VIABILITY TEST S. Muddy

Parameter name	Meaning
Article subject:	VIABILITY TEST S. Muddy
Rubric (thematic category)	Technology

(adapted by D.A. Leontiev, E.I. Narrative)

Diagnostic purpose: assessment of a person's ability and readiness to act actively and flexibly in a situation of stress and difficulties, the degree of his vulnerability to experiencing stress and depression.

The hardiness test is an adaptation of the Hardiness Survey developed by American psychologist Salvatore Maddi. This methodology was adapted and published in 2006. Leontiev and E.I. storytelling. The personal variable hardiness (D.A. Leontiev in 2000 proposed to designate this characteristic in Russian as hardiness) characterizes the measure of a person's ability to withstand a stressful situation, maintaining internal balance and not reducing the success of the activity. Hardiness is a system of beliefs about oneself, about the world, about relationships with the world. This is a disposition that includes three relatively autonomous components: involvement, control, risk taking. The severity of these components and vitality in general prevents the occurrence internal stress in stressful situations due to persistent coping (hardy coping) with stresses and perceiving them as less significant (the difference from similar constructs will be justified below).

As noted by D.A. Leontiev, E.I. storytelling, the components of resilience develop in childhood and partly in adolescence, although they can be developed later. Their development is critically dependent on the relationship of parents with the child. In particular, acceptance and support, love and approval from parents is fundamental to the development of the component of participation. For the development of the control component, it is important to support the child's initiative, his desire to cope with tasks of ever-increasing complexity on the verge of his capabilities. For the development of risk acceptance, the richness of impressions, the variability and heterogeneity of the environment are important.

The severity of all three components of hardiness is necessary to maintain health and the optimal level of performance and activity in stressful conditions.

Contingent: the questionnaire is intended for people aged 18 and over, without restrictions on educational, social and professional grounds.

Examination procedure

The research participant is invited to answer 45 statements by choosing one of the proposed answers:

· More likely no than yes

· Rather yes than no

Instruction: Hello! Please answer a few questions by ticking the answer that the best way reflects your opinionʼʼ

Questionnaire text

№	Questions	No	More likely no than yes	rather yes than no	Yes
1.	I am often unsure own decisions.
2.	Sometimes I feel like no one cares about me.
3.	Often, even after a good night's sleep, I can hardly force myself to get out of bed.
4.	I am constantly busy and I love it.
5.	Often I prefer to ʼʼgo with the flowʼʼ.
6.	I change my plans depending on the circumstances.
7.	I am annoyed by events that force me to change my daily routine.
8.	Unforeseen difficulties sometimes make me very tired.
9.	I always control the situation as much as it is extremely important.
10.	Sometimes I get so tired that nothing else can interest me.
11.	Sometimes everything I do seems useless to me.
12.	I try to be aware of everything that is happening around me.
13.	A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
14.	In the evening I often feel completely overwhelmed.
15.	I prefer to set myself elusive goals and achieve them.
16.	Sometimes I get scared thinking about the future.
17.	I am always sure that I can bring to life what I have planned.
18.	I feel like I don't live full life but I'm just playing a part.
19.	It seems to me that if in the past I had less disappointments and hardships, it would be easier for me to live in the world now.
20.	The problems that arise often seem to me unsolvable.
21.	Having experienced defeat, I will try to take revenge.
22.	I love meeting new people.
23.	When someone complains that life is boring, it means that he simply does not know how to see the interesting.
24.	I always have something to do.
25.	I can always influence the result of what is happening around.
26.	I often regret what has already been done.
27.	If the problem requires a lot of effort, I prefer to postpone it until better times.
28.	It's hard for me to get close to other people.
29.	As a rule, people around listen to me attentively.
30.	If I could, I would change a lot in the past.
31.	I quite often put off until tomorrow what is difficult to implement, or what I am not sure about.
32.	I feel like life is passing me by.
33.	My dreams rarely come true.
34.	Surprises give me interest in life.
35.	Sometimes it seems to me that all my efforts are in vain.
36.	Sometimes I dream of a quiet measured life.
37.	I don't have the courage to finish what I started.
38.	Sometimes life seems boring and colorless to me.
39.	I do not have the ability to influence unexpected problems.
40.	People around me underestimate me.
41.	As a rule, I work with pleasure.
42.	Sometimes I feel superfluous even in a circle of friends.
43.	Sometimes, so many problems pile up on me that they just give up.
44.	Friends respect me for perseverance and inflexibility.
45.	I am willing to take on new ideas.

