Psychometric Properties of a New Clinical Practice-Based Scale of Resilience Capacities in Chilean Adolescents

Abstract

Introduction

Resilience in adolescence has been widely studied, yet most instruments used to assess it were created in Anglo-Saxon contexts and often lack cultural resonance in Latin America. This study examined the factor structure and psychometric properties of the VOLANTÍN Resilience Capabilities Scale, a Chilean instrument designed to capture culturally meaningful expressions of resilience in school settings.

Method

A total of 3,934 students aged 10–18 from public schools in Chile completed the scale and an established mental health screening measure. The sample was randomly divided to conduct exploratory and confirmatory analyses using methods appropriate for ordinal data and systematic criteria for refining items.

Results

The analyses supported a coherent 19-item structure with four dimensions (Self-esteem, Prosocial Behavior, Perseverance, and Emotional Regulation) explaining 51.7% of the variance. Items with unstable patterns were removed. The confirmatory analysis showed strong overall fit (CFI = .953; TLI = .946; RMSEA = .058; SRMR = .055) and supported a hierarchical model with an overarching resilience factor.

Discussion

The VOLANTÍN Scale emerges as a culturally grounded, concise, and psychometrically robust measure of adolescent resilience in Chile. Its properties make it suitable for school-based screening, applied research, and interventions that require contextually sensitive assessments.

Plain Language Summary

Resilience refers to the ability of young people to cope with difficulties, recover from stressful experiences, and continue developing in a healthy way. During adolescence, this capacity is especially important, as young people face emotional, social, and academic challenges that can affect their mental health and well-being. However, many existing tools used to measure resilience were developed in specific cultural contexts and may not fully capture how resilience is expressed in everyday life across diverse settings. This study presents the development and evaluation of a brief, practice-based tool designed to assess key resilience capacities in adolescents. The scale focuses on four core areas that are commonly observed and strengthened in clinical and psychosocial practice: self-esteem, prosocial behavior, perseverance, and emotional regulation. These areas reflect how adolescents relate to themselves, to others, and to challenging situations. The tool was tested with a large group of adolescents aged 10 to 18. Advanced statistical analyses were used to examine whether the items worked together in a clear and consistent way. The results showed that the scale has a solid structure, good reliability, and performs similarly across different age groups and between girls and boys. Higher resilience scores were also linked to fewer emotional and behavioral difficulties, supporting the usefulness of the measure. Overall, this assessment tool offers a concise and reliable way to capture important resilience capacities in adolescents. Its clear language and practical focus make it suitable for use in research, clinical settings, and applied programs that aim to understand and support adolescent mental health and positive development.

Keywords

resilience psychological adolescent psychometrics mental health

Resilience has emerged as a key concept in understanding child and adolescent development, especially in contexts of adversity. It has been defined as a person’s ability to adapt positively despite stressful or traumatic experiences (Masten, 2001), functioning as an important protective factor against multiple biopsychosocial risks. However, although there is consensus on its relevance, the way resilience is conceptualized and measured in adolescents remains a subject of debate, with important clinical, educational, and social consequences (Upton et al., 2022; Windle et al., 2011).

Poor assessment of resilience can lead to misdiagnosis, ineffective interventions, and poorly designed public policies, directly affecting adolescents’ mental health, academic performance, and social inclusion (Rose et al., 2017; Rudd et al., 2021). In clinical settings, for example, the use of scales that do not adequately capture an adolescent’s protective resources can result in false positives or negatives, making it difficult to identify needs in a timely manner and allocate appropriate supports (Nishimi et al., 2020). In schools, the lack of validated instruments limits the ability of schools to detect at-risk students or evaluate the impact of wellness promotion programs (Rudd et al., 2021).

From a transdiagnostic perspective, resilience not only prevents the onset of specific disorders such as anxiety or depression but also reduces the comorbidity and severity of multiple mental conditions, while promoting overall well-being and positive functioning (Masten et al., 2021; McLaughlin et al., 2020). Recent studies have shown that components such as emotional regulation, social support, and sense of agency are associated with a significant decrease in internalizing and externalizing symptoms in children and adolescents (Armstrong et al., 2025; Lloyd et al., 2025; Fernández et al., 2024). This has led to resilience being included as a priority objective in school, community, and clinical interventions (Dray, 2021; Wang et al., 2024).

However, the instruments commonly used to measure resilience in adolescents have been developed in cultural, theoretical, and clinical contexts that are very different from those in Latin America (Ellis et al., 2018; Ungar et al., 2011; Wagnild & Young, 1993). Several authors have drawn attention to the need to develop culturally sensitive scales with ecological validity and adapted to highly vulnerable contexts, where structural and social conditions significantly influence adaptation processes (Liebenberg & Moore, 2018; Silva & Da Silva, 2021; Van Breda, 2017). In general, there is a lack of empirical research that links the construction of instruments with actual clinical practice in the global south, which weakens the diagnostic and therapeutic usefulness of existing scales (Ran et al., 2020).

In this context, studies have highlighted the importance of constructing resilience measurement instruments based on specific clinical practice, incorporating the mechanisms observed and worked on by child and adolescent mental health teams in specific contexts (Jongen et al., 2019; Panter-Brick, 2015; Ungar, 2006). The development of scales should not be limited to traditional psychometric criteria but should also integrate clinical and cultural criteria, ensuring that the items capture capacities relevant to the context and life trajectories of young people (Liang et al., 2019; Ungar, 2006). This involves drawing on accumulated experience in psychosocial interventions, identifying the skills that are promoted as therapeutic goals, and constructing items that directly reflect these processes (Jongen et al., 2019; Panter-Brick, 2015).

In line with this perspective, the present study is part of the work developed around the VOLANTÍN program, a group intervention to promote resilience aimed at adolescents between the ages of 9 and 12 (Halpern et al., 2014). VOLANTÍN was designed by child psychiatrists and psychologists at the University of Chile Clinical Hospital and aims to strengthen a specific set of resilient capacities, including emotional regulation, self-acceptance, interpersonal connection, and the expression of thoughts and feelings (Vio et al., 2022). Unlike many interventions adapted from international models, VOLANTÍN was developed from and for clinical practice, based on the systematization of experiences accumulated by child and adolescent mental health teams and an understanding of resilience developed together with parents, caregivers, and health and education professionals (Montt et al., 2022; Rojas-Andrade et al., 2022). Its theoretical-operational model is based on the processes effectively implemented in clinical sessions with children, and it has shown positive effects in clinical populations and in minors residing in alternative residential care systems (Hachim et al., 2017).

This intervention strategy is consistent with international recommendations that advocate for the development of clinical and psychosocial instruments based on therapeutic objectives observed in the field, actively involving professional teams and communities in the development of culturally sensitive scales (Jongen et al., 2019; Panter-Brick, 2015; Ungar, 2006).

In this context, the objective of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the VOLANTÍN Resilience Scale in a sample of public-school students in Chile. This work seeks to provide a theoretically and clinically grounded tool that is context-sensitive and supported by empirical evidence, allowing for the evaluation and strengthening of resilience processes in vulnerable adolescents.

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 3,934 students from 25 public schools belonging to a school district located in the municipalities of Lo Prado, Cerro Navia, and Pudahuel, in the Metropolitan Region of Chile. Of the total number of participants, 46.95% identified as female. The average age was 13.09 years (SD = 2.36; range = 10–18 years). 47% were between 10 and 12 years old, 32.81% were between 13 and 15 years old, and the remainder were between 16 and 18 years old. In relation to special educational needs, 16.85% reported receiving support from the School Integration Program (PIE for its initials in Spanish). Regarding ethnic self-identification, 10.17% reported belonging to an indigenous people. In terms of family living arrangements, 49.46% reported living with both parents in the same house, 35.43% with only their mother, 5.2% in shared custody arrangements, 4.8% with only their father, and 5.1% did not live with either parent.

Instruments

Volantín Resilience Capabilities Scale VOLANTÍN

The VOLANTÍN Resilience Scale is a self-report instrument developed in Chile (Astudillo et al., 2023) to assess resilience capacities in school populations. Its construction was based on the conceptualization of the VOLANTÍN program, which understands resilience as a set of personal and relational resources that promote positive adaptation in the face of adversity. The content was defined based on a review of program materials, team consensus sessions, expert judgment (content validity), and cognitive interviews with children, ensuring semantic clarity, cultural appropriateness, and reading level (Astudillo et al., 2023).

The initial scale included 30 items distributed across seven clinically relevant and observable domains: self-esteem (e.g., “I believe I have good qualities”), optimism (“I think things can get better”), prosocial behaviors (“I help others when they need it”), perseverance (“I keep trying even when it's difficult”), emotional regulation (“I can calm myself down when I get angry”), problem solving (“I look for different ways to solve a problem”), and acceptance of diversity (“I respect people who are different from me”). Responses are recorded on a three-category Likert scale: almost never (1), sometimes (2), and almost always (3). Five items with reverse wording regarding ability (items 3, 9, 17, 22, and 23) are recoded before calculating scores.

Administration and scoring. The scale is self-administered, and the estimated response time is 10–15 min. The score can be obtained as an average (range 1–3) or sum of items at the global level and by subscale; higher scores indicate greater resilience capacities.

Pediatric Symptom Checklist–17 (PSC-17)

The Pediatric Symptom Checklist–17 items (PSC-17) is a brief screening questionnaire for emotional and behavioral problems in children and adolescents (Gardner et al., 1999), validated in Chile (Leiva et al., 2019; Ramírez et al., 2023). It assesses three dimensions: internalizing symptoms (e.g., sadness, worry), externalizing symptoms (e.g., aggressive behavior, defiance of authority), and attention difficulties (e.g., concentration problems, motor restlessness). Each item is answered with three options: never (0), sometimes (1), and often (2).

Administration and scoring. The PSC-17 is a self-administered instrument and takes between 5 and 10 min to complete. The score is obtained by adding the values for each item, both overall and on each subscale; higher scores indicate a greater presence of emotional and behavioral problems. In this study, the PSC-17 was used as a contrast measure to estimate divergent validity, under the hypothesis that resilience acts as a protective factor against symptoms.

