Vietnamese version of the Disaster Adaptation and Resilience Scale

1. Abstract

The Vietnamese version of the Disaster Adaptation and Resilience Scale (V-DARS) is a psychometrically validated, multidimensional self-report measurement tool engineered to assess individual-level adaptive capacity and psychosocial resilience in the wake of severe natural hazards and climate-driven catastrophes. Originating from the foundational Disaster Adaptation and Resilience Scale (DARS) developed in the United States, the V-DARS was methodologically adapted and empirically validated to address the idiosyncratic socio-ecological and cultural realities of populations residing in disaster-prone regions of Southeast Asia, specifically coastal communities in central Vietnam. The instrument operationalizes disaster resilience not as an invariant personality trait, but as an ecologically embedded, dynamic assembly of psychological, cognitive, interpersonal, and tangible resources that individuals actively mobilize before, during, and after acute ecological disruptions.

Comprising 35 items evaluated across a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 0 = not true at all to 4 = true nearly all of the time), the V-DARS evaluates five correlated yet distinct latent dimensions: Social Resources (8 items), Distress Regulation (9 items), Problem-Solving (8 items), Optimism (6 items), and Physical Resources (4 items). Psychometric validation conducted with an adult sample (N = 595, aged 18–89 years) residing in flood- and typhoon-affected coastal communes demonstrated superior internal consistency reliability, with an overall Cronbach’s alpha of 0.963 and an identical McDonald’s omega (ω) of 0.963. Subscale reliabilities uniformly surpassed conventional psychometric criteria (α ≥ 0.80). Confirmatory factor analysis verified structural construct validity, exhibiting acceptable goodness-of-fit indices (Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = 0.912, Tucker-Lewis Index [TLI] = 0.904, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] = 0.072), while convergent validity was corroborated via an Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of 0.53 and discriminant validity satisfied the Fornell-Larcker benchmark. Consequently, the V-DARS provides public health scholars, disaster management authorities, and clinical psychologists with a robust diagnostic instrument for quantifying localized vulnerability and building proactive post-disaster interventions.

2. Keywords

Disaster resilience, Disaster Adaptation and Resilience Scale, V-DARS, psychometrics, factor analysis, climate change adaptation, coastal communities, distress regulation, social resources, Vietnam

3. Authors

The cultural adaptation, psychometric refinement, and empirical validation of the Vietnamese version of the Disaster Adaptation and Resilience Scale were conducted by an interdisciplinary research team from Hue University, Vietnam:

• Thanh Gia Nguyen — Faculty of Public Health, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University, Hue City, Thua Thien Hue Province, Vietnam.
• Binh Thang Tran — Faculty of Public Health, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University, Hue City, Thua Thien Hue Province, Vietnam.
• Minh Tu Nguyen — Office for Undergraduate Training, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University, Hue City, Thua Thien Hue Province, Vietnam.
• Dinh Duong Le (Corresponding Author) — Faculty of Public Health, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University, Hue City, Thua Thien Hue Province, Vietnam. Email: [email protected].

4. Purpose

The primary objective underlying the creation and psychometric validation of the V-DARS is to provide an empirical, culturally calibrated instrument capable of quantifying the nuanced spectrum of human disaster resilience within developing, climate-vulnerable societies. Southeast Asia broadly, and central coastal Vietnam specifically, represent geographic zones characterized by extreme susceptibility to environmental hazards, including frequent typhoons, flash flooding, coastal erosion, and sea-level rise induced by global climate change. Although high-level international disaster policy frameworks—such as the United Nations Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction—explicitly underscore the necessity of cultivating local adaptive capacities, public health agencies have historically suffered from an acute absence of scientifically validated psychometric instruments calibrated specifically to non-Western, agrarian, and resource-constrained populations.