Results processing

To calculate the results, the answers to the direct items are assigned points from 0 to 3 (ʼʼnoʼʼ - 0 points, ʼʼrather no than yesʼʼ - 1 point, ʼʼrather yes than noʼʼ - 2 points, ʼʼyesʼʼ - 3 points), answers to the reverse items are assigned points from 3 to 0 (ʼʼnoʼʼ - 3 points, ʼʼyesʼʼ - 0 points). Further summarized total score resilience and indicators for each of the 3 subscales (engagement, control and risk taking). The forward and reverse points for each scale are presented below.

Table 14 Mean and standard deviations general indicator and scales of the Viability Test

Interpretation of results

The values ​​on the scales corresponding to the average and above the average indicate the severity of the measured indicators.

Involvement(commitment) is defined as ʼʼthe conviction that involvement in what is happening gives maximum chance find something worthwhile and interesting for the individualʼʼ. A person with a developed component of involvement enjoys his own activities. In contrast, the absence of such a conviction creates a sense of rejection, a feeling of being ʼʼʼʼʼ out of life. ʼʼIf you feel confident in yourself and that the world is generous, you are inherently involvedʼʼ.

The control(control) represents the belief that the struggle allows you to influence the outcome of what is happening, even if this influence is not absolute and success is not guaranteed. The opposite of this is the feeling of helplessness. A person with a highly developed control component feels that he chooses own activities, own way.

Risk acceptance(challenge) - a person's conviction that everything that happens to him contributes to his development through knowledge derived from experience - no matter positive or negative. A person who considers life as a way of gaining experience is ready to act in the absence of reliable guarantees of success, at his own peril and risk, considering the desire for simple comfort and security to impoverish the life of an individual. At the root of risk taking lies the idea of ​​development through active assimilation knowledge from experience and its subsequent use.

Methodology of ʼʼValue Orientationsʼʼ M. Rokeach

Diagnostic purpose: the study of the value orientations of the individual, through the choice of terminal and instrumental values.

System value orientations determines the content side of the orientation of the personality and forms the basis of its relationship to the outside world, to other people, to itself, the basis of the worldview and the core of motivation vital activity, the basis of the life concept and ʼʼlife philosophyʼʼ.

The technique is based on direct ranking of the list of values. M. Rokeach distinguishes two classes of values:

terminal - belief that some final goal individual existence is worth striving for;

instrumental - belief that some course of action or personality trait is preferable in any situation.

This division corresponds to the traditional division into values-goals and values-means.

The advantage of the technique is its versatility, convenience and economy in conducting the survey and processing the results, flexibility - the ability to vary both stimulus material (lists of values) and instructions. Its essential disadvantage is the influence of social desirability, the possibility of insincerity. For this reason special role in this case the motivation of diagnostics, the voluntary nature of testing and the presence of contact between the psychologist and the subject play. The methodology is not recommended for selection and examination purposes.

In order to overcome these shortcomings and to penetrate deeper into the system of value orientations, it is possible to change the instructions, which provide additional diagnostic information and allow more reasonable conclusions to be drawn.

Contingent: This technique designed for people aged 14 years and older, without restrictions on educational, social and professional grounds.

VIABILITY TEST S. Muddi - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "VIABILITY TEST S. Muddi" 2017, 2018.

№	QUESTIONS	NO	More likely no than yes	Rather yes than no	YES
	I am often unsure of my own decisions
	Sometimes I feel like nobody cares about me
	Often, even after a good night's sleep, I can hardly force myself to get out of bed.
	I'm always busy and I love it
	Often I prefer to "go with the flow"
	I change my plans depending on the circumstances
	I am annoyed by events that force me to change my daily routine
	Unforeseen difficulties sometimes make me very tired
	I always control the situation as much as necessary
	Sometimes I get so tired that nothing can interest me anymore
	Sometimes everything I do seems useless to me
	I try to be aware of everything that is happening around me.
	A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush
	In the evening I often feel completely overwhelmed.
	I prefer to set achievable goals and achieve them.
	Sometimes I get scared thinking about the future
	I am always sure that I can bring to life everything that I have in mind
	It seems to me that I do not live a full life, but only play a role
	It seems to me that if in the past I had less disappointments and hardships, it would be easier for me to live in the world now.
	Problems that arise often seem insoluble to me.
	Having experienced defeat, I will try to take revenge
	I love meeting new people
	When someone complains that life is boring, it means that he simply does not know how to see interesting things.
	I always have something to do
	I can always influence the outcome of what is happening around
	I often regret what has already been done
	If the problem requires a lot of effort, I prefer to postpone it until better times.
	I find it difficult to get close to other people
	As a rule, people around me listen carefully.
	If I could, I would change many things in the past
	I quite often put off until tomorrow what is difficult to implement, or what I am not sure about.
	I feel like life is passing me by
	My dreams rarely come true
	Surprises give me interest in life
	Sometimes I feel like all my efforts are in vain
	Sometimes I dream of a quiet measured life
	I lack the perseverance to finish what I started
	Sometimes life seems boring and colorless to me
	I do not have the ability to influence unexpected problems
	People around me underestimate
	As a rule, I work with pleasure
	Sometimes I feel superfluous even among friends
	It happens that so many problems pile up on me that they just give up
	Friends respect me for perseverance and inflexibility
	I am willing to take on new ideas.

