Adult Resilience Questionnaire (RRC-ARM) Test

How the Scales are Structured
Who Usually Takes This Test?
See How You Compare
Below is a preview of how scores are typically distributed across each scale.
Example Questions From the Test
- Not at all
- A little
- To some extent
- To a large extent
- To a very great extent
- Not at all
- A little
- To some extent
- To a great extent
- To a very great extent
- Not at all
- A little
- To some extent
- To a considerable extent
- To a very great extent
Adult Resilience Questionnaire (RRC-ARM) Test - Description and methodology of the test
People seeking a structured view of the resources that support coping may find this questionnaire useful for personal reflection, relationship awareness, and planning areas for growth. The Adult Resilience Questionnaire (RRC-ARM) Test is designed for adults who want to consider how support, skills, identity, and social context contribute to adaptation. It offers a resilience assessment for adults without reducing resilience to a single personal quality.
What This Assessment Explores
This adult resilience questionnaire measures personal, family, and social resources and skills; all scales use 1-5, with bands 1-2.9/3-3.9/4-5:
- Family Support, Psychological Care, Physical Care, and Individual Support measure family resources, psychological/physical care, and support from friends and close others. Bands: Low/Moderate/High; Low support/Moderate support/High support; Limited support/Moderate support/Strong support; Low support/Moderate support/High support.
- Culture, Education, Spirituality, and Context measure national/community belonging, education/professional engagement, faith, and social context. Bands: Low/Moderate/High; Low engagement/Moderate engagement/High engagement; Low reliance/Moderate reliance/High reliance; Limited context resources/Adequate context resources/Strong context resources.
- Individual and Social Skills, Individual Skills, Individual Characteristics, and General Resilience measure behavioral skills, problem-solving, strengths, and everyday coping resources. Bands: Needs development/Developing/Well developed; Needs strengthening/Developing/Well-developed; Low resources/Moderate resources/High resources; Low resources/Moderate resources/High resources.
Methodology and Scientific Basis
Each statement uses five ordered choices, from not at all or a little to a very great extent. Items ask about family and friend support, cultural belonging, faith, education, confidence, behavior, and access to help, so respondents rate their experience rather than choose a correct answer. Taken as a whole, this adult resilience test presents a multidimensional profile: higher scores reflect stronger endorsement of the resource described.
Methodologically, it is conceptually consistent with the RRC-ARM, a resource-oriented approach spanning individual, relational, and contextual assets; it is not presented as an adaptation of that published measure. Applications of the Adult Resilience Measure and the CYRM provide context for culturally responsive resilience assessment, not validation of this questionnaire.
Interpret results as a current self-report profile. The displayed bands are descriptive categories for this questionnaire. Scores may shift with present circumstances, self-awareness, cultural context, and willingness to disclose. The pattern is best used to identify perceived supports and skills for reflection rather than to assign a diagnosis.
- Resilience Research Centre. (2016). The Resilience Research Centre Adult Resilience Measure (RRC-ARM): User's Manual-Research. Resilience Research Centre.
- Clark, Janine Natalya, Philip Jefferies, Sarah Foley, and Michael Ungar. (2022). Measuring Resilience in the Context of Conflict-Related Sexual Violence: A Novel Application of the Adult Resilience Measure (ARM). Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(19-20), NP17570-NP17615. 10.1177/08862605211028323
- Ungar, Michael, and Linda Liebenberg. (2011). Assessing Resilience Across Cultures Using Mixed Methods: Construction of the Child and Youth Resilience Measure. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5(2), 126-149. 10.1177/1558689811400607
Updated: