%0 Journal Article
%T A method of assessing the resilience of whole communities of children: An example from rural Australia
%A Dunstan Debra A
%A Todd Anna K
%J Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health
%D 2012
%I BioMed Central
%R 10.1186/1753-2000-6-17
%X Background Children living in socioeconomic disadvantage are at risk of poor mental health outcomes. In order to focus and evaluate population health programs to facilitate children¡¯s resilience, it is important to accurately assess baseline levels of functioning. With this end in mind, the aim of this study was to test the utility of 1) a voluntary random sampling method and 2) quantitative measures of adaptation (with national normative data) for assessing the resilience of children in an identified community. Method This cross-sectional study utilized a sample of participants (N = 309), including parents (n = 169), teachers (n = 20) and children (n = 170; age range = 5-16 years), recruited from the schools in Tenterfield; a socioeconomically disadvantaged community in New South Wales, Australia. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; including parent, teacher and youth versions) was used to measure psychological well-being and pro-social functioning, and NAPLAN results (individual children¡¯s and whole school¡¯s performance in literacy and numeracy) were used to measure level of academic achievement. Results The community¡¯s disadvantage was evident in the whole school NAPLAN performance but not in the sample¡¯s NAPLAN or SDQ results. The teacher SDQ ratings appeared to be more reliable than parent¡¯s ratings. The voluntary random sampling method (requiring parental consent) led to sampling bias. Conclusions The key indicators of resilience - psychological well-being, pro-social functioning and academic achievement ¨C can be measured in whole communities using the teacher version of the SDQ and whole school results on a national test of literacy and numeracy (e.g., Australia¡¯s NAPLAN). A voluntary random sample (dependent upon parental consent) appears to have limited value due to the likelihood of sampling bias.
%U http://www.capmh.com/content/6/1/17