https://dx.doi.org/10.24016/2025.v11.494
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Validation of the Maternal
Resilience Scale (ERESMA) in Mothers of Children with Disabilities
Milagros Cahuana Cuentas1*;
Candy Céspedes Quispe1, Renzo Rivera1; Walter L. Arias Gallegos1
1 Universidad Católica
San Pablo, Arequipa City, Peru.
* Correspondence: micahuana@ucsp.edu.pe
Received: November 30, 2025 |
Revised: December 20, 2025 | Accepted: December 27, 2025 | Published
Online: December 30, 2025.
CITE IT AS:
Cahuana Cuentas, M., Céspedes Quispe, C., Rivera, R., Arias
Gallegos, W. (2025). Validation
of the Maternal Resilience Scale (ERESMA) in Mothers of Children with
Disabilities. Interacciones, 11, e494. https://doi.org/10.24016/2025.v11.494
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Maternal resilience is a crucial variable for mothers of children with disabilities;
therefore, having instruments grounded in theoretical models that reflect the
unique characteristics of this condition is highly relevant. Objective: To
analyze the validity and reliability of the Maternal Resilience Scale (ERESMA)
in Peruvian mothers of children with disabilities. Method: The study
followed an instrumental design, evaluating a sample of 243 mothers of children
with disabilities, aged between 23 and 76 (M = 43.16) and living in the
provinces of Arequipa and Puno. The diagnoses of their children were mainly
intellectual disability (42.7%), autism spectrum disorder (15.3%), and multiple
disabilities (15.3%). Results: It was confirmed that the original
six-factor structure has adequate goodness-of-fit indices: ꭓ2(804) = 916.222, p
= .004, CFI = .985, TLI = .984, RMSEA = .024, and SRMR = .072. Likewise, the
internal consistency results using the omega coefficient are adequate for
self-determination (ω = .727), hopelessness (ω = .826), spiritual faith (ω =
.763), lack of partner support (ω = .836), and limited resources to meet needs
(ω = .785); while borderline values were obtained for the factor of rejection
personal responsibility (ω = .651). Conclusion: The ERESMA Scale, when
applied to mothers of children with disabilities in Peru, demonstrates
sufficient evidence of validity and reliability to support its appropriate use.
Keywords: maternal resilience; children with disabilities; validity; reliability;
instrument
INTRODUCTION
The birth of a
child with a disability presents parents with a series of challenges (Dumont,
2019). In Peru, the prevalence of individuals with disabilities reaches 10.4%
of the total population, with 14.4% of this group composed of children and
adolescents (Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática [INEI], 2017). This reality imposes a
significant burden on primary caregivers-mainly mothers-who must develop coping
and resilience strategies to manage the demands associated with this situation
(Rasoulpoor et al., 2023; Solikhin
et al., 2024).
Roque et al.
(2009) defines maternal resilience as the mother’s capacity to adapt positively
to adversity, noting that it serves as a key mediator for providing the
necessary attention and care to a child with a disability. Although resilience
has been widely studied, theoretical models specifically addressing maternal
resilience in mothers of children with disabilities are almost nonexistent
(Schwartz et al., 2024). This gap highlights the importance of developing and
validating specific instruments to assess resilience in this population,
considering the unique challenges faced by Peruvian mothers of children with
disabilities (Checcllo & Escudero, 2023;
Tanta-Luyo et al., 2020).
The Escala de Resiliencia Materna (ERESMA) was developed by Roque et al.
(2009) in Mexico. The scale is grounded in an ecosystemic approach which
emphasizes that resilience is a multidimensional variable and therefore
requires personal and social mediators who can promote the mother's resilience
or positive adaptation to adverse situations, meaning it evaluates both the
mother’s resilient attributes and the quality of her surrounding environment
(Roque et al. 2009). Thus, this scale consists of 45 items distributed across
six dimensions: self-determination, spiritual faith, hopelessness, lack of
partner support, limited resources to meet needs, and rejection of personal
responsibility. Roque et al. (2009) incorporated these six dimensions into
their maternal resilience scale. Self-determination is conceptualized as a core
resilience characteristic; spiritual faith is treated as a positive mediator;
and the remaining four dimensions—hopelessness, lack of partner support,
limited resources to meet needs, and rejection of personal responsibility—are
considered negative mediators.
Self-determination
constitutes an essential process through which mothers make decisions, set
goals, and regulate their actions to provide adequate care for their children
with disabilities. This capacity for self-regulation and personal direction is
fundamental for sustaining their emotional well-being and relational
functioning in contexts of intensive caregiving (Mak et al., 2023). Similarly,
spirituality functions as a protective resource that promotes resilience by
offering meaning, hope, and positive coping mechanisms—an observation
consistent with recent studies highlighting its role in families facing
adversity (Pérez-García et al., 2021).
In contrast,
risk factors such as hopelessness, lack of partner support, and economic and
social limitations reduce mothers’ adaptive capacity. Hopelessness is
associated with increased psychological distress and negative perceptions about
their children’s future, thereby hindering their ability to sustain the
caregiving role (Schwartz et al., 2024). The absence of spousal support and
insufficient resources exacerbate this vulnerability, as they undermine
emotional adjustment and heighten the subjective burden of caregiving
(Alkhateeb et al., 2022).
In summary,
the six identified dimensions obtained an overall Cronbach’s alpha of .92, and
Exploratory Factor Analysis showed that they explained 50.19% of the total
variance. Based on this level of explained variance, hopelessness was
identified as the most influential factor in the scale, likely because many
mothers experience suffering and feelings of emptiness when thinking about
their child’s future (Roque et al., 2009).
Due to the
strong psychometric indicators reported, several studies have used this scale.
A similar pattern is observed in Peru. However, there is a lack of studies
assessing the psychometric properties of the instrument in samples of Peruvian
mothers of children with disabilities. Tumbaco et al. (2017) conducted a study
that included the content validity of the ERESMA scale, reported a reliability
coefficient of .919 in a correlational study on parental adjustment. The
closest effort is the thesis by Lozano and Romero (2022), conducted with 209
mothers of children with intellectual disabilities, which reported validity
based on internal structure and convergent validity across five ERESMA factors,
explaining 42.5% of the variance, with positive and significant correlations
among factors. Reliability ranged from .74 to .88, indicating good psychometric
performance.
Although there
is a history of psychometric validation, it is limited for various reasons. In
the study by Tumbaco et al. (2017), psychometric evaluation was not the main
objective of the research, so the analysis was restricted solely to content
validity. For their part, Lozano and Romero (2022) applied the instrument in a
Peruvian context marked by a health crisis, a situation that led to a reduction
in items due to a lack of contextual relevance, which restricts the scope and
interpretation of the results. Likewise, in that study, Exploratory Factor
Analysis (EFA) was used, despite the existence of a previously established
factor model (Roque et al., 2009), so methodologically, Confirmatory Factor
Analysis (CFA) is preferred. In turn, the analysis of the internal structure
through EFA led to the elimination of one dimension, altering the original
factorial structure proposed by Roque et al. (2009).
Based on these
findings, the need emerged to conduct a study evaluating the psychometric
properties of the ERESMA Scale among Peruvian mothers of children with
disabilities.
METHODS
Design
The design corresponds to an instrumental study, as its primary purpose
is to gather psychometric evidence for a measurement instrument (Ato et al.,
2013).
Participants
The sample was made up of 243 mothers of children with disabilities and
their ages ranged from 23 to 76 years (M = 43.16). The 70.8% of them resided in
the province of Arequipa and 29.2% in the province of Puno, both located in the
south of Peru. According to the mothers’ self-reports, it is observed that
regarding their marital status, 40.5% were married, 28.5% were unmarried but
cohabited; 23.8% were single mothers, 3.8% were divorced and 3.4% were widowed.
Regarding the characteristics of the children of the mothers evaluated, 42.7%
had intellectual disabilities, 29.7% had autism spectrum disorders, and 15.3%
had multiple disabilities. The degree of disability was mostly mild (36.7%) and
moderate (33.3%), although 22.9% had a severe level of disability. Most
children with disabilities among those evaluated were male (61.4%).
Non-probabilistic convenience sampling was performed (Otzen & Manterola,
2017).
Additionally, a post hoc statistical power analysis was conducted using
Arifin’s (2025) calculator. The computation entered the RMSEA value obtained in
the present study (.024), 804 degrees of freedom, and a p-value of .05;
revealing that the sample of 243 participants yielded a statistical power of
85%.
Instruments
Ad Hoc Sociodemographic: A brief ad hoc form
was administered to obtain sociodemographic data on the participants. This
included information about the mothers: age, place of residence and marital
status; as well as information about their children: age, gender, type and
degree of disability.
Maternal Resilience Scale (ERESMA): The scale
developed by Roque et al. (2009) assesses resilience in mothers of children
with disabilities. It consists of 45 items organized into six correlated
factors and is administered using a Likert-type response format ranging from 1
= Never to 5 = Always (Roque et al., 2009). The factorial model includes the
following six dimensions: Hopelessness (13 items), Self-Determination (9
items), Lack of Partner Support (7 items), Limited Resources to Meet Needs (6
items), Spiritual Faith (5 items), and Rejection of Personal Responsibility (5
items). As noted in the introduction, this instrument demonstrates adequate
psychometric properties in terms of validity and reliability (Roque et al.,
2009). For the present study, the instrument was culturally adapted, the main
change was the replacement of the terms “child with problems” or “troubled
child” to “child with a disability,” so that all items were easier to
understand for the sample evaluated.
Procedure
First, contact was established with various associations and Special
Basic Education Centers (CEBEs) located in the cities of Puno and Arequipa.
These institutions were sent a formal invitation letter explaining the
objectives and scope of the study and requesting their participation. The
letters were carefully written to highlight the importance of the research and
its potential benefits for the educational community and the families involved.
Once responses were received from the associations and CEBEs that agreed to
participate, detailed coordination was carried out to schedule the dates and
times for the administration of the research instruments. These arrangements
were managed individually, considering the availability and specific needs of
each institution, with the aim of ensuring an orderly process that respected
the time and dynamics of the participants. In addition, preparatory meetings
were held with institutional representatives to clarify any questions regarding
the procedures.
After completing the data collection process, the instruments were
scored and entered an Excel database for subsequent analysis. Before the
psychometric analysis, a small number of participants (n=13) were identified
who did not respond to any items on the instrument. Since this absence of data
was total and did not depend on other observed variables or the latent
variable, these cases were considered Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) and
were excluded from the analyses, using listwise deletion, to ensure the
integrity of the data matrix required for the psychometric procedures
conducted.
Data Analysis
The analyses were performed with JASP software version 19.3.0 (JASP
Team, 2024). The statistical analysis was carried out in stages: In the first
stage, the content validity of the 45 items was analyzed by five expert judges,
who rated the consistency, relevance, and clarity of the items on a scale of 1
(does not meet the criteria) to 4 points (fully meets the criteria). Aiken's V
coefficient was applied to determine whether the items had good content
validity. Considering the number of judges, a confidence level of 95% and a
flexible eligibility criterion (lower limit greater than 0.5) were used.
In the second stage, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed on
the original factor structure of ERESMA (Roque et al., 2009), excluding the
items eliminated in the first stage. The CFA was conducted using the Weighted
Least Squares Mean and Variance adjusted (WLSMV) given the lack of multivariate
normality of the data (Hair et al., 2010). Likewise, the goodness-of-fit
indices used were: the normalized chi-square ratio (χ2/dg) with a value lower
than 3, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA ≤ .08) and its 90%
confidence interval (CI 90%); Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR ≤
.08); Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), both greater
than .90 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Hu & Bentler, 1999; McDonald & Ho,
2002). Finally, in the last stage, reliability was estimated using the internal
consistency method with McDonald's omega coefficient (ω ≥ .70) (Hair et al.,
2010).
Ethical Considerations
The protocol
was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the “Universidad Católica
San Pablo” (Acta 56.CEPI.UCSP.2024). All participants
were informed of the study and signed a consent form prior to participation.
The essential aspects of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of
Conduct of the American Psychological Association (2017) were duly considered.
Prior to responding to the items, the parents of children with disabilities
were presented with an informed consent statement embedded as a specific item
requiring their approval. It was emphasized that their participation was
entirely voluntary, and that all information provided would be treated with the
strictest confidentiality.
RESULTS
Descriptive Analysis
Table 1 shows the Aiken’s V coefficient and their 95% confidence interval
limits. Of the 45 items evaluated, only 41 were identified as valid. Items 3,
25, 33, and 34 were invalid because the lower limit of Aiken's V was less than
0.5. However, after an expert qualitatively analyzed these invalid items, it
was decided to keep items 3 and 33 because they are theoretically relevant, and
delete items 25 and 34 because in both cases the wording is ambiguous and they
are not contextualized to mothers of children with disabilities; however, due
to the number of items per dimension, the theoretical model remains consistent.
Table 1. Aiken’s V
coefficient and 95% confidence intervals of the items of ERESMA
|
|
|
|
95% CI |
|
|
|
Items |
Mean |
Aiken’s V |
Lower |
Upper |
Decision |
|
1 |
3.7 |
.900 |
.660 |
.977 |
valid |
|
2 |
3.9 |
.967 |
.747 |
.997 |
valid |
|
3 |
3.1 |
.700 |
.448 |
.870 |
invalid |
|
4 |
3.8 |
.933 |
.702 |
.988 |
valid |
|
5 |
3.5 |
.833 |
.584 |
.947 |
valid |
|
6 |
3.6 |
.867 |
.621 |
.963 |
valid |
|
7 |
3.8 |
.933 |
.702 |
.988 |
valid |
|
8 |
3.8 |
.933 |
.702 |
.988 |
valid |
|
9 |
3.8 |
.933 |
.702 |
.988 |
valid |
|
10 |
3.7 |
.900 |
.660 |
.977 |
valid |
|
11 |
3.8 |
.933 |
.702 |
.988 |
valid |
|
12 |
3.8 |
.933 |
.702 |
.988 |
valid |
|
13 |
3.7 |
.900 |
.660 |
.977 |
valid |
|
14 |
3.5 |
.833 |
.584 |
.947 |
valid |
|
15 |
3.5 |
.833 |
.584 |
.947 |
valid |
|
16 |
3.7 |
.900 |
.660 |
.977 |
valid |
|
17 |
3.8 |
.933 |
.702 |
.988 |
valid |
|
18 |
3.8 |
.933 |
.702 |
.988 |
valid |
|
19 |
3.7 |
.900 |
.660 |
.977 |
valid |
|
20 |
3.9 |
.967 |
.747 |
.997 |
valid |
|
21 |
3.9 |
.967 |
.747 |
.997 |
valid |
|
22 |
3.5 |
.833 |
.584 |
.947 |
valid |
|
23 |
3.8 |
.933 |
.702 |
.988 |
valid |
|
24 |
3.9 |
.967 |
.747 |
.997 |
valid |
|
25 |
3.1 |
.700 |
.448 |
.870 |
invalid |
|
26 |
3.4 |
.800 |
.548 |
.930 |
valid |
|
27 |
3.7 |
.900 |
.660 |
.977 |
valid |
|
28 |
3.9 |
.967 |
.747 |
.997 |
valid |
|
29 |
3.7 |
.900 |
.660 |
.977 |
valid |
|
30 |
3.3 |
.767 |
.514 |
.911 |
valid |
|
31 |
3.5 |
.833 |
.584 |
.947 |
valid |
|
32 |
3.7 |
.900 |
.660 |
.977 |
valid |
|
33 |
3.2 |
.733 |
.480 |
.891 |
invalid |
|
34 |
2.3 |
.433 |
.223 |
.671 |
invalid |
|
35 |
3.5 |
.833 |
.584 |
.947 |
valid |
|
36 |
3.7 |
.900 |
.660 |
.977 |
valid |
|
37 |
3.8 |
.933 |
.702 |
.988 |
valid |
|
38 |
3.7 |
.900 |
.660 |
.977 |
valid |
|
39 |
3.8 |
.933 |
.702 |
.988 |
valid |
|
40 |
3.7 |
.900 |
.660 |
.977 |
valid |
|
41 |
3.7 |
.900 |
.660 |
.977 |
valid |
|
42 |
3.8 |
.933 |
.702 |
.988 |
valid |
|
43 |
3.8 |
.933 |
.702 |
.988 |
valid |
|
44 |
3.8 |
.933 |
.702 |
.988 |
valid |
|
45 |
3.3 |
.767 |
.514 |
.911 |
valid |
Table 2 shows the 43 items of the ERESMA, in which items 9, 16, 19, 27,
37, 39, and 41 show a floor effect, given that they have a noticeable tendency
toward low scores. Likewise, items 1, 11, 17, 18, 22, 25, 27, and 37 do not
have a normal distribution, as their skewness and kurtosis values are outside
the range [-1.5; 1.5] (Ferrando & Anguiano-Carrasco, 2010; Pérez &
Medrano, 2010). Therefore, the CFA was conducted using the WLSMV estimator.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics
of the items of ERESMA
|
n= 243 |
Mean |
SD |
Skewness |
Kurtosis |
|
ERE 1 |
3.551 |
0.772 |
-2.187 |
5.665 |
|
ERE 2 |
1.424 |
1.120 |
0.353 |
-0.377 |
|
ERE 3 |
1.531 |
1.214 |
0.249 |
-0.750 |
|
ERE 4 |
1.251 |
1.160 |
0.459 |
-0.633 |
|
ERE 5 |
3.207 |
1.134 |
-1.414 |
1.164 |
|
ERE 6 |
1.477 |
1.415 |
0.470 |
-1.011 |
|
ERE 7 |
2.062 |
1.286 |
0.002 |
-0.831 |
|
ERE 8 |
1.687 |
1.147 |
0.105 |
-0.548 |
|
ERE 9 |
0.695 |
0.926 |
1.209 |
0.888 |
|
ERE 10 |
1.148 |
1.290 |
0.862 |
-0.290 |
|
ERE 11 |
3.362 |
0.891 |
-1.627 |
2.855 |
|
ERE 12 |
2.012 |
1.062 |
-0.087 |
-0.008 |
|
ERE 13 |
1.588 |
1.284 |
0.463 |
-0.687 |
|
ERE 14 |
3.045 |
0.984 |
-0.642 |
-0.409 |
|
ERE 15 |
1.494 |
1.158 |
0.401 |
-0.481 |
|
ERE 16 |
0.753 |
1.097 |
1.299 |
0.768 |
|
ERE 17 |
3.309 |
0.991 |
-1.703 |
2.762 |
|
ERE 18 |
1.617 |
1.294 |
0.327 |
-0.786 |
|
ERE 19 |
0.650 |
0.930 |
1.560 |
2.258 |
|
ERE 20 |
1.366 |
1.013 |
0.273 |
-0.236 |
|
ERE 21 |
1.037 |
1.165 |
0.828 |
-0.273 |
|
ERE 22 |
3.481 |
0.937 |
-2.040 |
3.835 |
|
ERE 23 |
1.918 |
1.244 |
0.105 |
-0.714 |
|
ERE 24 |
3.029 |
1.030 |
-0.881 |
0.191 |
|
ERE 25 |
3.44 |
0.881 |
-1.681 |
2.706 |
|
ERE 26 |
1.021 |
1.154 |
0.842 |
-0.258 |
|
ERE 27 |
0.587 |
1.016 |
1.738 |
2.299 |
|
ERE 28 |
3.321 |
0.907 |
-1.250 |
1.108 |
|
ERE 29 |
3.239 |
0.918 |
-1.105 |
0.936 |
|
ERE 30 |
1.593 |
1.254 |
0.365 |
-0.749 |
|
ERE 31 |
2.074 |
1.069 |
-0.046 |
-0.092 |
|
ERE 32 |
2.971 |
1.002 |
-0.713 |
-0.033 |
|
ERE 33 |
3.259 |
1.014 |
-1.187 |
0.538 |
|
ERE 34 |
2.189 |
0.990 |
-0.156 |
0.321 |
|
ERE 35 |
1.704 |
1.140 |
0.315 |
-0.269 |
|
ERE 36 |
1.588 |
1.058 |
0.188 |
-0.408 |
|
ERE 37 |
0.704 |
1.103 |
1.502 |
1.319 |
|
ERE 38 |
1.272 |
1.114 |
0.388 |
-0.536 |
|
ERE 39 |
0.893 |
1.228 |
1.177 |
0.338 |
|
ERE 40 |
3.082 |
1.165 |
-1.284 |
0.849 |
|
ERE 41 |
0.872 |
1.201 |
1.215 |
0.409 |
|
ERE 42 |
3.202 |
1.039 |
-1.327 |
1.339 |
|
ERE 43 |
1.185 |
1.224 |
0.663 |
-0.556 |
Table 3 shows the standardized loadings of each item of the scale.
