Measuring Resilience: The 2025 Guide to Resilience Scales

February 2, 2025 in Uncategorized

Resilience has become a buzzword in recent years, and for good reason. In a world where stress, uncertainty, and rapid change are the norm, the ability to bounce back and thrive under pressure is more valuable than ever. But how do we measure resilience? And with so many resilience scales available, how do you choose the right one for your needs?

This guide will walk you through the top resilience scales in 2025, comparing their strengths, weaknesses, and unique features. Whether you’re a coach, trainer, HR or L&D professional, or mental health practitioner, this post will help you decide which resilience instrument to add to your toolkit.

What Are Resilience Scales and Why Do They Matter?

Resilience scales are psychometric tools that measure an individual’s ability to cope with and respond positively to stress, adversity, and change. They provide a structured way to assess resilience, offering insights to guide coaching, therapy, and organisational interventions.

But why does resilience measurement matter?

For Individuals

For coaches and therapists like our certified PRI Practitioners, resilience scales are invaluable for understanding a client’s current level of resilience and pinpointing areas for growth. They provide a data-driven baseline for resilience. They can set direction for coaching and training and demonstrate tangible progress over time.

For Teams and Groups

Resilience scales can also be a great approach to exploring group dynamics and the effectiveness of team-based interventions. For example, a team leader might use a resilience scale to identify areas where their team struggles and design training programs to address those gaps. They can also serve as an invaluable companion for leadership development, for example, by creating awareness of how a leader’s style impacts the resilience, well-being and performance of their team.

For Organisations

At the organisational level, resilience scales are powerful tools for:

Baseline diagnostics: Understanding the overall resilience levels of employees.
ROI of well-being programs: Measuring the impact of employee well-being initiatives.
White spot analysis: Identifying areas where resilience training is needed.
Training design: Creating tailored programs to build resilience across the organisation.

Resilience isn’t just a personal trait but a skill that can be developed and nurtured. Only by measuring it can we create targeted interventions to enable individuals, teams, and organisations to thrive and perform sustainably.

Key Features to Look for in a Resilience Scale

Not all resilience scales are created equal. When choosing a resilience instrument, here are the key features to consider:

1. Theoretical Model

A strong resilience scale is grounded in a robust, evidence-based theoretical model. As a development professional, you want to measure resilience in a way that’s both effective and scientifically solid. For this, it’s crucial to understand the theory behind the scale of choice and the intent with which it was developed so that your results are both reliable and meaningful to your client.

For example, the Scale of Protective Factors (SPF) was designed to investigate social and cognitive protective factors impacting the resilience of individuals who have experienced assault. The Ego Resilience Scale (ER-89), on the other hand, explored the relationship between resilience and other personality traits. While both instruments measure resilience, they do so in a very narrow and specific context. Meanwhile, the Personal Resilience Indicator (PRI) is based on a neuropsychobiological model, integrating insights from 30+ years of neuroscience and psychology research and aimed at accelerating personal development for sustainable performance and well-being. In short, context matters.

2. Psychometric Properties

Reliability and validity are critical for any psychometric tool.

Reliability refers to the consistency of the scale. A reliable scale produces similar results under consistent conditions.
Validity refers to the accuracy of the scale. A valid scale measures what it claims to measure, and two instruments with convergent validity measure the same thing.

For example, the PRI has demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.94) and strong convergent validity with other established measures like the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) and the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS).

3. Actionability

A good resilience scale doesn’t just measure resilience—it provides actionable insights. This is where the distinction between trait resilience and state resilience becomes important. Briefly:

Trait resilience measures stable characteristics, such as personality traits (i.e. they do not change significantly over time).
State resilience measures dynamic aspects that can be nurtured and developed with targeted practice and interventions.

For instance, we designed the Personal Resilience Indicator (PRI) explicitly for application in coaching, training, and organisational development. As such, the PRI measures state resilience, i.e. resilience factors that are dynamic and malleable, meaning they can be trained with targeted, scientifically-backed interventions. This way, the PRI not only provides a granular baseline assessment, measuring a client’s current level of resilience along six domains and their drivers (Health, Purpose, Problem-Solving, Perseverance, Composure and Relationships), but it also allows the design of intuitive, individualised development journeys.