F wear resistance, as personality trait, is characterized by a measure of overcoming by a person of given circumstances. On the other hand, this personality trait It is determined by the measure of the efforts made to work the individual on himself and on the circumstances of his life. Human resilience is associated with the ability to overcome various stresses maintaining a high level of physical and mental health, as well as optimism, self-efficacy and contentment own life. It is a key personality variable that mediates the influence of stress factors on somatic and mental health as well as the success of the activity.

Resilience is a belief system that allows a person to perceive even negative events as an experience and successfully cope with them. It includes three components: involvement (the belief that only through one’s activity a person finds something interesting in the world), control (belief in the controllability of the world and one’s ability to achieve a result) and risk acceptance (willingness to act despite the uncertainty of the situation and the threat and learn from any situation).

Processing the results of the questionnaire.

For scoring answers to direct points points are assigned from 0 to 3.

"No" - 0 points; “Rather no than yes” - 1 point; “Rather yes than no” - 2 points;

"Yes" - 3 points.

Responses to reverse points points are assigned from 3 to 0.

"No" - 3 points; “Rather no than yes” - 2 points; “Rather yes than no” - 1 point;

"Yes" - 0 points.

The total hardiness score and scores for each of the 3 subscales are then summed ( involvement, control and risk taking). The forward and reverse points for each scale are presented below.

Keys to the test "Resilience"

Average values ​​of the general indicator and scales of the "Resilience" test

Scale interpretation.

Involvement (commitment) is defined as "the conviction that involvement in what is happening gives the maximum chance to find something worthwhile and interesting for the individual." A person with a developed component of involvement enjoys his own activities. He is constantly busy, and he likes it, he works with pleasure, tries to keep abreast of everything that happens, loves to meet new people. In contrast, the absence of such a conviction creates a sense of rejection, a feeling of being “outside” of life. Such a person is passive, feels the meaninglessness of his activities, so he lacks the perseverance to complete the work he has begun, it is difficult for him to get close to new people, he feels superfluous.

The control(control) represents the belief that the struggle allows you to influence the outcome of what is happening, even if this influence is not absolute and success is not guaranteed. Such a person controls the situation as much as necessary, sets elusive goals and strives to realize them, and is confident that he will be able to realize everything that he has planned, persistent and persistent, confident that he can influence the results of what is happening around. In general, such a person feels like the master of life. The opposite of this is the feeling of helplessness. Such a person is not confident in his own decisions, prefers to "go with the flow", because. problems seem insurmountable, and difficulties are tiring. He often changes his plans depending on the circumstances, postpones solving problems until better times.

Risk acceptance (challenge)- the conviction of a person that everything that happens to him contributes to his development due to knowledge derived from experience, no matter positive or negative. A person who views life as a way of gaining experience is ready to act in the absence of reliable guarantees of success, taking risks, considering the desire for comfort and security to impoverish the life of an individual. Such a person loves surprises, they give him interest in life and willingly undertakes to embody even the most daring ideas. In contrast, dreams of a measured quiet life, regrets about the past, a feeling that life is passing by, irritability about sudden changes.

1. Meaningful Orientation Test (LSS)(D.A. Leontiev).

Instruction: You will be presented with pairs of opposite statements. Your task is to choose one of the two statements that, in your opinion, is more true, and mark one of the numbers 1, 2, 3, depending on how confident you are in the choice (or "0" if both statements are in your opinion). view are equally correct).