Prior to the adaptation of the V-DARS, disaster monitoring paradigms frequently relied upon broad socioeconomic proxies (e.g., household gross income, educational attainment, or housing structural integrity) or generic psychological resilience inventories (such as the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale [CD-RISC] or the Brief Resilience Scale [BRS]). While generic scales capture general stress resistance, they fundamentally fail to capture disaster-specific behavioral responses, such as accessing community stockpiles, navigating municipal emergency logistics, or overcoming environmental despair following catastrophic property loss. The V-DARS bridges this methodological chasm by integrating material, communal, and intrapsychic coping dimensions into a unified, actionable diagnostic framework.

In clinical, epidemiological, and humanitarian deployment contexts, the V-DARS serves multiple translational functions. First, it functions as a community risk-stratification tool, enabling civil protection authorities to pinpoint specific geographic pockets or sociodemographic clusters that exhibit severe resource deficiencies (e.g., adequate physical reserves vs. internal emotional regulation capacities). Second, within clinical psychology and mental health surveillance, the scale assists practitioners in identifying survivors at elevated risk for chronic post-traumatic stress, depressive decompensation, or prolonged grief by evaluating deficiencies in problem-solving and distress regulation competencies. Third, the instrument furnishes non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and academic researchers with an evaluative benchmark to assess the prospective efficacy of psychosocial interventions, community-based disaster risk management (CBDRM) training modules, and structural adaptation initiatives across pre-disaster and post-disaster phases.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct operationalized by the V-DARS conceptualizes disaster resilience as a dynamic, socio-ecological capability rather than a static, immutable personality endowment. Within this theoretical paradigm, resilience reflects an individual’s ongoing capacity to absorb, adapt to, and reconstruct functioning in the aftermath of acute, life-threatening environmental crises. The instrument delineates this overarching construct across five systematically differentiated dimensions, capturing the dialectic between external ecological assets and internal neuropsychological coping competencies.

Social Resources

The Social Resources domain (comprising 8 items in the final model) assesses an individual’s embeddedness within supportive interpersonal, familial, and communal networks during crisis situations. In disaster contexts, social capital functions as a vital psychosocial buffer. This dimension measures the extent to which an individual can access mutual aid, receive reciprocal psychological comfort, borrow essential survival supplies, and participate in collective neighborhood recovery activities. In collectivist cultural contexts, such as rural Vietnam, social cohesion and reciprocal communal obligations often represent the primary lifeline when institutional emergency infrastructure is overwhelmed or delayed by severed transport links.

Distress Regulation

The Distress Regulation domain (9 items) gauges the internal neuro-affective and emotional control mechanisms utilized to mitigate debilitating fear, acute grief, shock, and cognitive paralysis in the wake of catastrophic trauma. Unlike general emotional stability, disaster-related distress regulation specifically reflects a person’s conscious capacity to temper autonomic hyperarousal, soothe distressing intrusive thoughts concerning ongoing danger, prevent fatalistic emotional collapse, and preserve functional clarity under high-threat operational conditions.

Problem-Solving

The Problem-Solving dimension (8 items) captures active, cognitive-behavioral coping mechanisms geared toward navigating the tangible disruptions imposed by natural calamities. This subscale evaluates an individual’s self-efficacy in evaluating disaster damage, establishing logistical survival priorities, securing alternative potable water or food sources, executing home repair maneuvers, and negotiating administrative pathways for relief aid. Problem-solving represents the proactive agency required to transition from passive shock to structured environmental restoration.

Optimism

The Optimism subscale (6 items) reflects an individual’s prospective positive outcome expectancy and existential hope regarding recovery from adversity. In post-disaster scenarios, optimism is not characterized by naive denial or toxic positivity; rather, it manifests as an adaptive cognitive orientation centered on the conviction that personal agency, collective solidarity, and institutional rehabilitation will eventually restore safety, livelihood, and psychological equilibrium. High scores on this subscale reflect durable resistance against demoralization, nihilism, and conditioned helplessness.

