Home / Resources / Psychological Measures / CD-RISC-25
Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (25-item):
Scoring and Interpretation
The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) in its original 25-item form is a self-report measure of perceived psychological resilience, scored by summing items coded 0 to 4 into a total from 0 to 100 (Connor & Davidson, 2003). Summing the 25 items takes one line of syntax; the real decisions in CD-RISC scoring are treating the five exploratory factors as unstable rather than as a fixed subscale key, keeping CD-RISC-10 and CD-RISC-2 totals separate from the full form, and reading the 2003 community mean of 80.4 as a description, not a norm.
What the CD-RISC-25 Measures
The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) measures perceived psychological resilience: personal resources and adaptation in the face of challenge. Connor and Davidson (2003) developed 25 self-report items and tested them among community respondents, primary-care patients, psychiatric outpatients and groups involved in anxiety and PTSD treatment trials.
The CD-RISC-25 is used in clinical outcomes research, stressful life-event studies and mental-health intervention evaluations. It estimates a self-reported resilience construct rather than diagnosing illness or proving that an individual will respond favorably to future adversity.
Structure of the CD-RISC-25
- Items: twenty-five items scored 0 to 4 in the standard version, summing to 0 to 100.
- Reverse-scored items: none for the basic CD-RISC-25 total.
- Subscales: an original exploratory five-factor solution was reported, but its replication varies across populations, so subscale sums should not be imposed automatically. The routine developer total is the primary score.
- Recall period: typically the past month; verify the official version administered.
- Other versions: ten-item and two-item developer versions exist and use different items and score ranges, so raw scores must not be equated across lengths.
- Missing items: complete-case totals in the example are a conservative analysis policy, not a quoted developer prorating rule.
The instrument itself is available from the official CD-RISC website (cd-risc.com).
How to Score the CD-RISC-25
- Confirm that the administered form is the full original 25-item CD-RISC rather than the CD-RISC-10 or CD-RISC-2.
- Sum all coded 0 to 4 item responses cdr1 to cdr25 into cdr_total, which ranges from 0 to 100. Do not reverse any items.
- The sample code requires all 25 items. The cited sources set no universal prorating rule for missing items, so document the choice in the protocol.
- Use total scores or change scores in analysis, and do not convert the score to an unvalidated normal or abnormal category.
COMPUTE cdr_total=SUM.25(cdr1,cdr2,cdr3,cdr4,cdr5,cdr6,cdr7,cdr8,cdr9,cdr10,cdr11,cdr12,cdr13,cdr14,cdr15,cdr16,cdr17,cdr18,cdr19,cdr20,cdr21,cdr22,cdr23,cdr24,cdr25).
EXECUTE.data$cdr_total <- rowSums(data[paste0("cdr",1:25)],na.rm=FALSE)Interpreting CD-RISC-25 Scores
| Score band | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| 0 to 100 | Continuous resilience score, with higher values indicating greater self-reported resilience |
| Low/medium/high universal clinical categories | Not established by the original validation |
Source: Connor & Davidson (2003).
Higher scores indicate more reported resilience. The original paper found a mean of 80.4 (SD 12.8) in its community sample, but this is a study-specific descriptive finding, not a validated universal normative boundary. No diagnostic cut-off is implied.
Do not present the original five-factor exploratory result as fixed, validated subscale item sets for all populations. Confirm the exact CD-RISC version, and validate local dimensionality if you make factor claims.
Psychometric Properties
| Property | Published finding | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Internal consistency | Cronbach α = .89 in the original 577-person community sample | Connor & Davidson (2003) |
| Test-retest reliability | Intraclass correlation approximately .87 in 24 clinically stable trial participants | Connor & Davidson (2003) |
| Convergent validity | Correlation with hardiness was approximately r = .83 in original findings | Connor & Davidson (2003) |
| Factor structure | Original exploratory solution: five factors; later research reports variable replication | Connor & Davidson (2003); Duke Aging Center |
| Treatment responsiveness | Resilience scores rose with clinical improvement in PTSD treatment-trial groups | Connor & Davidson (2003) |
These are source-specific results and cannot be assumed to hold as reliability or accuracy estimates in a new sample.
Using the CD-RISC-25 in a Study
For longitudinal studies, analyze CD-RISC-25 change with Linear Mixed Models (Multilevel Modeling) or with Multiple Linear Regression that adjusts for baseline, depending on the design. Report means, standard deviations, within-person change and uncertainty intervals rather than turning continuous scores into unsupported categories.
Reliability and factorial performance should be established in the actual study population, particularly when evaluating translations: Reliability Analysis (Cronbach’s Alpha) gives the internal-consistency estimate and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) tests the dimensional claim. If the CD-RISC-10 is used, analyze its own 0 to 40 score and cite Campbell-Sills and Stein rather than identifying it as the 25-item form. The original instrument does not provide a universally accepted minimal clinically important difference.
Related field: Counseling & Mental Health Psychology
Reporting the CD-RISC-25
Resilience was measured with the 25-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-25; Connor & Davidson, 2003). Each item was scored from 0 to 4 and responses were summed to a total ranging from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating greater self-reported resilience. Internal consistency in the present study was [α = XX], and missing values were addressed using [method].
References
Campbell-Sills, L., & Stein, M. B. (2007). Psychometric analysis and refinement of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): Validation of a 10-item measure of resilience. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20(6), 1019-1028. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20271
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
Davidson, J. R. T. (n.d.). Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). https://www.cd-risc.com/
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the range of the CD-RISC-25?
Twenty-five items scored 0 to 4 yield a total from 0 to 100, with no reverse-scored items in the basic total.
Does a CD-RISC score diagnose low resilience?
No. The original study establishes no diagnostic threshold, and the score describes self-reported resilience rather than a clinical condition.
Can I use CD-RISC-10 scores interchangeably with the 25-item total?
No. The CD-RISC-10 has a different item set and a 0 to 40 total, so analyze and report it as its own instrument.
Should I report five subscales?
Only if you use a properly justified and verified subscale specification in the population studied. The total is the safer primary result.
NEXT STEP
Need CD-RISC-25 Totals
Scored and Checked?
OnlineSPSS is a statistical consultancy for researchers. Share your design and dataset, and a statistically trained Research Coordinator reviews it. The scope and one fixed project fee are confirmed before work begins.
No Commitment Required
Strictly Confidential
Fixed Project Fee
In-House PhD-Level Statisticians
Same-Day Response
Serving Researchers Since 2014