Factor loadings range from λ=.309 to λ=.967, demonstrating that the items are
adequately related to their respective factors, except for item 3 (“The success
I have with my child with a disability is mainly due to others”). This item had
to be eliminated because it had a very small factor loading (λ= .100; p =
.197). Furthermore, the results of the CFA showed a good fit of the factorial
structure of six correlated factors of the ERESMA scale: ꭓ2(804) = 916.222, p =
.004, CFI = .985, TLI= .984, RMSEA = .024, and SRMR = .072. These indices
confirm the good functioning of the original factorial model of the ERESMA in a
sample of mothers of children with disabilities in Peru. Likewise, reliability
had adequate values for the factors of self-determination (ω = .727),
hopelessness (ω = .826), spiritual faith (ω = .763), lack of partner support (ω
= .836), and limited resources to meet needs (ω = .785); while it had
borderline values for the factor of rejecting of personal responsibility (ω =
.651).
Table 3. Factorial
Model and Reliability of ERESMA
|
|
|
|
|
95% CI |
|
|
|
Factor |
Item |
Loading |
p |
Lower |
Upper |
ω |
|
Self-determination |
ERE 1 |
.461 |
< .001 |
.317 |
.605 |
.727 |
|
ERE 11 |
.488 |
< .001 |
.335 |
.641 |
||
|
ERE 14 |
.351 |
< .001 |
.191 |
.511 |
||
|
ERE 17 |
.608 |
< .001 |
.440 |
.777 |
||
|
ERE 24 |
.309 |
< .001 |
.145 |
.472 |
||
|
ERE 29 |
.413 |
< .001 |
.265 |
.562 |
||
|
ERE 32 |
.355 |
< .001 |
.188 |
.522 |
||
|
ERE 40 |
.717 |
< .001 |
.578 |
.856 |
||
|
ERE 42 |
.391 |
< .001 |
.225 |
.556 |
||
|
Hopelessness |
ERE 2 |
.516 |
< .001 |
.351 |
.680 |
.826 |
|
ERE 4 |
.565 |
< .001 |
.405 |
.726 |
||
|
ERE 8 |
.780 |
< .001 |
.646 |
.914 |
||
|
ERE 12 |
.647 |
< .001 |
.510 |
.785 |
||
|
ERE 15 |
.602 |
< .001 |
.452 |
.752 |
||
|
ERE 20 |
.479 |
< .001 |
.333 |
.625 |
||
|
ERE 23 |
.615 |
< .001 |
.452 |
.778 |
||
|
ERE 27 |
.533 |
< .001 |
.381 |
.685 |
||
|
ERE 31 |
.495 |
< .001 |
.344 |
.646 |
||
|
ERE 34 |
.631 |
< .001 |
.497 |
.764 |
||
|
ERE 38 |
.617 |
< .001 |
.453 |
.781 |
||
|
ERE 41 |
.568 |
< .001 |
.425 |
.710 |
||
|
ERE 43 |
.479 |
< .001 |
.311 |
.646 |
||
|
Spiritual
faith |
ERE 5 |
.504 |
< .001 |
.308 |
.701 |
.763 |
|
ERE 22 |
.665 |
< .001 |
.493 |
.837 |
||
|
ERE 25 |
.459 |
< .001 |
.315 |
.603 |
||
|
ERE 28 |
.703 |
< .001 |
.567 |
.838 |
||
|
ERE 33 |
.608 |
< .001 |
.453 |
.762 |
||
|
Reject
personal |
ERE 9 |
.473 |
< .001 |
.327 |
.620 |
.651 |
|
responsibility |
ERE 19 |
.496 |
< .001 |
.348 |
.645 |
|
|
ERE 26 |
.714 |
< .001 |
.560 |
.868 |
||
|
ERE 36 |
.594 |
< .001 |
.443 |
.746 |
||
|
Lack of partner
|
ERE 6 |
.780 |
< .001 |
.583 |
.977 |
.836 |
|
support
|
ERE 10 |
.843 |
< .001 |
.679 |
1.008 |
|
|
ERE 16 |
.818 |
< .001 |
.670 |
.966 |
||
|
ERE 21 |
.856 |
< .001 |
.681 |
1.030 |
||
|
ERE 37 |
.794 |
< .001 |
.619 |
.968 |
||
|
ERE 39 |
.907 |
< .001 |
.748 |
1.065 |
||
|
Limited
resources |
ERE 7 |
.818 |
< .001 |
.631 |
1.005 |
.785 |
|
to meet
needs |
ERE 13 |
.892 |
< .001 |
.727 |
1.058 |
|
|
ERE 18 |
.967 |
< .001 |
.815 |
1.12 |
||
|
ERE 30 |
.574 |
< .001 |
.379 |
.770 |
||
|
|
ERE 35 |
.851 |
< .001 |
.709 |
.993 |
|
Note. Load = factor
loadings; ω = McDonald’s ω
Table 4 shows the correlation coefficients between the dimensions of
ERESMA. There is a direct and statistically significant relationship between
self-determination and spiritual faith (r = .567; p < .001), while there is
an inversely proportional and statistically significant relationship with
hopelessness (r = -.387; p < .001), rejection of personal responsibility (r
= -.403; p < .001), lack of partner support (r = -.273; p < .001), and
limited resources to meet needs (r = -.238; p < .001). Likewise, the direction
of the correlations confirms the type of mediator of the dimensions (positive
and negative), which is consistent with the theoretical model of Roque et al.
(2009) on the presence of mediating factors to measure the resilience of
mothers of children with disabilities.
Table 4. Correlation
between the dimensions of ERESMA
|