4. Practicality

A resilience scale should be easy to administer and interpret. Above all, they need to deliver insights rather than just information. For example, the PRI breaks down the result into six domains and twelve drivers rather than providing a single score (like, for example, the BRS, RSA or CD-RISC). The client’s PRI results are summarised in a circular graphic, making it intuitive and actionable for both the client and the development professional.

5. Adaptability

Finally, a good resilience scale should be adaptable to different populations and contexts. Whether you’re working with individuals, teams, or entire organisations, the scale should provide relevant and meaningful insights.

Overview of 9 Resilience Scales in 2025

Resilience scales have evolved significantly over the past few decades, with each new tool building on the evolving knowledge base and often addressing the limitations of its predecessors. Here’s a closer look at the top resilience scales available in 2025, ordered chronologically by their development. Each scale has its strengths and weaknesses, and the right choice depends on your specific needs and context for application.

1. Ego Resilience Scale (ER-89)

The Ego Resilience Scale (ER-89), developed by Jack Block and Adam Kremen in 1989, was one of the earliest tools available to measure resilience as a personality trait. It was created in the context of psychological research, focusing on non-clinical populations to assess an individual’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances and maintain psychological well-being in the face of adversity. The ER-89 consists of 14 items, with higher scores indicating greater ego resilience.

Originally designed for use in personality research, the ER-89 is helpful in studies exploring the relationship between resilience and other personality traits, such as optimism and self-esteem. While it provides valuable insights into trait resilience, its focus on personality rather than state resilience limits its applicability in coaching and intervention settings. For a detailed comparison of the ER-89 and the PRI, see ER-89 vs PRI: Which Tool Delivers Real Insights? (14).

2. Resilience Scale (RS)

The Resilience Scale (RS), developed by Gail Wagnild and Heather Young in 1993, was one of the first tools designed to measure resilience in older adults, a non-clinical population. It focuses on two key factors: personal competence and acceptance of self and life. The RS consists of 25 items, with higher scores indicating greater resilience.

Over time, adaptations of the RS allow for its application in non-clinical populations, including adolescents, healthcare professionals, and military personnel. Its simplicity and strong psychometric properties have made it a popular choice for both research and clinical practice. However, its narrow focus on personal competence and acceptance has led some researchers to argue that it doesn’t capture the full complexity of resilience. For a side-by-side comparison of the RS and the PRI, see Resilience Scale (RS) vs PRI: Is It Time for a New Approach? (7).

3. Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC)

The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), developed by Kathryn Connor and Jonathan Davidson in 2003, was designed to measure resilience in clinical populations, particularly individuals with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). It assesses resilience across five domains: personal competence, trust in one’s instincts, positive acceptance of change, control, and spiritual influences. The CD-RISC consists of 25 items, with higher scores indicating greater resilience.

The CD-RISC has been validated in diverse populations, including military personnel, healthcare workers, and disaster survivors. Its broad applicability and strong psychometric properties have made it a popular choice for both research and clinical practice. However, its lack of focus on neurobiological factors has led some researchers to call for more comprehensive tools. For a detailed comparison of the CD-RISC and the PRI, see CD-RISC vs PRI: The Ultimate Guide for Coaches (6).

4. Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA)

The Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA), developed by Odin Hjemdal and colleagues in 2003, was designed to measure resilience in non-clinical adult populations. It assesses resilience through six protective factors: personal competence, social competence, family coherence, social support, personal structure, and spiritual influences.

The RSA has been widely used in clinical and organisational settings, particularly in studies exploring the relationship between resilience and mental health outcomes. Its comprehensive approach to resilience assessment makes it a valuable tool for identifying areas for intervention. Like most of the other classical resilience scales, the RSA does not consider health factors. In addition, the reporting as a single score limits its usefulness in identifying specific coaching and training needs. For a side-by-side comparison of the RSA and the PRI, see RSA vs. PRI: Setting a New Benchmark (8).