1. I am usually very bored.	3 2 1 0 1 2 3	I am usually full of energy
2. Life always seems exciting and exciting to me.	3 2 1 0 1 2 3	Life seems completely calm and routine to me.
3. In life, I do not have specific goals and intentions.	3 2 1 0 1 2 3	In my life I have very clear goals and intentions
4. My life seems to me extremely meaningless and aimless.	3 2 1 0 1 2 3	My life seems to me quite meaningful and purposeful
5. Every day seems new and different to me	3 2 1 0 1 2 3	Every day seems to me just like every other day
6. When I retire, I will do interesting things that I always dreamed of doing.	3 2 1 0 1 2 3	When I retire, I will try not to burden myself with any worries.
7. My life turned out exactly the way I dreamed	3 2 1 0 1 2 3	My life didn't turn out the way I dreamed
8. I have not been successful in my life plans.	3 2 1 0 1 2 3	I accomplished a lot of what I planned in life
9. My life is empty and uninteresting	3 2 1 0 1 2 3	My life is filled interesting things
10. If I had to sum up my life today, I would say that it was quite meaningful	3 2 1 0 1 2 3	If I had to sum up my life today, I would say that it made no sense
11. If I could choose, I would build my life completely differently.	3 2 1 0 1 2 3	If I could choose, then I would live my life again as I live now.
12. When I look at the world, it often leads me to confusion and anxiety	3 2 1 0 1 2 3	When I look at the world around me, it does not cause me anxiety and confusion at all.
13. I am a very obligatory person.	3 2 1 0 1 2 3	I am not a required person.
14. I believe that a person has the opportunity to fulfill his life choice at will	3 2 1 0 1 2 3	I believe that a person is deprived of the opportunity to choose due to the influence of circumstances
15. I can definitely call myself obligatory person	3 2 1 0 1 2 3	I can't call myself a purposeful person
16. In life, I have not yet found my calling and clear goals.	3 2 1 0 1 2 3	In life I found my recognition and purpose
17. My life views not yet decided	3 2 1 0 1 2 3	My outlook on life is well defined
18. I believe that I managed to find a calling and interesting goals in life	3 2 1 0 1 2 3	I can hardly find a calling and interesting goals in life
19. My life is in my hands and I manage it myself	3 2 1 0 1 2 3	My life is not subject to me and it is controlled by external circumstances.
20. My daily activities bring me pleasure and satisfaction.	3 2 1 0 1 2 3	My daily activities bring me continuous troubles and worries.

Keys of LSS test scales

To calculate points, it is necessary to translate the positions marked by the subject on a symmetrical scale 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 into estimates on an ascending or descending asymmetric scale according to next rule:

Upscale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 points are translated 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17.

In descending scale 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 points are translated 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20.

After that, the scores of the asymmetric scales are summed up, corresponding to the positions marked by the subjects.

General coolant indicator- all 20 points of the test;

Subscale 1 (Goals) - p. 3, 4, 10, 16, 17, 18.

Subscale 2 (Process) - p. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9.

Subscale 3 (Result)- p. 8, 9, 10, 12, 20

Subscale 4 (Locus of control - I)- p. 1, 15, 16, 19.

Subscale 5 (locus of control - life)- p. 7, 10, 11, 14, 18, 19.

Subscale interpretation

1. Goals in life. The scores on this scale characterize the presence or absence in the life of the subject of goals in the future, which give life meaningfulness, direction and time perspective. Low scores on this scale, even with a generally high level of coolant, they will be inherent in a person living today or yesterday. At the same time, high scores on this scale can characterize not only purposeful person but also a projector whose plans have no real support in the present and are not supported by personal responsibility for their implementation. These two cases are easy to distinguish, taking into account the indicators on other scales of the LSS.

2. life process, or interest and emotional richness of life. The content of this scale is the same as famous theory that the only meaning of life is to live. This indicator indicates whether the subject perceives the very process of his life as interesting, emotionally rich and filled with meaning. High performance on this scale and low on the rest will characterize a hedonist who lives for today. Low scores on this scale are a sign of dissatisfaction with your life in the present; at the same time, however, it can be given a full meaning by memories of the past or a focus on the future.

3. life efficiency, or satisfaction with self-actualization. The points on this scale reflect the assessment of the passed segment of life, the feeling of how productive and meaningful the lived part of it was. High scores on this scale and low scores on the rest will characterize a person who lives out his life, who has everything in the past, but the past can give meaning to the rest of life. Low scores - dissatisfaction with the lived part of life.

4. Locus of control-I(I am the master of life). High scores correspond to self-image as a strong personality who has sufficient freedom of choice to build his life in accordance with his goals and ideas about its meaning. Low scores - disbelief in one's ability to control the events of one's own life.

5. Locus of control-life, or manageability of life. At high scores- the belief that it is given to a person to control his life, freely make decisions and implement them. Low scores - fatalism, the conviction that a person's life is not subject to conscious control, that freedom of choice is illusory and it is pointless to think of anything for the future .

norms, necessary for evaluating the results are given in the table.