Variable |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
1.
Self-determination |
- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.
Hopelessness |
-387*** |
- |
||||
|
3.
Spiritual faith |
.567*** |
-.300*** |
- |
|||
|
4. Reject personal
responsibility |
-.403*** |
.656*** |
-.347*** |
- |
||
|
5. Lack of
partner support |
-.273*** |
.431*** |
-.127 |
.383*** |
- |
|
|
6. Limited
resources to meet needs |
-.238*** |
.645*** |
-.169** |
.372*** |
.505*** |
- |
Note. We used Pearson
correlation coefficient. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.
DISCUSSION
The Maternal
Resilience Scale (ERESMA) aims to assess maternal resilience in mothers of children
with disabilities. The present study was based on the original model proposed
by Roque et al. (2009). Similar descriptive patterns were observed regarding
the diagnoses of the children, with the highest proportion presenting
intellectual disability, followed by autism spectrum disorder and multiple
disabilities. Regarding linguistic and cultural adaptation of the scale, the
main change was the standardization of the terms used in all items to refer to
children with disabilities to make the scale clearer for mothers.
Lozano and
Romero (2022) also adapted the items of the scale; however, they decided to
remove the term disability from all items because they considered it redundant,
given that this specification was already included in the title and premise of
the scale. Likewise, these authors mention that using the term disability is
harmful and that reducing its use is beneficial to avoid any hint of a possible
pejorative or offensive connotation for participants (Lozano & Romero,
2022). Likewise, these authors mention that using the term disability is
harmful and that reducing its use is favorable to avoid any hint of a possible
pejorative or offensive connotation for participants. However, according to the
United Nations (UN) International Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities, it is appropriate to use the term person with a disability (or in
this case, child with a disability) because the emphasis remains on the person
and the descriptive term is not used as a noun (Ávila & Rivas, 2022). In
that sense, both versions are appropriate for use in another research.
Regarding the
content validity, item 25 (“It is impossible to count on the support of others
when I am in trouble.”) and 34 (“It's hard to feel accepted by my partner.”)
were removed because they did not meet the minimum acceptable criteria, and its
wording was ambiguous. On the other hand, Lozano and Romero (2022) removed two
other items. Item 4 was removed due to its high level of emotional impact in
the context of COVID-19, while item 28 was removed because the authors argue
that, at present, there has been a shift from viewing people with disabilities
from a model of dispensability to a social model, which removes blame and total
responsibility from the person with a disability. However, in our study, none
of these items generated evidence for their removal.
Concerning
internal structure, discrepancies were found with the five-factor model
proposed in Peru by Lozano and Romero (2022); they combined the items
corresponding to the dimensions of hopelessness and rejection of personal
responsibility into a single factor, which is understandable to a certain
extent because the first one can generate the second one, but it does not agree
with the original model by Roque et al. (2009) and the results of this study.
Furthermore, these authors also eliminated items 26 and 43 due to their low
factor loadings and items 14 and 27 due to the presence of cross loadings
(Lozano & Romero, 2022). In the present study, these problems with factor
loadings did not arise, which could be due to the characteristics of the sample
(types of disability) as well as the timing and context in which both studies
were conducted. It should be noted that the present study was carried out when
the COVID-19 health crisis was already under control in Peru.