5. Brief Resilience Coping Scale (BRCS)

The Brief Resilience Coping Scale (BRCS), developed by Nadine Sinclair and Kenneth Wallston in 2004, was designed to measure resilience in non-clinical populations, focusing on coping strategies as a proxy for resilience. It consists of only four items, with higher scores indicating greater resilience.

The BRCS is widely used in clinical and organisational settings, particularly in studies exploring the relationship between coping strategies and resilience. Its brevity and focus on coping make it a practical tool for quick assessments. However, its narrow focus limits its usefulness for comprehensive resilience assessment. For a detailed comparison of the BRCS and the PRI, see PRI vs BRCS: Beyond the Basics of Resilience(12).

6. Brief Resilience Scale (BRS)

The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS), developed by Brett Smith and colleagues in 2008, was designed to measure resilience in non-clinical populations, focusing on the ability to bounce back from stress and adversity. It consists of six items, with higher scores indicating greater resilience.

The BRS has been widely used in research and clinical practice due to its simplicity and strong psychometric properties. It is particularly useful in settings where time is limited, such as large-scale surveys or organisational assessments. However, its brevity means it doesn’t capture the full complexity of resilience, limiting its usefulness for in-depth analysis. For a side-by-side comparison of the BRS and the PRI, see BRS vs PRI: When Simplicity Isn’t Enough (11).

7. Nicholson McBride Resilience Questionnaire (NMRQ)

The Nicholson McBride Resilience Questionnaire (NMRQ), developed by Nicholson McBride in 2010, was designed to measure resilience in non-clinical populations, with an emphasis on mental toughness and performance. It assesses resilience across four domains: confidence, control, commitment, and challenge.

The NMRQ has been widely used in performance coaching, particularly in sports and corporate settings. Its focus on mental toughness makes it a popular choice for performance enhancement. However, its lack of emphasis on psychological and neurobiological factors limits its usefulness for comprehensive resilience assessment. For a detailed comparison of the NMRQ and the PRI, see PRI vs NMRQ: Which Resilience Test Offers More Actionable Insights? (10).

8. Scale of Protective Factors (SPF)

The Scale of Protective Factors (SPF), developed by Elizabeth Ponce-Garcia and colleagues in 2015, was designed to measure resilience in clinical populations, particularly trauma survivors. It focuses on four protective factors: social support, coping skills, self-efficacy, and optimism.

The SPF has been widely used in clinical settings, particularly in studies exploring resilience in trauma survivors. Its focus on protective factors makes it a valuable tool for identifying areas for intervention. However, its applicability to general populations is limited. For a side-by-side comparison of the SPF and the PRI, see SPF vs PRI: Resilience Beyond Trauma Recovery (13).

9. Predictive 6-Factor Resilience Assessment Scale (PR6)

The Predictive 6-Factor Resilience Assessment Scale (PR6), developed by Pieter Rossouw and Jocelyn Rossouw in 2016, was designed to measure resilience in non-clinical populations to create a starting point for coaching with a virtual mental health app. Like the PRI, it assesses resilience across six domains: vision, composure, reasoning, health, tenacity, and collaboration.

The PR6 has been widely used for app-guided self-paced coaching programs. While its domain structure makes it a valuable tool for coaching, its brevity limits the depth of insight generated. It also lacks the granularity that makes the PRI invaluable in guiding personal development. For a detailed comparison of the PR6 and the PRI, see PRI vs PR6: 12 Drivers That Make Resilience Coaching Actionable (9).

What Makes the Personal Resilience Indicator (PRI) Unique?

The Personal Resilience Indicator (PRI) (developed in 2020) stands out as the most advanced resilience scale in 2025, merging decades of neuroscience with practical coaching applications. Developed by Mind Matters, the PRI was designed to address the limitations of older tools by focusing on state resilience—malleable traits that can be strengthened through targeted interventions rather than fixed personality traits.

