You have a friend(s) that you can talk to and share your concerns 3.89 (1.24) 0.552 0.826 0.826

17. You help each other as friends 4.13 (1.06) 0.574 0.733 0.783

18. Your friends support you through stressful situations 3.70 (1.22) 0.599 0.710 0.798

Community-based resilience 0.775

19. People help each other in times of need in your community 3.83 (.99) 0.538 0.696 0.703

20. Your community provides opportunities for you to volunteer and network 3.85 (1.02) 0.403 0.689 0.612

21. Having people from the same cultural/racial groups helps you adjust to the community 4.01 (1.04) 0.489 0.614 0.630

22. You are building connections to support each other 3.67 (1.07) 0.592 0.522 0.680

23. You get services (for example, language help, tutoring) from settlement organizations when you need them 3.78 (1.14) 0.487 0.498 0.574

Family-based resilience 0.843

24. You get support from your family when you need them 4.15 (1.09) 0.595 0.847 0.880

25. Your parents/guardians guide you to deal with life challenges/problems 4.09 (1.07) 0.598 0.698 0.794

26. Your parents/guardians have confidence in your ability to make decisions 3.95 (1.11) 0.551 0.624 0.717

Total Scale 3.81 (.66) 0.916

Explained variance—initial = 59.24%

After factor extraction = 50.24%

Evidence Regarding Internal Consistency Reliability

The corrected item correlations ranged from .40 to .65. The lowest correlation was between personal resilience and friendship-based resilience (r = .39) and the largest was between friendship-based resilience and community-based resilience factors (r = .55). The internal reliability for the scale was .92. The reliability of the domains are as follows: Personal resilience (Cronbach's alpha = 0.83), school-based resilience, (Cronbach's alpha = 0.84), friendship-based resilience (Cronbach's alpha = 0.88), community-based resilience (Cronbach's alpha = 0.77) and family-based resilience (Cronbach's alpha = 0.84). The mean for the total scale was 3.81 and for personal resilience, M = 3.65), school-based resilience, M = 3.87, friendship-based resilience, M = 3.86, community-based resilience, M = 3.82, and family-based resilience, M = 4.04.

Evidence Regarding Relations to Other Variables

As expected, the RSIY and all five domains were significantly and positively related to another measure of resilience, CYRM, ranging from r = .37 to r = .55, p < .001, providing evidence for concurrent validity (Table 3). The strongest correlation was between the total RSIY scale score and CYRM, r = .62, p = <.001. Known-groups validity was assessed by examining differences in total RSIY scale score across SDQ categories. A one-way ANOVA revealed significant differences in total resilience scores across SDQ-defined mental health categories: Normal, borderline, and clinical, F(2, 212) = 26.94, p < .001. Youth categorized in the normal range reported the highest resilience (M = 4.10, SD = 0.54), followed by the borderline group (M = 3.80, SD = 0.49), and the clinical group (M = 3.42, SD = 0.71), indicating a decline in perceived resilience with increasing emotional and behavioral difficulties. Post hoc comparisons using Tukey's HSD confirmed statistically significant mean differences between all groups. These results underscore the ability of the newly developed RSIY scale to differentiate youth by their psychosocial adjustment level and provide evidence for its convergent validity. As expected, RSIY was significantly and negatively associated with PSS, r = −.36, p < .001, providing evidence for discriminant validity. As expected, RSIY demonstrated low correlations with the general trust measure (r = .21, p = .002) and the physical activity variable (r = .21, p = .002), indicating unrelated constructs. As expected, gender was not significantly related to the total scale, t(213) = 0.20, p = .84, indicating that the RSIY is suitable for measuring resilience across genders.

Table 3.
The Correlation Between the Total Scale, Subscales, and Validation Scales.

PR SBR FrBR CBR FBR Total Scale

Subscales

PR .51* .39* .48* .50* .80*

SBR .47* .54* .54* .80*

FrBR .47* .44* .72*

CBR .47* .77*

FBR .72*

Validation scales

SDQ −.39* −.45* −.34* −.33* −.48* −.52*

CYRM .50* .51* .37* .45* .55* .62*

WHO-5 Well-being Index .22 .20 .25* .19 .27* .29*

Perceived Stress Scale −.19 −.33* −.28* −.32* −.33* −.36*

Generalized Trust Scale .09 .24* .25* .20 .02 .21

Physical activity .24* .12 .17* .08 .15* .21**

Note. PR = personal resilience; SBR = school-based resilience; FrBR = friendship-based resilience; CBR = community-based resilience; FBR = family-based resilience; SDQ = Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire; CYRM = Child and Youth Resilience Measure.

p < .05. p < .01. p < .001.

A multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to examine the contributions of specific resilience domains to the overall and subscale scores of the SDQ, after controlling for age, gender, and years of living in Canada. Among the five subscales, personal resilience was significantly related to prosocial behavior (β = 0.34, p < .001, 95% CI [0.480, 1.18]), and lower peer difficulties (β = −0.17, p = .023, 95% CI [−0.76, −0.06]). School-based resilience contributed negatively to the overall SDQ scores (β = −0.18, p = .027, 95% CI [−2.45, −0.15]) and conduct difficulties (β = −0.25, p = .005, 95% CI [−0.91, −0.16]). As expected, friendship-based resilience was significantly and negatively related to peer difficulties (β = −0.27, p < .001, 95% CI [−0.74, −0.20]). Community-based resilience was significantly related to lower conduct difficulties (β = −0.18, p = .046, 95% CI [−0.83, −0.008). Family-based resilience emerged as a significant negative predictor of overall SDQ scores (β = −0.24, p = .002, 95% CI [−2.45, −0.56]), emotional difficulties (β = −0.23, p = .004, 95% CI [−1.00, −0.19]), Hyperactivity (β = −0.33, p < .001, 95% CI [−0.99, −0.37]), and positive prosocial behavior (β = 0.18, p = .022, 95% CI [0.05, 0.64]). Confidence intervals across subscales indicated associations with outcome variables in the expected direction, although the magnitude of effects varied. Taken together, these findings demonstrate the multidimensional structure of the resilience scale.

Discussion and Applications to Practice

The present study aimed to develop and validate a measurement scale for assessing resilience among immigrant youth. Consistent with the socio-ecological framework of resilience, the unitary validity framework employed in this study provided evidence for a five-dimensional RSIY scale. Through assessing diverse protective mechanisms operating at multiple domains, the RSIY contributes to the fourth wave of defining resilience as involving a multi-dynamic process of adaptation to adversities (Masten's, 2021; Ungar et al., 2013; Wadi et al., 2020; Windle et al., 2011). The primary strength of the unitary validity is its emphasis on collecting multiple forms of evidence, ranging from content relevance to statistical structure and external correlations, within a single coherent validity model. Importantly, it provided the flexibility to integrate both qualitative insights and quantitative analysis, which played an important role in capturing the culturally embedded nature of resilience in the lives of immigrant youth.

The RSIY scale advances the conceptualization of resilience among immigrant youth by integrating general and immigration-specific factors within a socio-ecological framework (Ungar et al., 2008). This approach avoids a binary treatment of general versus immigrant-specific resilience and instead recognizes their intersectionality as critical to understanding how immigrant youth mobilize support and navigate adversity. In doing so, the scale offers theoretical and practical relevance for culturally informed assessment and intervention.

The RSIY shares a common socio-ecological focus with READ and the CYRM, emphasizing the interaction between individual, social, and environmental protective factors. However, key differences exist in terms of the targeted population and the factor content (See Table 4 for a summary comparing the newly developed RSIY with existing youth resilience measures). For instance, the READ scale, adapted from the resilience scale for adults, comprises a social resource dimension limited to informal support from relatives and friends. Likewise, CYRM, while comprehensive in its ecological dimensions, does not accord significance to school-related resilience factors, an important facet of adolescent and youth development. The RSIY differentiated youth based on their levels of emotional and behavioral difficulties, lending further credence to the protective role of resilience during adversity (Hjemdal et al., 2006; Luthar et al., 2000; Mesman et al., 2021; Renbarger et al., 2020; Schäfer et al., 2024).

Table 4.
Summary Table Comparing the RSIY with Existing Youth Resilience Measures (CYRM-R, READ, and RSCA).

Features Newly Developed Scale (RSIY^a) CYRM-R^b READ^c RSCA^d

Conceptual frameworks Social ecology of resilience Socio-ecological view of resilience Developed from protective-factor research Personal resiliency grounded in developmental theory

Target population Immigrant youth General youth Adolescents aged 13–15 yearsdeveloped in Norway Children and adolescents (ages 9–18)

Number of items 26 items 17 items 28 items 64 items

Scale dimensions Five factors: Personal resilienceSchool-based resilience,Friendship-based resilience, Community-based resilience, Family-based resilience Two subscales: Personal resilience, caregiver resilience. Five factors: Personal competence; social competence; structured style; family cohesion; social resources. Three global scales: Sense of mastery (MAS), sense of relatedness (REL), and emotional reactivity (REA). Also yields resource and vulnerability index scores

Psychometric properties (Cronbach's alpha and validity) reported in the original publication. Internal reliability: overall scale (α = 0.92);Personal resilience (α = 0.83);School-based resilience (α = 0.84);Friendship-based resilience (α = 0.88);Community-based resilience (α = 0.77); family-based resilience (α = 0.84). The scale and subscale scores were meaningfully correlated with SDQ scores. Cronbach's alpha = 0.82. Good fit to the Rasch model Cronbach's alpha = 0.94 (total); α = 0.85 (personal ompetence), α = 0.82 (social competence), α = 0.69 (structured style), α = 0.85 (Family cohesion), α = 0.78 (social resources).The associations between the scale scores and the measures of negative life events and bullying were in the expected direction. Internal consistency reliability was reported as good to excellent (Cronbach's alpha > 0.85) for all the resiliency scales and indexes in child and adolescent samples.The resiliency scales demonstrated adequate sensitivity in distinguishing among clinical groups (i.e., ADHD, bipolar, CD, anxiety, and depression) and between clinical and nonclinical groups.

Note. CYRM-R = Child and Youth Resilience Measure Revised; RSCA = Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescent; READ: Resilience Scale for Adolescents; SDQ = Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.

a
Resilience Scale for Immigrant Youth.

b
CYRM-R (Jefferies et al., 2018).

c
Resilience Scale for Adolescents (Hjemdal et al., 2006).

d
RSCA (Thorne and Kohut, 2007).

There are limitations to the study. First, the small sample size and nonrandom sampling limit generalizability. Given the geographical context of Windsor-Essex and the predominance of Arab participants in this study, a shared cultural context may have influenced how participants interpreted and endorsed the resilience items. Second, although the study used PAF with Promax method and MAP to determine the factor structure, measurement invariance was not conducted due to the small sample size. Third, although validity testing was conducted, given the absence of a gold standard for resilience measures, the scale needs to be compared with other resilience measures for adolescents and youth. Addressing these limitations requires iterative psychometric testing, involving diverse samples. Notwithstanding these limitations, the RSIY has several strengths. Its strengths lie in its socio-ecological theoretical grounding and the integration of multiple sources of validity evidence, derived from the insights of experts, service providers, and immigrant/refugee youth, alongside statistical validation of its psychometric properties. Although the scale's specific focus on immigrant and refugee youth might seem to limit its applicability to the general youth population, this focus is, in fact, one of its key strengths. By focusing on the unique experiences of immigrant and refugee youth, the scale captures the resilience dynamics that are most pertinent to this population. Regarding the use of test scores, we suggest using the total scale score in both predictive analyses and applied assessment contexts. This aligns with the conceptualization of resilience as an ecologically embedded construct. Social workers can use this scale as a screening tool to identify areas of vulnerability for prevention and intervention work for immigrant youth. By assessing resilience across multiple domains—family, friends, school, and community—the scale enables social workers to identify protective factors and tailor comprehensive interventions grounded in the lived experiences of newcomer youth. For example, the domain-level scores can enable practitioners to identify specific areas of strength and vulnerability in immigrant youth and to design targeted interventions, such as individual skill-building for low personal resilience, peer- or group-based programs to strengthen friendship-based resilience, positive school environment initiatives for school-based resilience, culture-sensitive resource-building for community-based resilience, and family-focused supports where family resilience is constrained. Data derived from the scale can also inform strength-based interventions that account for the youth's socio-cultural assets, enhancing empowerment and growth.

Although the newly developed RSIY for immigrant refugee youth is a promising tool for assessing resilience, further investigation is needed to enhance its validity, applicability, and impact. Future research should test the scale's psychometric properties across diverse cultural and linguistic contexts to ensure it accurately captures the unique resilience mechanisms of different adolescent and youth immigrant populations. Furthermore, longitudinal studies are needed to examine resilience development over time and its impact on mental health and social integration. Investigating intersectionality, including variations in resilience by gender identity, socio-economic status, and levels of risk exposure, can lead to more tailored support strategies. Finally, integrating physiological assessment methods could enhance the scale's predictive power and practical utility. Addressing these research gaps will improve the RSIY's role in fostering resilience and long-term well-being among immigrant refugee youth.

Conclusion

The main reason for conducting this study was the lack of a validated scale to measure resilience of immigrant and refugee youth. Given that newcomer youth have unique immigration and developmental experiences, and existing scales do not adequately consider immigration experiences, we sought to develop a scale to measure the resilience of immigrant and refugee youth (See Table 5 for the English and Arabic versions of the scale). The initial psychometric evaluation of the newly developed resilience scale among immigrant youth demonstrates promising reliability and validity.

Table 5.
Resilience Scale for Immigrant Youth (RSIY).

Think about difficult life events in your life, and what you did/do, as well as how your family, friends, teachers, and the larger community have helped you deal with difficult and challenging life experiences. There is no right or wrong answer. Please tick (√) the appropriate answer for each item.

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all true Slightly true Moderately true Very true Extremely true

1. You remain hopeful in difficult times.

2. You are confident that you will do well in the future.

3. You take steps to achieve your dreams.

4. You know how to cope with challenges.

5. You are confident in your skills and abilities to make decisions.

6. You are curious learning about the land and people around you.

7. You have the courage to respond to people who treat you differently because of your race (for example, when people make negative personal comments).

8. You are able to find things in nature/environment that bring you joy.

9. You are valued and respected by your teachers.

10. You feel welcomed in your school.

11. Your teachers treat you fairly.

12. School administrators (for example, Principal, guidance counselors) are supportive when you face problems in school.

13. Your school provides opportunities for you to get involved in programs outside of school.

14. You feel comfortable asking for help from your teacher.

15. You have a friend(s) you trust.

16. You have a friend(s) that you can talk to and share your concerns.

17. You help each other as friends.

18. Your friends support you through stressful situations.

19. People help each other in times of need in your community.

20. Your community provides opportunities for you to volunteer and network.

21. Having people from the same cultural/racial groups helps you adjust to the community.

22. You are building connections to support each other.

23. You get services (for example, language help, tutoring) from settlement organizations when you need them.

24. You get support from your family when you need them.

25. Your parents/guardians guide you to deal with life challenges/problems.

26. Your parents/guardians have confidence in your ability to make decisions

Scoring: The personal resilience subscale includes items 1–8; the school-based resilience subscale, items 9–14; the friendship-based resilience subscale, items 15–18; the community-based resilience subscale, items 19–23; and the family-based resilience subscale, items 24–26. To compute the total scores, sum and average the individual 5-point items; higher scores indicate stronger ecological resilience processes.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-rsw-10.1177_10497315261427308 - Supplemental material for Development and Validation of the Resilience Scale for Immigrant Youth

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-rsw-10.1177_10497315261427308 for Development and Validation of the Resilience Scale for Immigrant Youth by Jayashree Mohanty, Srinivasan Chokkanathan, Jane Ku, and Wansoo Park in Research on Social Work Practice

Themes	Subthemes	Sample Quotes Into Items	Translation	No. of Items
Individual and internal capacity	Ability to find solutions	“To be honest, there is some difficulty with this, from the side of (with regards to) language, but everything has a solution.” (PI-14)	You look for solutions to your problems	10 items
	Dealing with change, being flexible and open to change	“I went to the guidance office…but I did not give up. I would always go to her, so she could switch classes for me.” (PI- 17)“When they bully me, I wouldn’t care…. I would just throw their talk behind me … They would fight with me, but I would fight back with them too … I was not weak to the point where they would hit me, swear at me, or fight with me, and I stayed quiet. Yeah, I would answer them back …” (PI-26)	You take steps to achieve your dreams.You have the courage to respond to people who treat you differently because of your race (for example, when people make negative personal comments).
	Positive self-assessment	“I have confidence (that) I will achieve my dreams, and Inshallah (God Willing) I will become a doctor or something like that. And I can—Mmm. (Pause).” (PI-19)“Yeah, I have a lot of confidence in myself. I feel that anything that I do I will definitely have the ability to accomplish it. And I am very proud of myself.” (PI-13)	You remain hopeful in difficult times.You are confident that you will do well in the future.
Ecological/ Contextual Resources	Societal values—One's values are respected and valid.Being able to practice one's culture here in Canada.	“There is not anyone that will be spying (watching) you or a person telling you “don’t do that.” (PI-11)Yes, yes. I am proud of my culture and all my traditions and mindsets/beliefs.” (PI-8)	You feel you can freely practice your culture in CanadaYou are proud of your culture.	3 items
	Community support-opportunities provided by community/formal organizations	“Before COVID happened, I used to go to XXX (Community Agency), I used to go to volunteer. Also, I used to go to XXX (community agency), and I used to volunteer there too. Where else I went? I went to XXX when I had homework and I needed help with it, so I used to go there.” (PI-17)	Your community provides opportunities for you to volunteer and network	22 items
	Support from school, teachers & peers, friends	“If I do not understand something and we are online, more than one person, she (teacher)takes me to a break(out) room and explains the question to me by myself, and she goes back. (PI-11)”	You are valued and respected by your teachers
	Peer support-giving and receiving	“Not at all … foreigners (local Canadian students) were very good with me. I would teach them, and they would teach me.” (PI-25)“If anything happens to me … I tell my friend (male) who is here. Like, he is the person I speak to the most in a day.” (PI-11)	You help each other as friends.You have friends you trust.
	Family Support	“My mom is really supportive of me; she's like, “No matter what, we are always going to be there for you, so don’t worry about it. I know you can do it, you are a really good student.” (PI-04)	You get support from your family when you need them.	6 items
	Physical environment -Having access to spaces for collective activities, solitude, and safety.	“I haven’t really heard any complaints. I think it is a safe neighborhood.”(PI-04)“Sometimes, I go with my older sister, we go for a walk. It helps me to change the atmosphere.”(PI-18)	Neighborhood is safe.You are able to find things in nature/environment that brings you joy.	2 items