Procedure

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Santiago, Chile, N°: 330/2025 and was carried out within the framework of the universal screening process implemented in public education establishments in the participating school district. Student participation was voluntary, and informed assent was obtained from each participant, as well as informed consent from their parents or guardians.

The instruments were administered by psychosocial support teams who had been previously trained in the administration protocol. The assessments were carried out collectively in the computer labs of each school during the school day between April and June 2024. The confidentiality of the responses was guaranteed, and they were used for descriptive purposes in the screening process, as well as being analyzed in aggregate form for the present investigation.

Data Analysis

A descriptive analysis was performed on the sociodemographic variables and the scores on the VOLANTÍN Resilience Scale and the PSC-17. The total sample was randomly divided into two independent subsamples: the first was used for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and the second for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

In the first subsample, EFA was performed on polychoric correlation matrices, evaluating adequacy using the KMO index and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. The number of factors was determined using parallel analysis based on factor analysis of polychoric correlations (random seed = 1234). Factor extraction was conducted using unweighted (ordinary) least squares (ULS), with oblique geomin rotation, integrating statistical criteria (factor loadings, uniqueness, and cross-loadings) and conceptual considerations to guide item refinement and factor retention.

Subsequently, in the second subsample, the factor structure was validated using CFA, also based on polychoric correlations, estimated using the diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) method, which is the default estimator for ordinal indicators in JASP (lavaan-based). The fit was evaluated with conventional indices (χ², CFI, TLI, RMSEA with 90% confidence intervals and SRMR), specifying a hierarchical model with first-order factors saturating a second-order factor of general resilience. Internal consistency was estimated from the confirmatory model using McDonald’s omega coefficient (ω) and, complementarily, with ordinal alpha. Divergent validity was examined by correlating resilience scores (global and subscale) with the domains of the PSC-17. Finally, resilience scores were described according to age and gender.

All analyses were performed using JASP (version 0.19.3).

Results

Descriptives of the items

Table 1 shows the item-by-item descriptives for the total sample. The means ranged from 1.83 (R17) to 2.59 (R8), with SDs between 0.56 and 0.75. The distributions showed mostly negative asymmetry (−1.14 to 0.12) and kurtosis between −1.17 and 0.28, with no extreme tails. Concentration was observed in the “almost always” option (≥ 60%) in a limited set of items (R8, R12, R13, R16; R24), suggesting a slight ceiling effect; in contrast, items R17 and R4 exhibited the lowest means.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of the Items

Items	Mean	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis	(1) Almost never	(2) Sometimes	(3) Almost always
R1 I know perfectly well what makes me sad (Sé perfectamente que me pone triste)	2.335	0.664	−0.499	−0.742	11.0	44.8	44.2
R2 I accept myself as I am (Me acepto tal como soy)	2,310	0.736	−0.561	−0.978	16.3	36.4	47.4
R3 (I would like everyone to think the same as me* (Me gustaría que todos pensaran lo mismo que yo)	2,244	0.690	−0.363	−0.889	14.5	46.5	39.0
R4 When I have a problem that I find difficult to solve, I seek help (Cuando tengo un problema que me cuesta solucionar, busco ayuda)	1,968	0.736	0.050	−1.154	28.6	45.8	25.5
R5 If something goes wrong, I try again (Si algo me sale mal, lo intento de nuevo)	2,377	0.657	−0.583	−0.669	9.8	42.6	47.7
R6 I feel proud of myself (Me siento orgulloso(a de mí mismo/a)	2,279	0.724	−0.478	−0.986	16.2	39.8	44.0
R7 When I have a problem, I look for ways to solve it (Cuando tengo algún problema, busco formas para solucionarlo)	2,389	0.651	−0.597	−0.642	9.3	42.3	48.4
R8 I like to be kind to others (Me gusta ser amable con los demás)	2,594	0.588	−1,139	0.283	5.2	30.2	64.6%
R9 I distance myself from a classmate if I find them strange* (Me alejo de un compañero si me parece raro)	2,173	0.728	−0.279	−1.086	19.4	43.9	36.7
R10 When things happen to me, I focus more on the positive side than the negative side. (De las cosas que me pasan pongo más atención al lado bueno que al lado malo)	2,215	0.676	−0.290	−0.835	14.3	49.9	35.8
R11 I have many good moments in my life (En mi vida tengo muchos momentos buenos)	2,434	0.630	−0.659	−0.544	7.6	41.5	50.9
R12 I defend my friends when they are being bullied (Defiendo a mis amigos cuando los están molestando)	2,529	0.635	−1.013	−0.072	7.7	31.7	60.7
R13 When something is difficult, I have to try harder (Cuando algo es difícil me tengo que esforzar más)	2,552	0.594	−0.959	−0.084	5.3	34.1	60.7
R14 I share my things with others (Comparto mis cosas con los demás)	2,427	0.638	−0.664	−0.554	8.2	41.0	50.8
R15 If I feel bad, I know what I can do to feel better (Si me siento mal, sé que puedo hacer para sentirme major)	2,191	0.728	−0.310	−1.075	18.6	43.5	37.9
R16 I do my best to achieve my goals (Pongo todo de mi parte para lograr mis metas)	2,588	0.564	−0.982	−0.044	3.8	33.6	62.7
R17 I often find it difficult to solve my problems* (Muchas veces me cuesta solucionar mis problemas)	1,831	0.618	0.124	−0.499	28.9	59.0	12.1
R18 I do my best to ensure that no teammate feels left out of the group (Hago lo posible para que un compañero no se sienta apartado del grupo)	2,444	0.665	−0.791	−0.492	9.8	36.1	54.1
R19 I am happy with the way I am (Estoy contento con mi forma de ser)	2,361	0.715	−0.656	−0.815	13.9	35.9	50.2
R20 When I feel very angry, I tell myself that I can control myself. (Si me siento muy enojado/a, me digo a mí mismo/a que puedo controlarme)	2.128	0.744	−0.211	−1.173	21.9	43.0	35.1
R21 If I feel bad, I do something fun to distract myself (Si me siento mal, hago algo entretenido para distraerme)	2,317	0.702	−0.530	−0.862	13.7	40.8	45.4
R22 I hate the way I am* (Me carga como soy*)	2,205	0.748	−0.352	−1.146	19.9	40.0	40.1
R23 When things get tough, I give up easily* (Cuando las cosas se ponen difíciles, me rindo fácilmente)	2,215	0.728	−0.354	−1.061	18.0	42.5	39.6
R24 I help others if they need it (Ayudo a los demás si lo necesitan)	2,554	0.576	−0.878	−0.229	4.3	36.1	59.6
R25 I focus on the good things that happen to me (Me fijo en las cosas buenas que me pasan)	2,428	0.646	−0.690	−0.548	8.6	40.1	51.3
R26 I am hardworking (Soy esforzado/a)	2,410	0.620	−0.553	−0.613	7.2	44.6	48.2
R27 When I don’t know how to do a task, I find out how to do it (Cuando no sé hacer una tarea, averiguo cómo hacerla)	2,440	0.632	−0.684	−0.523	7.7	40.7	51.6
R28 I believe I will have a bright future (Creo que tendré un futuro bacán)	2,447	0.672	−0.816	−0.482	10.2	35.1	54.8
R29 I love all my classmates, even though we are different. (Quiero a todos mis compañeros, aunque seamos diferentes)	2,390	0.680	−0.669	−0.671	11.1	38.7	50.1
R30 I know what to do to relax (Se que hacer para relajarme)	2,296	0.712	−0.499	−0.924	14.9	40.6	44.5