With respect
to correlations among variables, the expected directional patterns were
confirmed: positive associations emerged with the dimensions of
self-determination and spiritual faith, and negative associations with
hopelessness, lack of partner support, limited resources to meet needs, and
rejection of personal responsibility. Finally, the reliability coefficients for
most dimensions were acceptable, with values between .70 and .90 (Campos-Arias
& Oviedo, 2008), except for the dimension of rejection of personal
responsibility. Therefore, the results of this study provide only preliminary
support for the instrument’s validity and reliability. However, the importance
of ERESMA lies in the fact that it allows for the assessment of maternal
resilience and its mediators for subsequent educational intervention aimed at
improving it, so that mothers have the necessary resources to adapt positively
to adverse situations, can care for their children with disabilities in the
best possible way, and can also take care of their own personal well-being
(Roque et al., 2009).
Limitations
Nevertheless,
although the scale shows adequate psychometric evidence, it is important to
acknowledge certain limitations. A cross-sectional design was considered; the
use of non-probabilistic sampling and possible self-selection bias affects the
external validity of the study. Difficulties related to administration time
were also observed, which prevented the establishment of external validity;
therefore, there are only two sources of psychometric validity. Moreover,
although two Peruvian cities were included, it remains necessary to expand
future psychometric evaluations by incorporating greater heterogeneity in the
characteristics of mothers caring for a child with a disability.
Conclusion
Based on the
findings, it is concluded that ERESMA is an instrument with evidence of content
and internal structure validity, but with questionable reliability. Therefore,
interpretations about maternal resilience in mothers of children with
disabilities in Peru should be made with caution, and further psychometric
research is required, working with larger samples and they are encouraged to
compare the five- and six-factor models to determine the best fit and to
examine whether differences emerge based on type or degree of disability.
Despite this, it should be noted that the present study constitutes the first
paper to establish the psychometric properties of the scale in a heterogeneous
disability sample.
ORCID
Milagros Cahuana Cuentas: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5897-9931
Candy Jhoselyn Céspedes
Quispe: https://orcid.org/0009-0003-4351-7843
Renzo Rivera: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5897-9931
Walter L. Arias Gallegos: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4183-5093
AUTHORS’
CONTRIBUTION
Milagros Cahuana Cuentas: Critical
revision of the manuscript, drafting of the manuscript, Data collection,
Approval of its last version, Obtaining funding, Conception of the manuscript
Candy J. Céspedes Quispe: Critical
revision of the manuscript, Analysis and interpretation of data
Renzo Rivera: Data collection, Data
collection, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting of the manuscript
Walter L. Arias Gallegos: Drafting of the
manuscript
FUNDING SOURCE
This paper was supported by “Universidad Católica San
Pablo”.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare that there were no conflicts of
interest in the collection of data, analysis of information, or writing of the
manuscript.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Not applicable.
REVIEW PROCESS
This study has been reviewed by two reviewers in double-blind mode. The
editor in charge was David Villarreal-Zegarra. The review process is included
as supplementary material 1.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The authors attach the
database as supplementary material 2.
DECLARATION OF THE USE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL
INTELLIGENCE
We used DeepL to translate specific sections
of the manuscript and Grammarly to improve the wording of certain sections. The
final version of the manuscript was reviewed and approved by all authors.
DISCLAIMER
The authors are responsible for all statements made in this article.
REFERENCES
Alkhateeb, N., Younis, M.,
& Al-Ramahi, R. (2022). Predictors of caregiver burden among mothers of
children with disabilities. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 62, 120–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2021.12.016
Arifin, W. N. (2025). Sample
size calculator [Web application]. http://wnarifin.github.io
Ato, M., López, J. J., &
Benavente, A. (2013). Un sistema de clasificación de los diseños de
investigación en psicología. Anales de Psicología, 29(3), 1038–1059. http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/analesps.29.3.178511
Ávila, R., & Rivas, M. M.
(2022). El lenguaje peyorativo y la discapacidad. En El devenir de la
lingüística y la cultura: Un estudio interdisciplinar sobre lengua, literatura
y traducción (pp. 294–313).
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit.
En K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models
(pp. 136–162). Sage.
Checcllo, S., &
Escudero, P. (2023). Resiliencia familiar y afrontamiento en cuidadores de
personas con discapacidad. Psicología y Salud, 33(2), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.25009/pys.v33i2.2834
Dumont, S. (2019). Parenting a child with
disabilities: Stress and adaptation. Journal of Family Studies, 25(2),
157–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2018.1425971
Ferrando, P. J., &
Anguiano-Carrasco, C. (2010). El análisis factorial como técnica de investigación en
psicología. Papeles del Psicólogo, 31(1), 18–33. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3150810
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C.,
Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis
(7th ed.). Pearson.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M.