Items	Mean (SD)	Corrected Item-Total Correlations	Patten Matrix Loading	Structure Matrix Loading	Cronbach's Alpha
Personal resilience					0.826
1. You remain hopeful in difficult times	3.62 (1.09)	0.438	0.706	0.644
2. You are confident that you will do well in the future.	3.89 (1.18)	0.520	0.686	0.684
3. You take steps to achieve your dreams	3.97 (1.00)	0.474	0.682	0.667
4. You know how to cope with challenges	3.39 (1.04)	0.526	0.644	0.672
5. You are confident in your skills and abilities to make decisions	3.58 (1.13)	0.535	0.558	0.631
6. You are curious learning about land and people around you	3.62 (1.12)	0.471	0.499	0.579
7. You have the courage to respond to people who treat you differently because of your race (for example, when people make negative personal comments)	3.54 (1.31)	0.487	0.442	0.564
8. You are able to find things in nature/environment that bring you joy	3.75 (1.10)	0.421	0.428	0.496
School-based resilience					0.836
9. You are valued and respected by your teachers	4.13 (1.00)	0.500	0.775	0.720
10. You feel welcomed in your school	4.05 (1.08)	0.651	0.691	0.779
11. Your teachers treat you fairly	3.92 (1.11)	0.642	0.652	0.753
12. School administrators (for example, Principal, guidance counselors) are supportive when you face problems in school	3.70 (1.11)	0.495	0.650	0.657
13. You feel comfortable asking for help from your teacher	3.80 (1.07)	0.433	0.531	0.550
14. Your school provides opportunities for you to get involved in programs outside of school	3.72 (1.20)	0.457	0.483	0.545
Friendship-based resilience					0.882
15. You have a friend(s) you trust	3.83 (1.29)	0.499	0.877	0.811
16. You have a friend(s) that you can talk to and share your concerns	3.89 (1.24)	0.552	0.826	0.826
17. You help each other as friends	4.13 (1.06)	0.574	0.733	0.783
18. Your friends support you through stressful situations	3.70 (1.22)	0.599	0.710	0.798
Community-based resilience					0.775
19. People help each other in times of need in your community	3.83 (.99)	0.538	0.696	0.703
20. Your community provides opportunities for you to volunteer and network	3.85 (1.02)	0.403	0.689	0.612
21. Having people from the same cultural/racial groups helps you adjust to the community	4.01 (1.04)	0.489	0.614	0.630
22. You are building connections to support each other	3.67 (1.07)	0.592	0.522	0.680
23. You get services (for example, language help, tutoring) from settlement organizations when you need them	3.78 (1.14)	0.487	0.498	0.574
Family-based resilience					0.843
24. You get support from your family when you need them	4.15 (1.09)	0.595	0.847	0.880
25. Your parents/guardians guide you to deal with life challenges/problems	4.09 (1.07)	0.598	0.698	0.794
26. Your parents/guardians have confidence in your ability to make decisions	3.95 (1.11)	0.551	0.624	0.717
Total Scale	3.81 (.66)				0.916
Explained variance—initial = 59.24%
After factor extraction = 50.24%

	PR	SBR	FrBR	CBR	FBR	Total Scale
Subscales
PR		.51***	.39***	.48***	.50***	.80***
SBR			.47***	.54***	.54***	.80***
FrBR				.47***	.44***	.72***
CBR					.47***	.77***
FBR						.72***
Validation scales
SDQ	−.39***	−.45***	−.34***	−.33***	−.48***	−.52***
CYRM	.50***	.51***	.37***	.45***	.55***	.62***
WHO-5 Well-being Index	.22**	.20**	.25***	.19**	.27***	.29***
Perceived Stress Scale	−.19**	−.33***	−.28***	−.32***	−.33***	−.36***
Generalized Trust Scale	.09	.24***	.25***	.20**	.02	.21**
Physical activity	.24***	.12	.17*	.08	.15*	.21**

Features	Newly Developed Scale (RSIY^a)	CYRM-R^b	READ^c	RSCA^d
Conceptual frameworks	Social ecology of resilience	Socio-ecological view of resilience	Developed from protective-factor research	Personal resiliency grounded in developmental theory
Target population	Immigrant youth	General youth	Adolescents aged 13–15 yearsdeveloped in Norway	Children and adolescents (ages 9–18)
Number of items	26 items	17 items	28 items	64 items
Scale dimensions	Five factors: Personal resilienceSchool-based resilience,Friendship-based resilience, Community-based resilience, Family-based resilience	Two subscales: Personal resilience, caregiver resilience.	Five factors: Personal competence; social competence; structured style; family cohesion; social resources.	Three global scales: Sense of mastery (MAS), sense of relatedness (REL), and emotional reactivity (REA). Also yields resource and vulnerability index scores
Psychometric properties (Cronbach's alpha and validity) reported in the original publication.	Internal reliability: overall scale (α = 0.92);Personal resilience (α = 0.83);School-based resilience (α = 0.84);Friendship-based resilience (α = 0.88);Community-based resilience (α = 0.77); family-based resilience (α = 0.84). The scale and subscale scores were meaningfully correlated with SDQ scores.	Cronbach's alpha = 0.82. Good fit to the Rasch model	Cronbach's alpha = 0.94 (total); α = 0.85 (personal ompetence), α = 0.82 (social competence), α = 0.69 (structured style), α = 0.85 (Family cohesion), α = 0.78 (social resources).The associations between the scale scores and the measures of negative life events and bullying were in the expected direction.	Internal consistency reliability was reported as good to excellent (Cronbach's alpha > 0.85) for all the resiliency scales and indexes in child and adolescent samples.The resiliency scales demonstrated adequate sensitivity in distinguishing among clinical groups (i.e., ADHD, bipolar, CD, anxiety, and depression) and between clinical and nonclinical groups.