Vitality test

Date: ________________ Name, surname: _________________________

Instruction: Please answer a few questions about yourself. Choose the answer that best reflects your opinion. There are no right or wrong answers here, only your opinion matters. Please work at a pace, without thinking about the answers for a long time. Work consistently without skipping questions.

Answer form

№	Questions	No	probably not, than yes	rather yes than not	Yes
	I am often unsure of my own decisions.
	Sometimes I feel like no one cares about me.
	Often, even after a good night's sleep, I can hardly force myself to get out of bed.
	I am constantly busy and I love it.
	Often I prefer to "go with the flow".
	I change my plans depending on the circumstances.
	I am annoyed by events that force me to change my daily routine.
	Unforeseen difficulties sometimes make me very tired.
	I always control the situation as much as necessary.
	Sometimes I get so tired that nothing else can interest me.
	Sometimes everything I do seems useless to me
	I try to be aware of everything that is happening around me.
	A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush
	In the evening I often feel completely overwhelmed.
	I prefer to set achievable goals and achieve them.
	Sometimes I get scared thinking about the future
	I am always sure that I can bring to life what I have in mind
	It seems to me that I do not live a full life, but only play a role
	It seems to me that if in the past I had less disappointments and hardships, it would be easier for me to live in the world now.
	Problems that arise often seem insoluble to me.
	Having experienced defeat, I will try to take revenge
	I love meeting new people
	When someone complains that life is boring, it means that he simply does not know how to see interesting things.
	I always have something to do
	I can always influence the outcome of what is happening around
	I often regret what has already been done
	If the problem requires a lot of effort, I prefer to postpone it until better times.
	I find it difficult to get close to other people
	As a rule, people around me listen carefully.
	If I could, I would change a lot in the past
	I quite often put off until tomorrow what is difficult to implement, or what I am not sure about.
	I feel like life is passing me by
	My dreams rarely come true
	Surprises give me interest in life
	Sometimes I feel like all my efforts are in vain
	Sometimes I dream of a quiet measured life
	I lack the perseverance to finish what I started
	Sometimes life seems boring and colorless to me
	I do not have the ability to influence unexpected problems
	People around me underestimate
	As a rule, I work with pleasure
	Sometimes I feel superfluous even among friends
	It happens that so many problems pile up on me that they just give up
	Friends respect me for perseverance and inflexibility
	I am willing to take on new ideas.

The purpose of the methodology: determination of a measure of a person's ability to withstand a stressful situation, maintaining internal balance and not reducing the success of the activity.

Results processing

For scoring, answers to direct items are assigned points from 0 to 3 (“no” - 0 points, “rather no than yes” - 1 point, “rather yes than no” - 2 points, “yes” - 3 points) , answers to the reverse items are assigned points from 3 to 0 (“no” - 3 points, “yes” - 0 points). The total resilience score and scores for each of the 3 subscales (engagement, control, and risk taking) are then summed. The forward and reverse points for each scale are presented below.

Keys to the viability test

Interpretation of results

The hardiness test is an adaptation of the Hardiness Survey developed by American psychologist Salvatore Maddi. Personal variable hardiness characterizes the measure of a person's ability to withstand a stressful situation, maintaining internal balance and not reducing the success of the activity.

Vitality (hardiness) is a system of beliefs about oneself, the world, relationships with it. This is a disposition that includes three relatively autonomous components: involvement, control, risk taking. The severity of these components and hardiness in general prevents the emergence of internal tension in stressful situations due to persistent coping with stresses and perceiving them as less significant.

Involvement (commitment) is defined as "the belief that involvement in what is happening gives the maximum chance to find worthwhile and interesting for the individual" (Maddi, 1998b). A person with a developed component of involvement enjoys his own activities. In contrast, the absence of such a conviction creates a sense of rejection, a feeling of being “outside” of life.

The control (control) represents the belief that the struggle allows you to influence the outcome of what is happening. The opposite of this is the feeling of helplessness. A person with a highly developed component of control feels that he chooses his own activity, his own path.

Risk acceptance (challenge) - the conviction that everything that happens contributes to development through knowledge derived from experience, no matter positive or negative. A person who considers life as a way of gaining experience is ready to act in the absence of reliable guarantees of success, at his own peril and risk, considering the desire for simple comfort and security to impoverish the life of an individual. At the heart of risk taking is the idea of ​​development through the active assimilation of knowledge from experience and their subsequent use.

Means and standard deviations of subscales.