Note. *Items with reverse scoring. Original Spanish wording in parentheses.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

The sample EFA was adequate (KMO = .925; Bartlett χ²₍₁₇₁₎ = 17,450.92, p < .001). Parallel analysis based on factor analysis of polychoric correlation matrices initially suggested a five-factor solution. Inspection of the factor loading pattern revealed that the five-factor solution was weakly defined, with low primary loadings, substantial cross-loadings, and limited conceptual coherence, indicating over-factoring; therefore, a four-factor solution was retained as a more parsimonious and interpretable structure. Applying a priori screening criteria (factor loadings <.40, uniqueness >.65, double loadings with a difference <.20, and conceptual incongruity), eleven items were eliminated (R3, R17, R25, R1, R9, R12, R4, R7, R10, R28, and R23).

To confirm this decision, an EFA was explored with the discarded items, which showed only acceptable sample adequacy (KMO = .761; Bartlett χ²₍₄₅₎ = 2911.66, p < .001), with a bifactorial solution explaining 27.6% of the total variance. Several loadings were weak (e.g., R17 = .434) and several were excessively unique (R3, R1, R9, R12 > .90), which showed that these items did not constitute solid or replicable factors. This result confirmed that the original dimensions of optimism, problem solving, and acceptance of diversity (Astudillo et al., 2023) did not show a consistent factorial pattern, justifying their exclusion.

The final solution consisted of 19 items distributed across four conceptually consistent dimensions, which together explained 51.7% of the variance. The first factor, Self-Esteem, included five items (R2, R6, R11, R19, R22) that reflect self-acceptance and positive assessment of personal identity. The second, Prosocial Behavior, consisted of five items (R8, R14, R18, R24, R29) related to empathy, inclusion, and support for others. The third, Perseverance, included five items (R5, R13, R16, R26, R27) that express consistency and motivation to achieve. Finally, the fourth, Emotional Regulation, comprised four items (R15, R20, R21, R30) focused on the ability to recognize and modulate negative emotional states. The inter-factor correlations were moderate, with values ranging from .34 to .62, which support the existence of a common trait of resilience, subsequently confirmed in the confirmatory factor analysis.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

(Table 2) using the structure derived from the exploratory factor analysis (EFA), a hierarchical model was specified with the four first-order factors saturating into a second-order factor of general resilience. Given the ordinal nature of the items (three response categories), the model was estimated using diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) based on polychoric correlations. The model showed a good fit: χ²(148) = 1131.17, p < .001; CFI = .953; TLI = .946; RMSEA = .058, 90% CI [.055, .061]; SRMR = .055. Table 3 presents these indices and their confidence intervals.

Table 2.

Fit Indices of the Solutions Explored in the CFA

Solution	RMSEA	90% CI RMSEA	SRMR	TLI	CFI
5 factors	.058	.056–.060	.028	.884	.921
4 factors (initial)	.065	.063–.067	.033	.857	.894
4 factors (refined)	.064	.060–.068	.024	.919	.952

Table 3.