Physical Resources

The Physical Resources subscale (4 items) measures subjective access to essential tangible, infrastructural, and economic assets necessary to sustain physiological survival and initiate material rebuilding. This dimension captures items reflecting the availability of adequate emergency supplies, reliable shelter capable of withstanding cyclonic wind forces, personal savings or liquid reserves to absorb sudden financial losses, and access to necessary medication and transportation tools. This inclusion recognizes that psychological functioning cannot be fully divorced from basic physiological and environmental security.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual foundation of the V-DARS is grounded in multidimensional ecological models of stress, coping, and human development. Specifically, it integrates the principles of Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory formulated by Stevan E. Hobfoll, the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping advanced by Richard S. Lazarus and Susan Folkman, and the socio-ecological resilience architecture articulated by C.S. Holling and David Abramson’s Resilience Activation Framework.

Under Hobfoll’s Conservation of Resources theory, psychological stress and subsequent impairment arise when individuals experience a severe net loss of personal, material, energetic, or social resources, or when an acute threat of resource depletion occurs. Natural hazards—such as catastrophic flooding and destructive typhoons—act as rapid-onset resource depleters, simultaneously destroying physical shelters, livelihoods, social fabrics, and emotional reserves. According to COR theory, those who possess greater resource reservoirs are less vulnerable to loss cycles and are substantially more capable of orchestrating resource gain spirals. The V-DARS directly operationalizes this axiom by systematically surveying both tangible reserves (Physical Resources) and psychosocial endowments (Social Resources, Distress Regulation, Problem-Solving, Optimism) as interacting resource pools.

Concurrently, the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping provides the cognitive architecture explaining the internal dimensions of the V-DARS. When confronted with an environmental cataclysm, an individual engages in primary appraisal (evaluating the event’s severity and potential for harm) followed by secondary appraisal (evaluating available personal resources and coping options). The Problem-Solving subscale reflects task-oriented, problem-focused coping aimed at managing the external disruption, whereas Distress Regulation and Optimism capture emotion-focused coping designed to regulate psychological equilibrium when immediate external conditions remain uncontrollable.

Furthermore, the instrument incorporates Abramson and colleagues’ Resilience Activation Framework (RAF), which posits that post-disaster recovery is dictated by the dynamic activation of latent social capital. Community ties and cultural expectations dictate the velocity with which formal and informal networks distribute survival assistance. In traditional Vietnamese societies, cultural principles such as tình làng nghĩa xóm (neighborhood solidarity and shared communal affection) act as an external protective scaffold. The V-DARS successfully captures this systemic interplay, grounding psychometric measurement within an ecologically coherent paradigm.

7. Validity

The structural, convergent, and discriminant validity of the V-DARS was rigorously examined through a multistage analytical pipeline conducted on a representative epidemiological cohort in central Vietnam. Construct validity was originally established using both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across split or sequential modeling stages.

Construct and Factorial Validity: During the confirmatory stage, the hypothesized 35-item, five-factor structure demonstrated acceptable model fit to the observed data. The fit indices complied with widely endorsed psychometric standards (e.g., Hu & Bentler, 1999):

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): 0.912, exceeding the conventional 0.90 threshold for acceptable latent variable representation in complex multidimensional models.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): 0.904, corroborating acceptable fit when adjusting for model complexity.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): 0.072 (90% CI indicating acceptable boundary conditions below the 0.08 benchmark), signaling minimal discrepancy per degree of freedom between the hypothesized covariance matrix and the sample covariance matrix.

Convergent Validity: Convergent validity assesses the extent to which items assigned to a specific latent dimension share a significant proportion of common variance. In the validation study of the V-DARS, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) across the latent constructs reached an overall standard benchmark of 0.53. Because this value surpasses the established methodological threshold of 0.50 established by Fornell and Larcker (1981), it provides mathematical evidence that more than 50% of the variance observed in the indicators is accounted for by the underlying latent factors rather than idiosyncratic measurement error.