(adapted by D.A. Leontiev, E.I. Rasskazova)

Diagnostic purpose: assessment of a person's ability and readiness to act actively and flexibly in a situation of stress and difficulties, the degree of his vulnerability to experiencing stress and depression.

The hardiness test is an adaptation of the Hardiness Survey developed by American psychologist Salvatore Maddi. This methodology was adapted and published in 2006. YES. Leontiev and E.I. Rasskazova. The personal variable hardiness (D.A. Leontiev in 2000 proposed to designate this characteristic in Russian as hardiness) characterizes the measure of a person's ability to withstand a stressful situation, maintaining internal balance and not reducing the success of the activity.

Hardiness is a system of beliefs about oneself, about the world, about relationships with the world. This is a disposition that includes three relatively autonomous components: involvement, control, risk taking. The severity of these components and hardiness in general prevents the emergence of internal tension in stressful situations due to persistent coping (hardy coping) with stresses and perceiving them as less significant (the difference from similar constructs will be justified below).

As noted by D.A. Leontiev, E.I. Rasskazov, the components of resilience develop in childhood and partly in adolescence, although they can be developed later. Their development is crucially dependent on the relationship of parents with the child. In particular, for the development of the component of participation, acceptance and support, love and approval from parents is of fundamental importance. For the development of the control component, it is important to support the child's initiative, his desire to cope with tasks of ever-increasing complexity on the verge of his capabilities. For the development of risk acceptance, the richness of impressions, the variability and heterogeneity of the environment are important.

The severity of all three components of hardiness is necessary to maintain health and the optimal level of performance and activity in stressful conditions.

Contingent: the questionnaire is intended for people aged 18 and over, without restrictions on educational, social and professional grounds.

Examination procedure

The research participant is invited to answer 45 statements by choosing one of the proposed answers:

More likely no than yes

Rather yes than no

Instruction: "Hello! Please answer a few questions by ticking the answer that best reflects your opinion.

Questionnaire text

№	Questions	No	More likely no than yes	rather yes than no	Yes
1.	I am often unsure of my own decisions.
2.	Sometimes I feel like no one cares about me.
3.	Often, even after a good night's sleep, I can hardly force myself to get out of bed.
4.	I am constantly busy and I love it.
5.	Often I prefer to "go with the flow".
6.	I change my plans depending on the circumstances.
7.	I am annoyed by events that force me to change my daily routine.
8.	Unforeseen difficulties sometimes make me very tired.
9.	I always control the situation as much as necessary.
10.	Sometimes I get so tired that nothing else can interest me.
11.	Sometimes everything I do seems useless to me.
12.	I try to be aware of everything that is happening around me.
13.	A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
14.	In the evening I often feel completely overwhelmed.
15.	I prefer to set myself elusive goals and achieve them.
16.	Sometimes I get scared thinking about the future.
17.	I am always sure that I can bring to life what I have planned.
18.	It seems to me that I do not live a full life, but only play a role.
19.	It seems to me that if in the past I had less disappointments and hardships, it would be easier for me to live in the world now.
20.	The problems that arise often seem to me unsolvable.
21.	Having experienced defeat, I will try to take revenge.
22.	I love meeting new people.
23.	When someone complains that life is boring, it means that he simply does not know how to see the interesting.
24.	I always have something to do.
25.	I can always influence the outcome of what is happening around.
26.	I often regret what has already been done.
27.	If the problem requires a lot of effort, I prefer to postpone it until better times.
28.	It's hard for me to get close to other people.
29.	As a rule, people around listen to me attentively.
30.	If I could, I would change a lot in the past.
31.	I quite often put off until tomorrow what is difficult to implement, or what I am not sure about.
32.	I feel like life is passing me by.
33.	My dreams rarely come true.
34.	Surprises give me interest in life.
35.	Sometimes I feel like all my efforts are in vain.
36.	Sometimes I dream of a quiet measured life.
37.	I don't have the courage to finish what I started.
38.	Sometimes life seems boring and colorless to me.
39.	I do not have the ability to influence unexpected problems.
40.	People around me underestimate me.
41.	As a rule, I work with pleasure.
42.	Sometimes I feel superfluous even in a circle of friends.
43.	Sometimes, so many problems pile up on me that they just give up.
44.	Friends respect me for perseverance and inflexibility.
45.	I am willing to take on new ideas.

Results processing

To calculate the results, the answers to direct items are assigned points from 0 to 3 (“no” - 0 points, “rather no than yes” - 1 point, “rather yes than no” - 2 points, “yes” - 3 points) , answers to the reverse items are assigned points from 3 to 0 (“no” - 3 points, “yes” - 0 points). The total resilience score and scores for each of the 3 subscales (engagement, control, and risk taking) are then summed. The forward and reverse points for each scale are presented below.