Fit of the Hierarchical Confirmatory Factor Model (DWLS) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE)

Metric	Value
χ²	1131.17
df	148
CFI	.953
TLI	.946
RMSEA	.058
90% CI RMSEA	[.055, .061]
SRMR	.055

Factor (first order)	Items	VME
F1: Self-esteem	R2, R6, R19, R22, R11	.595
F2: Prosocial behavior	R24, R8, R18, R29, R14	.437
F3: Perseverance	R26, R16, R27, R13, R5	.505
F4: Emotional Regulation	R30, R21, R20, R15	.480

Note. Hierarchical model with four first-order factors saturating a second-order factor of resilience.

All loadings were significant (p < .001) and of moderate-high magnitude. By factor, the ranges of loadings (unstandardized) were: Self-esteem = .736–1.085; Prosociality = .733–.896; Perseverance = .874–1.089; Emotional regulation = .787–1.025. The second-order loadings were substantive (γ: F2 = .836; F3 = 1.001; F4 = 1.077; F1 fixed = 1.000; all ps < .001). The AVE was .595 (Self-esteem), .437 (Prosociality), .505 (Perseverance), and .480 (Emotional Regulation). Although AVE values for Prosociality and Emotional Regulation were slightly below the conventional .50 threshold, they were considered acceptable given the strong factor loadings and composite reliability estimates. First-order interfactor correlations were moderate-high (.39–.72), consistent with a common trait of resilience that justifies the second-order factor (see Figure 1).

Measurement Invariance by Gender and Age

The invariance of the four-factor hierarchical model was evaluated according to gender and age. The standard sequence was applied: configurational (same structure), metric (equal loadings), and scalar for ordinal items (equal loadings and thresholds). The criteria used were ΔCFI ≤.010, ΔRMSEA ≤.015, and ΔSRMR ≤.030 for the metric step and ≤.010 for the scalar step (Chen, 2007; Cheung & Rensvold, 2002).

Gender. The scalar model showed good fit, supporting measurement equivalence between women and men: χ²₍₃₂₈₎ = 1212.86, p < .001; CFI = .956, TLI = .954; RMSEA = .052, 90% CI [.049, .056]; SRMR = .055. The first-order loadings were significant in both groups, and the second-order loadings (general resilience) remained substantive and stable. The VME (AVE) was similar between genders (Women: .631, .434, .517, .508; Men: .482, .451, .502, .419), suggesting comparable internal convergence.

Age. The scalar model in three age groups also achieved a good fit: χ²₍₅₀₈₎ = 1481.15, p < .001; CFI = .952, TLI = .952; RMSEA = .054, 90% CI [.051, .057]; SRMR = .065. First- and second-order loadings were significant and consistent across groups. The VME was within acceptable and comparable ranges (G1 (10 to 12 years): .576, .448, .469, .483; G2 (13 to 15 years): .559, .416, .511, .482; G3 (16 to 18 years): .605, .447, .592, .489), and interfactor correlations were moderate to high in all groups, consistent with a common trait of resilience.

The fit changes between the configurational, metric, and scalar steps did not exceed the recommended thresholds, thus concluding scalar invariance by gender and age. This enables comparisons of latent means and structural relationships between groups (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Pearson Correlations Between Resilience Subscales, Overall Resilience, and Mental Health Problems

Dimensions	F1	F2	F3	F4	FG	INT	EXT
F1: Self-esteem	—
F2: Prosocial behavior	0.313	—
F3: Perseverance	0.482	0.496	—
F4: Emotional regulation	0.560	0.350	0.515	—
FG. Resilience	0.798	0.685	0.802	0.783	—
INT: Internalizing symptoms	−0.655	−0.157	−0.295	−0.417	−0.517	—
EXT: Externalizing symptoms	−0.290	−0.407	−0.382	−0.276	−0.437	0.324	—
ATE: Attention symptoms	−0.169	−0.076	−0.190	−0.144	−0.190	0.336	0.420

Reliability

Internal consistency was assessed using McDonald’s ω coefficient based on the confirmatory model. Overall, the second-order factor (Resilience) showed high reliability: ω = .873 (SE = .003; 95% CI [.867, .878]; see Table Y). By subscales, Self-esteem showed high reliability (ω = .817; SE = .005; 95% CI [.807, .826]); Perseverance was adequate–high (ω = .746; SE = .006; 95% CI [.733, .758]); Emotional Regulation was adequate (ω = .706; SE = .008; 95% CI [.691, .721]); and Prosocial Behavior was at the acceptable limit (ω = .702; SE = .008; 95% CI [.687, .717]). Taken together, these indices support the use of a total resilience score and, complementarily, the subscale scores.

Divergent Validity

Resilience scores were correlated with internalizing, externalizing, and attentional symptoms. As expected, all associations were negative. As shown in Table 4, the strongest negative associations were between self-esteem and internalizing symptoms, as well as between the total resilience score and externalizing and internalizing symptoms. Overall, higher resilience scores are associated with fewer symptoms, supporting the convergent validity of the scale (see Table 4).