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

The authors thank research assistants, Amaar El Hajj and Monica Romero, for assisting with data collection. Special thanks to Dr. Riham Al-Saadi for her assistance with recruitment and community engagement. We want to thank the settlement agencies that supported this research. We extend our sincere thanks to all the young newcomers who participated in this research.

ORCID iDs

Jayashree Mohanty

Srinivasan Chokkanathan

Jane Ku

Wansoo Park

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council [SSHRC Insight Development Grant # 430-2019-00536].

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Ballard

Richard Gill

Hand

MacKenzie

(2024). A critical evaluation of adolescent resilience self-report scales: A scoping review. Children and Youth Services Review, 157, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.107364

Bandalos

D. L.

(2018). Measurement theory and applications for the social sciences. The Guilford Press.

Beiser

Hou

(2016). Mental health effects of premigration trauma and postmigration discrimination on refugee youth in Canada. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 204(6), 464–470. https://doi.org/10.1097/nmd.0000000000000516

Boateng

G. O.

Neilands

T. B.

Frongillo

E. A.

Young

H.R.

, &, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6 (149), 1–18.. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149

Borsboom

Mellenbergh

G. J.

van Heerden

(2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1061–1071. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.1061

Bottrell

(2009). Understanding ‘marginal’ perspectives: Towards a social theory of resilience. Qualitative Social Work, 8(3), 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325009337840

Brodsky

Buckingham

Fedi

Gattino

Rochira

Altal

Mannarini

(2022). Resilience and empowerment in immigrant experiences: A look through the transconceptual model of empowerment and resilience. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 92(5), 564–577. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000634

Burton

L. J.

Mazerolle

S. M.

(2011). Survey instrument validity part I: Principles of survey instrument development and validation in athletic training education research. Athletic Training Education Journal, 6(1), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.4085/1947-380X-6.1.27

Cardoso

J. B.

Thompson

S. J.

(2010). Common themes of resilience among Latino immigrant families: A systematic review of the literature. Families in Society, 91(3), 257–265. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.4003

10.

Carlson

Cacciatore

Klimek

(2012). A risk and resilience perspective on unaccompanied refugee minors. Social Work, 57(3), 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/sws003

11.

Clark

L. A.

Watson

(1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309

12.

Cohen

Kamarck

Mermelstein

(1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404

13.

Doane

Hastings

Parra

L. A.

Hoyt

L. T.

(2013). Adolescence and early adulthood in context. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 153(Supplement), S5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2023.106140

14.

George

Selimos

E. D.

(2017). Welcoming initiatives and immigrant attachment: The case of Windsor. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 18(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-015-0463-8

15.

Goodman

(1997). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 38(5), 581–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x

16.

Guo

Maitra

Guo

(2019). I belong to nowhere: Syrian refugee children’s perspectives on school integration. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Education, 14(1), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.20355/jcie29362

17.

Guruge

Butt

(2015). A scoping review of mental health issues and concerns among immigrant and refugee youth in Canada: Looking back, moving forward. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 106(2), e72–e78. https://doi.org/10.17269/CJPH.106.4588

18.

Gyan

Chireh

Chuks-Eboka

Yeboah

A. S.

(2023). Reconsidering the conceptualization of resilience: The experiences of refugee and immigrant youth in Montreal. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 18(4), 1591–1615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-023-10154-3

19.

Hair

J. F.

Hult

G. T. M.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3 ed.). Sage.

20.

Henson

R. K.

Roberts

J. K.

(2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 393–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282485

21.

Hjemdal

Friborg

Stiles

Martinussen

Rosenvinge

(2006). A new scale for adolescent resilience: Grasping the central protective resources behind healthy development. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 39(2), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2006.11909791

22.

Höltge

Theron

Cowden

R. G.

Govender

Maximo

S. I.

Carranza

J. S.

Kapoor

Tomar

van Rensburg

Cavioni

Agliati

Grazzani

Smedema

Kaur

Hurlington

K. G.

Sanders

Munford

Ungar

(2021). A cross-country network analysis of adolescent resilience. Journal of Adolescent Health, 68(3), 580–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.07.010

23.