Table 14 Mean and standard deviations of the total indicator and scales of the Viability Test

Interpretation of results

Values ​​on scales corresponding to the average and above average indicate the severity of the measured indicators.

Involvement(commitment) is defined as "the conviction that involvement in what is happening gives the maximum chance to find something worthwhile and interesting for the individual." A person with a developed component of involvement enjoys his own activities. In contrast, the absence of such a conviction creates a sense of rejection, a feeling of being “outside” of life. “If you feel confident in yourself and that the world is generous, you are inherently engaged.”

The control(control) represents the belief that the struggle allows you to influence the outcome of what is happening, even if this influence is not absolute and success is not guaranteed. The opposite of this is the feeling of helplessness. A person with a highly developed component of control feels that he chooses his own activity, his own path.

Risk acceptance(challenge) - a person's conviction that everything that happens to him contributes to his development through knowledge derived from experience, no matter positive or negative. A person who considers life as a way of gaining experience is ready to act in the absence of reliable guarantees of success, at his own peril and risk, considering the desire for simple comfort and security to impoverish the life of an individual. At the heart of risk taking is the idea of ​​development through the active assimilation of knowledge from experience and their subsequent use.

Methodology of "Value Orientations" by M. Rokeach

Diagnostic purpose: the study of the value orientations of the individual, through the choice of terminal and instrumental values.

The system of value orientations determines the content side of the personality's orientation and forms the basis of its relationship to the world around, to other people, to itself, the basis of the worldview and the core of the motivation for life activity, the basis of the life concept and "philosophy of life".

The technique is based on direct ranking of the list of values. M. Rokeach distinguishes two classes of values:

- terminal - belief that some ultimate goal of individual existence is worth striving for;

- instrumental - belief that some course of action or personality trait is preferable in any situation.

This division corresponds to the traditional division into values-goals and values-means.

The advantage of the methodology is its versatility, convenience and economy in conducting the survey and processing the results, flexibility - the ability to vary both stimulus material (lists of values) and instructions. Its essential disadvantage is the influence of social desirability, the possibility of insincerity. Therefore, a special role in this case is played by the motivation for diagnosis, the voluntary nature of testing and the presence of contact between the psychologist and the subject. The methodology is not recommended for selection and examination purposes.

In order to overcome these shortcomings and to penetrate deeper into the system of value orientations, it is possible to change the instructions, which provide additional diagnostic information and allow more reasonable conclusions to be drawn.

Contingent: This technique is designed for people aged 14 years and older, without restrictions on educational, social and professional grounds.

The hardiness test is a Russian-language adaptation of the English-language Hardiness Survey, developed by the American psychologist Salvatore Maddi in 1984. The original version of the adaptation into Russian was made by D.A. Leontiev, E.I. Rasskazova, which was shortened and re-validated by E.N. Osin and E.I. The shortened version of the questionnaire was translated and validated in Russian by M.V. Alfimova and V.E. Golimbet.

Theoretical basis

English concept hardiness YES. Leontiev suggested translating as resilience. The concept of resilience, on the one hand, is based on conceptual apparatus existential-humanistic psychology, on the other - applied psychology.

The original question that led to the creation of resilience theory was “what psychological factors contribute to successful coping with stress and reducing (or even preventing) internal tension?

It was suggested that this factor is what was later called resilience - a kind of existential courage that allows a person to lesser degree depend on situational experiences, overcome constant basic anxiety, which is actualized in a situation of uncertainty and the need for choice.

Vitality(hardiness) is a system of beliefs about oneself, about the world, about relationships with the world. This is a disposition that includes three relatively autonomous components: involvement, control, risk taking. The severity of these components and resilience in general prevents the emergence of internal tension in stressful situations due to persistent coping (hardy coping) with stresses and perceiving them as less significant.

Involvement(commitment) is defined as "the conviction that involvement in what is happening gives the maximum chance to find something worthwhile and interesting for the individual." A person with a developed component of involvement enjoys his own activities. In contrast, the absence of such a conviction creates a sense of rejection, a feeling of being “outside” of life. “If you feel confident in yourself and that the world is generous, you are inherently engaged.”

The control(control) represents the belief that the struggle allows you to influence the outcome of what is happening, even if this influence is not absolute and success is not guaranteed. The opposite of this is the feeling of helplessness. A person with a highly developed component of control feels that he chooses his own activity, his own path.