Descriptives of Composite Scores

Among the subscales, Prosocial Behavior and Perseverance showed the highest means, while Emotional Regulation was the lowest; Self-Esteem was at an intermediate level. By gender, men tended to score slightly higher than women on all subscales. By age, a stable pattern was observed with small differences between groups. The complete values of means and standard deviations by subscale, gender, and age group are presented in Table 5.

Table 5.

Descriptive statistics for composite resilience scores (1–3)

Dimensions	Total	Women	Men	10–12 years old	13–15 years old	16–18 years old
Dimensions	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
F1: Self-esteem	2,318 (0.535)	2,174 (0.566)	2,444 (0.472)	2,393 (0.527)	2,246 (0.535)	2,259 (0.531)
F2: Prosocial behavior	2,482 (0.426)	2,481 (0.416)	2,483 (0.434)	2,528 (0.421)	2,437 (0.426)	2,448 (0.424)
F3: Perseverance	2,473 (0.432)	2,445 (0.437)	2,498 (0.427)	2,502 (0.424)	2,433 (0.435)	2,473 (0.443)
F4: Emotional regulation	2,233 (0.525)	2,123 (0.539)	2,330 (0.492)	2,250 (0.526)	2,196 (0.530)	2,255 (0.511)
FG: Resilience	2,384 (0.367)	2,316 (0.373)	2,445 (0.350)	2,427 (0.366)	2,335 (0.361)	2,364 (0.366)

Discussion

This study provides evidence on the structural validity of the VOLANTÍN Resilience Capabilities Scale. The analyses confirmed that adolescent resilience can be understood as a hierarchical construct composed of four core capabilities: self-esteem, prosocial behavior, perseverance, and emotional regulation. Together, these dimensions explained more than half of the observed variance, indicating that they parsimoniously capture the essential resources for positive adaptation in adolescence. The finding of moderate correlations between the subscales and their saturation in a second-order factor supports the existence of a common core of resilience that articulates personal and relational processes.

A crucial aspect was the exclusion of eleven items linked to three dimensions originally proposed (optimism, problem solving, and acceptance of diversity) that did not show a robust factorial pattern. Additional exploratory analysis confirmed the structural weakness of these items, with low or unstable loadings and high uniqueness. This indicates that these capacities, although conceptually relevant, do not emerge as consistent constructs in Chilean adolescents in public education, or else require reformulation to be adequately assessed. This finding highlights the importance of empirically evaluating the relevance of theoretical dimensions and avoiding the assumption that all resilient resources have the same weight in different contexts.

The four-factor structure is consistent with international theoretical frameworks that conceive resilience as a set of emotional, motivational, and social resources with transdiagnostic effects. Previous studies have consistently documented that positive self-esteem acts as a buffer against internalizing symptoms, that prosocial behaviors strengthen social belonging, that perseverance sustains motivation in adverse contexts, and that emotional regulation reduces vulnerability to emotional and behavioral symptoms (Masten, 2001; McLaughlin et al., 2020; Troy et al., 2023). The emergence of these four factors in a large sample of Chilean adolescents confirms their centrality in stages of the life cycle characterized by identity, academic, and relational challenges.

Compared to widely used international scales, the VOLANTÍN Scale offers distinctive contributions. Unlike the Resilience Scale (Wagnild & Young, 1993) and the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (Connor & Davidson, 2003), which include abstract dimensions such as spirituality or locus of control, the VOLANTÍN Scale focuses on concrete, observable, and culturally relevant processes. Compared to the CYRM-28 (Ungar et al., 2011), which emphasizes community and ecological resources, the VOLANTÍN Scale captures immediate personal and relational resources, providing a shorter instrument that is applicable in large school settings. In this sense, the findings expand on the initial work by Astudillo et al. (2023), which included seven domains, by demonstrating that four of them constitute a psychometrically stable and clinically relevant core.

In clinical practice, the VOLANTÍN Scale offers a flexible tool that is sensitive to the Latin American context for assessing resilience capacities. Its approach allows for the identification of not only deficits but also protective resources that can be strengthened through intervention. For example, low scores in emotional regulation point toward working on self-regulation strategies, while deficits in perseverance can be associated with motivation programs and academic goals. Likewise, its brevity and semantic clarity facilitate its administration in clinical contexts with a high workload, without compromising diagnostic quality.

In the school setting, the availability of a locally validated instrument allows for the evaluation of the effectiveness of programs promoting social-emotional well-being, beyond traditional indicators focused on behavioral problems. This enables educational teams to monitor positive capacities as part of their strategies for coexistence and mental health. In addition, the scale can serve as input for the design of targeted support plans, allowing for the identification of groups of students with lower resilience resources and the targeting of specific interventions.

Culturally, the VOLANTÍN Scale represents a step forward in the construction of psychometric instruments from and for the global south. Its design and validation respond to contexts of structural vulnerability characteristic of Latin America, which gives it ecological relevance. In political terms, having an instrument of this type contributes to the development of public education and mental health policies based on culturally adjusted indicators. This is key in countries where structural conditions (inequality, poverty, social exclusion) directly influence adolescent development processes (Liebenberg & Moore, 2018; Van Breda, 2017).