Discriminant Validity: To ascertain that the five domains represent conceptually unique constructs rather than redundant replications of a single overarching factor, discriminant validity was evaluated using the Fornell-Larcker criterion. Under this standard, the square root of the AVE for each latent factor must exceed the inter-construct correlations between that specific factor and any other factor in the model. The V-DARS successfully fulfilled this empirical test, verifying that while Distress Regulation, Problem-Solving, Optimism, Social Resources, and Physical Resources correlate meaningfully within an overarching resilience architecture, they reflect distinct functional dimensions.

8. Reliability

The reliability of the V-DARS was established through high-precision computational estimators of internal consistency across both global and subscale strata. Evaluating internal consistency in complex multidimensional scales necessitates metrics that account for potential departures from tau-equivalence; thus, researchers generated both Cronbach’s alpha (α) and McDonald’s omega (ω).

For the complete 35-item scale, the overall internal consistency was exceptionally high:

• Overall Cronbach’s α: 0.963
• Overall McDonald’s ω: 0.963

The alignment between alpha and omega underscores the robust structural stability of the scale items, indicating that measurement error accounts for less than 4% of the total score variance. Furthermore, subscale reliability analysis demonstrated uniformly strong internal consistency, with all five dimensions exceeding the rigorous threshold of 0.80:

• Social Resources (8 items): α > 0.80
• Distress Regulation (9 items): α > 0.80
• Problem-Solving (8 items): α > 0.80
• Optimism (6 items): α > 0.80
• Physical Resources (4 items): α > 0.80

These empirical indices verify that each individual domain possesses sufficient reliability to warrant autonomous interpretation in research settings and individual-level clinical or public health screening assessments.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural refinement of the V-DARS involved a sequential, two-phase psychometric investigation: Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) to discover the underlying latent dimensionality within the Vietnamese cultural setting, followed by Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to statistically test the resultant structural model.

The initial pool entered into exploratory examination comprised the original 43 items adapted from the US parent scale via forward- and back-translation procedures. Prior to factor extraction, the suitability of the dataset was confirmed through the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity, which exhibited statistically significant matrix intercorrelations (p < 0.001).

Factor extraction was conducted utilizing Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation coupled with orthogonal rotation to isolate discrete latent dimensions. During the iterative EFA phase, systematic item-retention and trimming criteria were applied:

• Items with primary factor loadings below 0.50 were targeted for removal.
• Items displaying complex cross-loadings (loadings ≥ 0.32 or 0.40 on multiple non-target factors without a clear numerical separation) were eliminated.
• Items exhibiting poor communalities or creating under-identified factors (fewer than 3 items) were excised.

This rigorous psychometric pruning resulted in the elimination of eight underperforming items from the original 43-item inventory. The remaining 35 items cleanly loaded onto five distinct factors, corresponding conceptually to the core dimensions of disaster adaptation:

• Factor 1: Distress Regulation (9 items retained)
• Factor 2: Social Resources (8 items retained)
• Factor 3: Problem-Solving (8 items retained)
• Factor 4: Optimism (6 items retained)
• Factor 5: Physical Resources (4 items retained)

The resulting 35-item five-factor configuration was subsequently validated via Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The CFA supported the empirical validity of the five-factor structural model, yielding acceptable indices: χ²/df ratios within acceptable limits, CFI = 0.912, TLI = 0.904, and RMSEA = 0.072. These analytical findings confirm that the cultural translation process successfully adapted the instrument to the local ecological context while preserving the theoretical integrity of the primary constructs.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Psychometric self-report questionnaire / structured interview rating scale
• Construct Measured: Individual-level disaster resilience and adaptive capacity across psychological, cognitive, social, and material domains
• Item Count: 35 items (reduced from the original 43 items following empirical factor-retention filtering)
• Dimensional Structure: Multidimensional (5 subscales: Distress Regulation [9 items], Social Resources [8 items], Problem-Solving [8 items], Optimism [6 items], Physical Resources [4 items])
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert scale (0 = not true at all, 1 = rarely true, 2 = sometimes true, 3 = often true, 4 = true nearly all of the time)
• Scoring Methodology: Items are summed or averaged within their respective subscales. A composite total resilience score can be derived by summing all 35 items (yielding a theoretical range of 0 to 140 points) or by averaging item responses (range 0 to 4). Higher scores reflect greater levels of disaster adaptation and resilience.
• Administration Modality: Self-administered (paper-and-pencil or digital survey) or interviewer-administered for populations with limited literacy
• Target Population: General community adults (validated with individuals aged 18–89 years) living in hazard-prone regions
• Administration Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Vietnamese adaptation and validation of the Disaster Adaptation and Resilience Scale was conducted and published in 2024 by Thanh Gia Nguyen, Binh Thang Tran, Minh Tu Nguyen, and Dinh Duong Le. The validation study appeared in the peer-reviewed Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health (Yebang Uihakhoe Chi), an open-access medical journal published under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License.

