Scholarlink

<p>Resilience research seeks to understand how protective factors interact with adversity to yield positive outcomes over time. However, inconsistent conceptualizations and diverse methodologies limit comparability across studies. In this systematic review (preregistered on PROSPERO <a href="https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42019138732">CRD42019138732</a>), we examined 193 longitudinal psychosocial resilience studies published over the past 30 years, including 805,660 participants across all age groups. We analyzed (1) conceptualizations of resilience as a trait, outcome or process; (2) statistical approaches (variable-centered, person-centered or combined); (3) types of models and their relationship to adversity (for example, protective, promotive, vulnerability, differential susceptibility); and (4) heterogeneity in adversity, outcomes and promotive or protective factors. Most studies lacked an explicit resilience definition, and only 32% explicitly defined it as a trait (6%), an outcome (19%) or a process (8%). Variable-centered approaches predominated (85%), with most studies testing moderation and identifying protective/promotive effects, while few supported differential susceptibilities. Adversities were primarily childhood- or family-based, with mental health outcomes most common. Protective factors spanned individual, family and community levels, while neurobiological factors were rarely considered. We offer recommendations from our review to improve clarity and consistency in conceptualizing, operationalizing and interpreting resilience in longitudinal research.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A systematic review of conceptualizations and statistical methods in longitudinal studies of resilience

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月18日

查看全文
  • Dieter Wolke,
  • Yanlin Zhou,
  • Yiwen Liu,
  • Robert Eves,
  • Marina Mendonça,
  • E. Sabrina Twilhaar

摘要

Resilience research seeks to understand how protective factors interact with adversity to yield positive outcomes over time. However, inconsistent conceptualizations and diverse methodologies limit comparability across studies. In this systematic review (preregistered on PROSPERO CRD42019138732), we examined 193 longitudinal psychosocial resilience studies published over the past 30 years, including 805,660 participants across all age groups. We analyzed (1) conceptualizations of resilience as a trait, outcome or process; (2) statistical approaches (variable-centered, person-centered or combined); (3) types of models and their relationship to adversity (for example, protective, promotive, vulnerability, differential susceptibility); and (4) heterogeneity in adversity, outcomes and promotive or protective factors. Most studies lacked an explicit resilience definition, and only 32% explicitly defined it as a trait (6%), an outcome (19%) or a process (8%). Variable-centered approaches predominated (85%), with most studies testing moderation and identifying protective/promotive effects, while few supported differential susceptibilities. Adversities were primarily childhood- or family-based, with mental health outcomes most common. Protective factors spanned individual, family and community levels, while neurobiological factors were rarely considered. We offer recommendations from our review to improve clarity and consistency in conceptualizing, operationalizing and interpreting resilience in longitudinal research.