This study is not without limitations. The sample came from a single urban school district, which restricts its generalizability to other territories, especially rural areas or those with different sociodemographic compositions. Although invariance by gender and age was tested, temporal stability and predictive validity were not addressed. Future studies should evaluate the scale’s ability to predict mental health trajectories and academic performance, as well as explore its applicability in other Latin American countries. It is also relevant to review the excluded domains, considering whether reformulated versions of the items could be reincorporated as secondary indicators of the global factor or as complementary modules for specific contexts.

Overall, the findings consolidate the VOLANTÍN Resilience Capabilities Scale as a psychometrically robust, clinically useful, and culturally relevant instrument. Its application in school and clinical settings can improve early detection, guide personalized interventions, and strengthen the evaluation of mental health and coexistence programs. In doing so, it contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of adolescent resilience in Chile and Latin America, in line with efforts to develop tools that are sensitive to cultural diversity and conditions of structural vulnerability.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the schools that participated in this study for their collaboration, commitment, and support throughout the research process.

ORCID iDs

Rodrigo Rojas-Andrade

María Elena Montt Steffens

Lorena Saenz Bravo

Ethical Considerations

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Santiago, Chile, Approval Number: 330/2025.

Consent to Participate

Written informed consent to participate in the study was obtained from all participants and/or their legal guardians, in accordance with ethics committee requirements.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable. (No individual, identifiable data (images, videos, personal information) are included in the manuscript).

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Data Availability Statement

The data underlying this study will be made available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.*

Author Biographies

Rodrigo Rojas-Andrade, Ph.D., is a Psychologist and Associate Professor at the School of Psychology, Universidad de Santiago de Chile (USACH). His research specializes in school mental health, implementation science, and Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS), with a specific emphasis on applying the dual-factor model of mental health to adolescent populations in school settings.

Marcela Larraguibel Quiroz, M.D., is a Medical Doctor and Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist. She serves as an academic and the Head of the Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Unit at the University Psychiatric Clinic, Universidad de Chile. She is a distinguished researcher in child psychiatry and a past president of the Chilean Society of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Neurology (SOPNIA).

María Elena Montt Steffens, Ps., is a Psychologist specializing in Child and Adolescent Psychology, as well as Family and Couples Therapy. She is an Associate Professor and a leading professional within the University Psychiatric Clinic at the Universidad de Chile, focusing on adolescent psychological well-being and clinical interventions.

Lorena Saenz Bravo is a Research Assistant at the Universidad de Santiago de Chile (USACH). She actively contributes to data collection, project coordination, and research initiatives focused on psychological evaluation and school mental health.

Porzia Michele Nicolet Mirauda is a Professional at the Technical-Pedagogical Subdirectorate, Integral Formation Unit, Coexistence and Psychosocial Support Sub-unit of the Local Public Education Service of Barrancas (SLEP Barrancas), collaborating on the execution and management of community, educational support, and school coexistence programs.

Rossana Paola Ossandón Maldonado is a Social Worker at the Technical-Pedagogical Subdirectorate, Integral Formation Unit, Coexistence and Psychosocial Support Sub-unit of the Local Public Education Service of Barrancas (SLEP Barrancas). She specializes in social intervention, interdisciplinary collaboration, and providing structural community support within public educational frameworks.

Marcia Loreto Pereira Villagra is a Psychologist and Head of the Technical-Pedagogical Subdirectorate, Integral Formation Unit, Coexistence and Psychosocial Support Sub-unit at the Local Public Education Service of Barrancas (SLEP Barrancas). She applies her clinical and community psychology expertise to support public education initiatives and mental health programs within the local school system.

References

Armstrong

Watt

Potter

Epperson

(2025). Meaning mindset theory: A transdiagnostic approach to mental health promotion and intervention for children. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1467332. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1467332

Astudillo

Urbina

Valladares

(2023). Construcción y validación de una escala de resiliencia para niños y niñas de 9 a 12 años (Tesis). Universidad de Chile.

Chen

F. F.

(2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. B.

(2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

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

Dray

(2021). Child and adolescent mental health and resilience-focused interventions: A conceptual analysis to inform future research. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(14), 7315. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147315

Ellis

Hadden

Jones

(2018). Language and transient emotional states affect implicit cultural bias. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(12), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818792412

Fernández

M. V.

López

L. G. J.

Vázquez

D. J.

(2024). Interventions for selective prevention of emotional problems in adolescents: a systematic review. Revista de Psicología Clínica con niños y adolescentes, 11(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.21134/rpcna.2024.11.2.1

Gardner

Murphy

Childs

Kelleher

Pagano

Sturner

(1999). The PSC-17: A brief pediatric symptom checklist with psychosocial problem subscales. A report from PROS and ASPN. Ambulatory Child Health, 5(3), 225–236.

10.

Hachim

Larraguibel

Halpern

Volantín clinical team . (2017). Effects of the “Volantín” group intervention program on resilience, self-esteem, mood and anxiety symptoms in 8–12-year-old schoolchildren with emotional disorders. Chilean Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Neurology, 28, 42–43.

11.

Halpern

Larraguibel

Montt

(2014). VOLANTÍN manual.