Permissions and Accessibility: The theoretical structure, psychometric findings, and factor models are published for scientific and educational use. However, because individual translated items and clinical deployment materials remain subject to academic copyright and author distribution control, researchers, public health bodies, and non-profit organizations seeking to deploy the scale in formal studies or clinical assessments must contact the corresponding author directly:

• Contact Person: Dinh Duong Le, PhD
• Institutional Affiliation: Faculty of Public Health, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Hue University, Hue City, Vietnam
• Email: [email protected]

The scale is generally made available free of charge for non-commercial academic research and non-profit humanitarian assessment purposes upon request to the authors.

12. References

• Abramson, D. M., Grattan, L. M., Mayer, B., Colten, C. E., Arosemena, F. A., Bedimo-Rung, A., & Becker, M. (2015). The Resilience Activation Framework: A conceptual model of how access to social resources promotes adaptation and rapid recovery in post-disaster settings. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 42(1), 42–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-014-9410-2
• Acar Güvendir, M., & Özer Özkan, Y. (2022). Item removal strategies conducted in exploratory factor analysis: A comparative study. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 9(1), 165–180. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.827950
• Bartlett, M. S. (1951). The effect of standardization on a χ² approximation in factor analysis. Biometrika, 38(3–4), 337–344. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/38.3-4.337
• Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
• First, J. M., Yu, M., & Houston, J. B. (2021). The Disaster Adaptation and Resilience Scale: Development and validation of an individual-level protection measure. Disasters, 45(4), 939–967. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12452
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513
• Hochrainer-Stigler, S., Laurien, F., Velev, S., Keating, A., & Mechler, R. (2020). Standardized disaster and climate resilience grading: A global scale empirical analysis of community flood resilience. Journal of Environmental Management, 276, 111332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111332
• Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245
• 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
• Jia, H., Chen, F., & Du, E. (2021). Adaptation to disaster risk—An overview. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(21), 11187. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111187
• Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
• Kalkbrenner, M. T. (2023). Alpha, omega, and H internal consistency reliability estimates: Reviewing these options and when to use them. Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation, 14(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/21501378.2021.1940118
• Lan Huong, T., Van Anh, D., Dat, T., Truong, D., & Tam, D. (2022). RETRACTED: Disaster risk management system in Vietnam: Progress and challenges. Heliyon, 8(10), e10701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10701
• Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.
• Nguyen, T. G., Tran, B. T., Nguyen, M. T., & Le, D. D. (2024). Vietnamese version of the Disaster Adaptation and Resilience Scale. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, 57(5), 443–452. https://doi.org/10.3961/jpmph.24.110
• Tavakol, M., & Wetzel, A. (2020). Factor analysis: A means for theory and instrument development in support of construct validity. International Journal of Medical Education, 11, 245–247. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.5f96.0f4a
• Vu, T. T., & Ranzi, R. (2017). Flood risk assessment and coping capacity of floods in central Vietnam. Journal of Hydro-Environment Research, 14, 44–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jher.2016.06.001

13. Items of the Scale