(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Instituto Nacional de
Estadística e Informática. (2017). Perú: Perfil de la persona con
discapacidad. https://www.inei.gob.pe/media/MenuRecursivo/publicaciones_digitales/Est/Lib1538/
JASP Team. (2024). JASP
(Version 0.19.3) [Software]. https://jasp-stats.org/
Lozano, A., & Romero, Y.
(2022). Propiedades psicométricas de la Escala de Resiliencia Materna
(ERESMA) en madres de hijos con discapacidad intelectual [Tesis de
licenciatura, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas]. https://repositorioacademico.upc.edu.pe/handle/10757/660418
Mak, W. W. S., Chio, F. H. N.,
& Kwok, C. L. (2023). Self-determination and psychological well-being among
family caregivers of children with developmental disabilities. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 53(2), 515–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-022-05683-9
McDonald, R. P., & Ho,
M.-H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation
analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.64
Otzen, T., & Manterola, C.
(2017). Técnicas
de muestreo sobre una población a estudio. International Journal of Morphology, 35(1), 227–232. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-95022017000100037
Öztürk, M., & Kucukalemdar, D. (2023). The care burden of mothers of
children with disability. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 75, 58–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2023.10.010
Pérez-García, E.,
Ortega-García, L., & Martínez-Martí, M. L. (2021). Spirituality and
resilience in families facing chronic childhood conditions. Child &
Family Social Work, 26(4), 732–741. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12822
Pérez, E., & Medrano, L.
(2010). Análisis factorial exploratorio: Bases conceptuales y metodológicas. Revista
Argentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento, 2(1), 58–66. https://doi.org/10.32348/1852.4206.v2.n1.15924
Rasoulpoor, S., Akbari, M., &
Shafiee, M. (2023). Coping strategies and resilience among mothers of children
with disabilities. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 70, 148–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2023.04.012
Roque, M. P., Acle, G., &
García, M. (2009). Escala de resiliencia materna: Un estudio de validación en una muestra
de madres con niños especiales. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y
Evaluación – e Avaliação Psicológica, 1(27),
107–132. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/4596/459645443007.pdf
Schwartz, C., Malhotra, S.,
& Haddad, F. (2024). Parental resilience in families of children with
intellectual disabilities: Associations with burnout and self-regulation. Child:
Care, Health and Development, 50(1), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.13286
Solikhin, A., Rahmawati, D., &
Lestari, W. (2024). Stress, coping, and resilience among parents of children
with disabilities. Children and Youth Services Review, 157, 107334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2024.107334
Tanta-Luyo, M.,
Arapa-Fernández, L., & Ramírez, R. (2020). Resiliencia y afrontamiento en
cuidadores de niños con discapacidad. Revista de Psicología (PUCP), 38(2),
569–593. https://doi.org/10.18800/psico.202002.010
Tumbaco Choez, L., Briones
Espichan, P., & Farfán Rodríguez, D. (2017). Resiliencia materna y ajuste
parental ante la discapacidad en madres de centros educativos básicos
especiales de Lima Este. Revista Científica de Ciencias de la Salud, 10(2).
https://doi.org/10.17162/rccs.v10i2.965
Yamaki, K., & Hsieh, K.
(2020). Factors associated with caregiving burden among mothers of children
with developmental disabilities. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29(3),
687–698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01672-3
Validación de la Escala de Resiliencia Materna (ERESMA) en madres de
niños con discapacidad
RESUMEN
Introducción: La resiliencia materna es una variable
crucial para las madres de hijos con discapacidad. Por lo que disponer de
instrumentos con modelos teóricos basados en la comprensión de esta condición
son de gran relevancia. Objetivo: Analizar la validez y confiabilidad de
la Escala de Resiliencia Materna (ERESMA) en madres peruanas de hijos con
discapacidad. Método: El estudio respondió a un diseño instrumental, se
evaluó a una muestra de 243 madres de hijos con discapacidad, sus edades
oscilaron entre 23 y 76 años (M = 43.16) y pertenecientes a las provincias de
Arequipa y Puno. Los diagnósticos de sus hijos fueron mayoritariamente
discapacidad intelectual (42.7%), Trastorno del Espectro Autista (15.3%) y
discapacidad múltiple (15.3%). Resultados: Se confirmó que la estructura
original de seis factores posee adecuados índices de bondad de ajuste: ꭓ2(804)
= 916.222, p = .004, CFI = .985, TLI= .984, RMSEA = .024, and SRMR = .072.
Asimismo, los resultados de consistencia interna utilizando el coeficiente
omega son adecuados para la autodeterminación (ω = .727), desesperanza (ω =
.826), fe espiritual (ω = .763), falta de apoyo de la pareja (ω = .836), y
recursos limitados (ω = .785); mientras que se obtuvieron valores limítrofes en
el factor de rechazar la responsabilidad (ω = .651). Conclusión: La
escala ERESMA en madres de hijos con discapacidad en Perú tiene suficientes
evidencias de validez y confiabilidad para garantizar la pertinencia de su
aplicación.
Palabras claves: Luchas
religiosas, luchas espirituales, ansiedad, depresión, bienestar.