12.

Jongen

Langham

Bainbridge

McCalman

(2019). Instruments for measuring the resilience of Indigenous adolescents: An exploratory review. Frontiers in Public Health, 7, 194. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00194

13.

Leiva

Rojas

Peña

Vargas

Scquicciarini

A. M.

(2019). Detecting emotional and behavioral difficulties in school: Validation of PSC-17. Ibero-American Journal of Diagnosis and Evaluation, 1(50), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.21S65/RIDEP50.1.0S

14.

Liang

Hung

Wang

Peng

(2019). Resilience enhancement among student nurses during clinical practices: A participatory action research study. Nurse Education Today, 75(3), 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2019.01.004

15.

Liebenberg

Moore

(2018). A social ecological measure of resilience for adults: The RRC-ARM. Social Indicators Research, 136(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1523-y

16.

Lloyd

Law

Midgley

Lucas

Atkinson

Steinbeis

Martin

Veenstra

Smith

Bird

Murphy

Plans

Munafò

Penton-Voak

Deighton

Richards

Viding

(2025). A feasibility study of a preventative, transdiagnostic intervention for mental health problems in adolescence: ReSET. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 19(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-025-00870-z

17.

Masten

A. S.

(2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227

18.

Masten

A. S.

Lucke

C. M.

Nelson

K. M.

Stallworthy

I. C.

(2021). Resilience in development and psychopathology: Multisystem perspectives. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 17(1), 521–549. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081219-120307

19.

McLaughlin

K. A.

Colich

N. L.

Rodman

A. M.

Weissman

D. G.

(2020). Mechanisms linking childhood trauma exposure and psychopathology: A transdiagnostic model of risk and resilience. BMC Medicine, 18(1), 96. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01561-6

20.

Montt Steffens

M. E.

Halpern Gasman

Larraguibel Quiroz

Rojas-Andrade

Aldunate Castillo

(2022). What do parents understand by resilience? Psychology Journal, 18(35), 7–21. viewed <date>. https://e-revistas.uca.edu.ar/index.php/RPSI/article/view/4007

21.

Nishimi

Choi

David

Power

Bradley

Dunn

(2020) (In this issue). Features of childhood maltreatment and resilience capacity in adulthood: Results from a large community‐based sample. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 33(5), 665–676. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.22543

22.

Panter-Brick

(2015). Culture and resilience. In Ungar

(Ed.), Youth resilience and culture (pp. 233–244). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9415-2_17

23.

Ramírez

Gana

Godoy

M. I.

Valenzuela

Araya

Gaete

(2023). Validation of the Spanish version of the Pediatric Symptom Checklist (PSC) to identify and assess psychosocial problems among early adolescents in Chile. PLOS ONE, 18(4), e0283921. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283921

24.

Ran

Macgillivray

Gong

Hales

(2020). The application of frameworks for measuring social vulnerability and resilience to geophysical hazards within developing countries: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. Science of the Total Environment, 711, 134486. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31818578/.

25.

Rojas-Andrade

Halpern

Montt

M. E.

Larraguibel

(2022). Construction and validation of a brief scale of resilience capacities in children. Chilean Journal of Neuropsychiatry, 60(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-92272022000100003

26.

Rose

Sean

Williams

Harris

Betz

Stewart-Brown

(2017). Measuring Mental Wellbeing Among Adolescents: A Systematic Review of Instruments. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(9), 2349–2362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0754-0.

27.

Rudd

Meissel

Meyer

(2021). Measuring student resilience in schools. School Psychology International, 42(3), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/01430343211001458

28.

Silva

Da Silva

(2021). Development and validation of a scale to measure the resilience of schools. Improving Schools, 25, 260–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480221991742

29.

Troy

A. S.

Willroth

E. C.

Shallcross

A. J.

Giuliani

N. R.

Gross

J. J.

Mauss

I. B.

(2023). Psychological resilience: An affect-regulation framework. Annual Review of Psychology, 74, 547–576. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020122-041854

30.

Ungar

(2006). Resilience across cultures. British Journal of Social Work, 38(2), 218–235. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcl343

31.

Ungar

Liebenberg

Van de Vijver

F. J. R.

(2011). Validation of the CYRM-28. Research on Social Work Practice, 21(2), 219–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731509355733

32.

Upton

Constenla-Villoslada

Barrett

(2022). Contextualizing resilience. European Psychologist, 27(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000463

33.

Van Breda

A. D.

(2017). The youth ecological-resilience scale. Research on Social Work Practice, 27(3), 248–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731516651731

34.

Vio

Larraguibel

Montt

Aldunate

Halpern

(2022). Efectos de la implementación del programa de promoción de la resiliencia “VOLANTÍN” en niños(as) con sistema de cuidados alternativo residencial. Andes Pediatrica, 93(2), 199–205. https://doi.org/10.32641/andespediatr.v93i2.3872

35.

Wagnild

G. M.

Young

H. M.

(1993). Development and psychometric evaluation of the resilience scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 1(2), 165–178.

36.

Wang

Qiu

(2024). Universal, school-based transdiagnostic interventions…. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 18(1), 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-024-00735-x

37.

Windle

Bennett

K. M.

Noyes

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