Jefferies

Vanstone

Ungar

(2022). The rugged resilience measure: Development and preliminary validation of a brief measure of personal resilience. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 17(2), 985–1000. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-021-09953-3

24.

Jefferies

McGarrigle

Ungar

(2018). The CYRM-R: A Rasch-validated revision of the child and youth resilience measure. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 16(1), 70–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/23761407.2018.1548403

25.

Kaiser

H. F.

(1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116

26.

Khan

Khanlou

(2021). Ethnic identity, self-esteem, resilience, and mental health among immigrant and Canadian-born Pakistani youth. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 19(1), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-019-00118-w

27.

Kiramba

L. K.

Traore

H. M.

Trainin

(2022). At school, it’s a completely different world”: African immigrant youth agency and negotiation of their adaptation processes in US urban schools. Urban Education, 60(1), 249–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420859221140407

28.

Kirmayer

L. J.

Dandeneau

Marshall

Phillips

M. K.

Williamson

K. J.

(2011). Rethinking resilience from indigenous perspectives. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 56(2), 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674371105600203

29.

Riquelme

G. M.

Mohanty

Park

Al-Saadi

(2025). Towards pluriversality: ‘Reading’ migrant youth resilience. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2025.2548320

30.

Libenberg

Ungar

LeBlanc

J. C.

(2013). The CYRM-12: A brief measure of resilience. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 104(2), 131–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03405676

31.

Lundmark

Gilljam

Dahlberg

(2016). Measuring generalized trust: An examination of question wording and the number of scale points. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(1), 26–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfv042

32.

Luthar

S. S.

Cicchetti

Becker

(2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00164

33.

Masten

A. S.

(2015). Pathways to integrated resilience science. Psychological Inquiry, 26(2), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2015.1012041

34.

Masten

A. S.

(2021). Resilience in developmental systems: Principles, pathways, and protective processes in research and practice. In Ungar

(Ed.), Multisystemic resilience: Adaptation and transformation in contexts of change (pp. 113–134). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190095888.003.0007

35.

Merlo

C. L.

Jones

S. E.

Michael

S. L.

Chen

T. J.

Sliwa

S. A.

Lee

S. H.

Brener

N. D.

Lee

S. M.

Park

(2020). Dietary and physical activity behaviors among high school students—youth risk behavior survey, United States, 2019. Morbidity Mortality Weekly Report Supplements, 69(1), 64–76. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.su6901a8

36.

Mesman

Vreeker

Hillegers

(2021). Resilience and mental health in children and adolescents: An update of the recent literature and future directions. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 34(6), 586–592. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0000000000000741

37.

Motti-Stefanidi

(2023). Acculturation and resilience of immigrant-origin youth: Do their school experiences reflect non-immigrants’ “native supremacy”? Development and Psychopathology, 35(5), 2155–2167. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579423000895

38.

Motti-Stefanidi

Masten

A. S.

(2017). A resilience perspective on immigrant youth adaptation and development. In Cabrera

N. J.

Leyendecker

(Eds.), Handbook on positive development of minority children and youth (pp. 19–34). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43645-6_2

39.

Okeke-Ihejirika

Creese

Frishkopf

Wane

(2020). Re-envisioning resilience from African immigrants’ perspectives. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 52(3), 129–149. https://doi.org/10.1353/ces.2020.0030

40.

Prince-Embury

(2008). The resiliency scales for children and adolescents, psychological symptoms, and clinical status in adolescents. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 23(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573508316592

41.

Renbarger

R. L.

Padgett

R. N.

Cowden

R. G.

Govender

Yilmaz

M. Z.

Scott

L. M.

Makhnach

A. V.

Novotny

J. S.

Nugent

Rosenbaum

Křeménková

(2020). Culturally relevant resilience: A psychometric meta-analysis of the child and youth resilience measure (CYRM). Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30(4), 896–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12569

42.

Rutter

(1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57(3), 316–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1987.tb03541.x

43.

Salam

Gajaria

Wahoush

Nouvet

(2022). “What was your home country like?”- Syrian refugee youths’ experiences of school belonging. Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 40(2), 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/20590776.2022.2111209

44.

Schäfer

S. K.

Supke

Kausmann

, et al. (2024). A systematic review of individual, social, and societal resilience factors in response to societal challenges and crises. Communication Psychology, 2(92), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-024-00138-w

45.

Selimos

E. D.

Daniel

(2017). The role of schools in shaping the settlement experiences of newcomer immigrant and refugee youth. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 8(2), 90–109. https://doi.org/10.18357/ijcyfs82201717878

46.

Smith

A. C.

Crooks

C. V.

Baker

(2023). You have to be resilient”: A qualitative study exploring advice newcomer youth have for other newcomer youth. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 40(6), 761–771. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-021-00807-3

47.

Smith

B. W.

Dalen

Wiggins

Tooley

Christopher

Bernard

(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

48.

Standards for educational and psychological testing. (2014). American Educational Research Association.