The PRI is grounded in a neuropsychobiological model, integrating 30+ years of research on how the brain and body respond to stress. It measures resilience across six domains: Purpose, Problem-Solving, Perseverance, Composure, Relationships, and Health. Each domain is broken into actionable drivers—like emotional agility, sleep hygiene, and social intuition—providing granular insights into an individual’s strengths and growth areas.

Unlike static scales, the PRI evolves with science. Recent updates incorporate breakthroughs in lifestyle neuroscience, such as the role of BDNF (brain-derived neurotrophic factor) in resilience and how diet, exercise, and sleep quality impact cognitive flexibility. This adaptability ensures the PRI remains at the cutting edge, offering practitioners tools aligned with the latest research.

For coaches and organisations, the PRI’s value lies in its actionability. For example, a low score in Composure might prompt mindfulness training, while gaps in health could lead to personalised sleep or nutrition plans. Its user-friendly interface and clear reports make it accessible for both professionals and clients, while robust psychometrics (Cronbach’s α = 0.94) ensure reliability across diverse populations.

The PRI shines as a diagnostic tool for employee well-being programs in workplace settings, identifying resilience gaps across teams and measuring ROI on interventions. For therapists, it offers a roadmap for trauma recovery, while researchers use its granular data to explore links between resilience, performance, and mental health.

How to Choose the Right Resilience Scale for Your Needs

Choosing the appropriate resilience scale depends on your goals, whether you’re working with individuals, teams, or organisations. Consider factors like theoretical models, psychometric properties, actionability, and practicality.

For a detailed comparison of how these scales perform with the same client, check out Resilience Questionnaires Side by Side: Tools That Deliver Insights (4).

Conclusion

Resilience is not a fixed trait—it’s a skill that can be measured, understood, and strengthened. Choosing the right resilience scale can unlock transformative insights for your clients or organisation but requires in-depth knowledge of the tools. We’ve compiled a brief checklist to help you find the ideal resilience scale for you and your clients.

Ready to take the next step? Explore the Personal Resilience Indicator (PRI) and see how it can transform your practice.

References

Ahern, N. R., Kiehl, E. M., Sole, M.-L., & Byers, J. (2006). A review of instruments measuring resilience. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 29(2), 103–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/01460860600677643

Block, J., & Kremen, A. M. (1996). IQ and ego-resiliency: Conceptual and empirical connections and separateness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(2), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.349

Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18(2), 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.10113

Friborg, O., Hjemdal, O., Rosenvinge, J. H., & Martinussen, M. (2003). A new rating scale for adult resilience: What are the central protective resources behind healthy adjustment? International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 12(2), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.143

Hjemdal, O., Friborg, O., Stiles, T. C., Rosenvinge, J. H., & Martinussen, M. (2006). Resilience predicting psychiatric symptoms: A prospective study of protective factors and their role in adjustment to stressful life events. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 13(3), 194–201. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.488

Nicholson McBride. (2010). The Nicholson McBride Resilience Questionnaire. https://www.nicholsonmcbride.com/resilience-questionnaire

Ponce-Garcia, E., Madewell, A. N., & Kennison, S. M. (2015). The development of the Scale of Protective Factors: Resilience in a violent trauma sample. Violence and Victims, 30(5), 735–755. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-14-00163

Rossouw, P. J., & Rossouw, J. G. (2016). The Predictive 6-Factor Resilience Scale: Neurobiological fundamentals and organizational application. International Journal of Neuropsychotherapy, 4(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.12744/ijnpt.2016.0031-0045

Sinclair, V. G., & Wallston, K. A. (2004). The development and psychometric evaluation of the Brief Resilient Coping Scale. Assessment, 11(1), 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191103258144

Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The Brief Resilience Scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15(3), 194–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705500802222972

Wagnild, G. M., & Young, H. M. (1993). Development and psychometric evaluation of the Resilience Scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 1(2), 165–178. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7850498/

Windle, G., Bennett, K. M., & Noyes, J. (2011). A methodological review of resilience measurement scales. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 9(8). https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-9-8

TALK TO US ABOUT CERTIFICATION

About the author

AA Concierge

Share 0

Tweet 0