49.

Statistics Canada. (2021a). 2021 Census profile: Windsor, Essex, Canada. Retrieved from https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/dp-pd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&SearchText=Canada&DGUIDlist=2021S05101032,2021A00053537016,2021A000011124&GENDERlist=1,2,3&STATISTIClist=1&HEADERlist=0

50.

Statistics Canada. (2021b). Focus on Geography Series, 2021 Census: Windsor [Census metropolitan area]. Retrieved from Profile table, Census Profile, 2021 Census of Population—Windsor [Population centre], Ontario;Essex, Town (T) [Census subdivision], Ontario;Canada [Country].

51.

Suárez-Orozco

Motti-Stefanidi

Marks

Katsiaficas

(2018). An integrative risk and resilience model for understanding the adaptation of immigrant-origin children and youth. American Psychologist, 73(6), 781–796. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000265

52.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2001). Using multivariate statistics. Allyn & Bacon.

53.

Thorne

K. J.

Kohut

C. S.

(2007). Prince-Embury, S. (2007, 2006). Resiliency scales for children and adolescents: A profile of personal strengths. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 22(2), 255–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573507305520

54.

Turner

S. E.

Dopko

R. L.

Goldfield

Cloutier

Pajer

Abdessemed

Lang

J. J.

(2023). Validating existing clinical cut-points for the parent-reported strengths and difficulties questionnaire in a large sample of Canadian children and youth. Health Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention in Canada: Research, Policy and Practice, 43(9), 409–420. https://doi.org/10.24095/hpcdp.43.9.03

55.

Ungar

Ghazinour

Richter

(2013). Annual research review: What is resilience within the social ecology of human development? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54(4), 348–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12025

56.

Ungar

Liebenberg

Boothroyd

Kwong

W. M.

Lee

T. Y.

Leblanc

Duque

Makhnach

(2008). The study of youth resilience across cultures: Lessons from a pilot study of measurement development. Research in Human Development, 5(3), 166–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427600802274019

57.

Velicer

W. F.

(1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41(3), 321–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02293557

58.

Wadi

M. M.

Nordin

N. I.

Roslan

N. S.

Tan

C. R.

Yusoff

M. S.

(2020). Reframing resilience concept: Insights from a meta-synthesis of 21 resilience scales. Education in Medicine Journal, 12(2), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.21315/eimj2020.12.2.2

59.

Windle

(2011). What is resilience? A review and concept analysis. Reviews in Clinical Gerontology, 21(2), 152–169. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959259810000420

60.

Windle

Bennett

K. M.

Noyes

(2011). A methodological review of resilience measurement scales. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 9(8), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-9-8

61.

Woodgate

R. L.

Busolo

D. S.

(2018). Above chaos, quest, and restitution: Narrative experiences of African immigrant youth’s settlement in Canada. BMC Public Health, 18(333), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5239-6

62.

World Health Organization. (2024). The World Health Organization-five well-being Index (WHO-5). World Health Organization. License: CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.

63.

Worthington

R. L.

Whittaker

T. A.

(2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127

64.

Yalim

A. C.

Chapple

(2023). Meanings of resilience and mental health in a refugee context: Voices of Syrian refugees. Journal of Ethnic &Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 33(3), 186–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313204.2023.2173694

Think about difficult life events in your life, and what you did/do, as well as how your family, friends, teachers, and the larger community have helped you deal with difficult and challenging life experiences. There is no right or wrong answer. Please tick (√) the appropriate answer for each item.
1	2	3	4	5
Not at all true	Slightly true	Moderately true	Very true	Extremely true
1. You remain hopeful in difficult times.
2. You are confident that you will do well in the future.
3. You take steps to achieve your dreams.
4. You know how to cope with challenges.
5. You are confident in your skills and abilities to make decisions.
6. You are curious learning about the land and people around you.
7. You have the courage to respond to people who treat you differently because of your race (for example, when people make negative personal comments).
8. You are able to find things in nature/environment that bring you joy.
9. You are valued and respected by your teachers.
10. You feel welcomed in your school.
11. Your teachers treat you fairly.
12. School administrators (for example, Principal, guidance counselors) are supportive when you face problems in school.
13. Your school provides opportunities for you to get involved in programs outside of school.
14. You feel comfortable asking for help from your teacher.
15. You have a friend(s) you trust.
16. You have a friend(s) that you can talk to and share your concerns.
17. You help each other as friends.
18. Your friends support you through stressful situations.
19. People help each other in times of need in your community.
20. Your community provides opportunities for you to volunteer and network.
21. Having people from the same cultural/racial groups helps you adjust to the community.
22. You are building connections to support each other.
23. You get services (for example, language help, tutoring) from settlement organizations when you need them.
24. You get support from your family when you need them.
25. Your parents/guardians guide you to deal with life challenges/problems.
26. Your parents/guardians have confidence in your ability to make decisions