Risk acceptance(challenge) - a person's conviction that everything that happens to him contributes to his development through knowledge derived from experience, no matter positive or negative. A person who considers life as a way of gaining experience is ready to act in the absence of reliable guarantees of success, at his own peril and risk, considering the desire for simple comfort and security to impoverish the life of an individual. At the heart of risk taking is the idea of ​​development through the active assimilation of knowledge from experience and their subsequent use.

Thus, resilience is personal characteristic, which is formed in childhood and adolescence, although theoretically its development is possible at a later age.

Muddy cautions that the concept of resilience should not be confused with related concepts such as optimism, sense of connectedness, self-efficacy, resilience, religiosity etc.

Development

original technique

One of the first and most compelling studies based on the resilience construct was a longitudinal study of managers in a large Illinois telecommunications company. The stressful situation in the company arose as a result of changes in the legislation regulating the telecommunications business in the United States. As a result of these changes, all enterprises in the industry were facing significant staff reductions within several months, which was known in advance. This situation provoked reactions of distress, somatic illnesses and mental disturbances in many workers, awaiting the decision of their fate. Muddy's research found a clear inverse relationship between the severity of hardiness components and the likelihood of a serious illness within a year after the onset stressful situation from company managers. With a low severity of all three components of hardiness, the probability of the disease was equal to 92,5% , with a high level of one of the components - 71,8% , at a high level of two components - 57,7% , and at a high level of all three components - 1,1% . These figures indicate not only the importance of hardiness components in preventing stress disorders, but also the systemic, synergistic nature of their interaction with each other, in which the total effect exceeds the sum of the effects of each component separately.

When creating a resilience questionnaire, the authors selected 6 scales different tests(Muddy's Alienation Test, Khan's California Life Goal Assessment Test, Jackson Personality Test, Rotter's Locus of Control Test), meaningfully relevant to the components of engagement, control, and risk taking. During testing, the most valid and reliable items were selected.

This adaptation is based on the third version of The Personal Views Survey III-R resilience questionnaire, which consists of 18 questions, which, in turn, is derived from the 53-item original methodology. The authors proposed additional items that expanded the scale to 119 statements, which were reduced to 45 during the validation process. The original three-scale structure was retained.

To reduce the methodology, we used generalized data from a number of samples of students from various specialties of universities in Moscow and Tomsk, collected during 2005–2010. laboratory staff positive psychology and quality of life of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, as well as the Tomsk state university. The number of subjects - 1285 people aged 16 to 56 years, mean age 21.6 (std. dev. 7.49; median 18) years; the proportion of men is 39.6%. The students were presented with the full version of the TLS (45 items) as part of various psychodiagnostic batteries. The study was conducted anonymously as part of various psychology courses. The sample of cross-validation was the employees of one of the Russian manufacturing enterprises with branches in 6 regions of the country. The study involved 4647 people aged 18 to 75 years, average age 42.6 (std. dev. 11.2; median 43) years; the proportion of men is 66.0%. Respondents in this sample were presented with a short version of the hardiness test (24 items) as part of a computerized test battery, which they completed at their workplaces. Respondents were told that an independent research company was conducting a study psychological climate in a collective; responses were anonymous.

Items were excluded in such a way as to preserve the characteristics of the original scale - the quantitative ratio of direct and reverse items and items belonging to various content groups that make up the resilience construct (involvement, control, and risk taking). To classify items by content, the key to full version test developed by the authors of the original technique based on the data of the exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis.

Items that were excluded included items containing idiomatic expressions (e.g., "Better a bird in the hand than a bird in the sky"), items subject to the effect of social desirability (e.g., "I always have as much control as necessary"), as well as items whose content is not entirely specific to the hardiness construct (“I find it difficult to get close to other people”). In total, 21 items were excluded, leaving 24.

A screening version of the methodology was also developed, obtained by further reducing the questionnaire. For reduction, we used statistical methods, allowing equally in terms of dispersion to put the items of the questionnaire on scales.

A short 12-item version of the resilience questionnaire was taken as a basis, which was translated into Russian without structural reformulation. The questionnaire consisted of 3 scales, 4 items in each scale, and 2 of them were interpreted in direct meaning, and 2 - in the opposite direction. The task was to create a simple screening method for measuring resilience and to test the psychometric properties of the questionnaire.

Testing the psychometric properties of the test was carried out on a sample of mentally healthy subjects from 18 to 70 years old - residents of the city of Moscow. Overall volume the sample was 330 people.

Validation

original technique

The original English version of the resilience questionnaire (The Personal Views Survey III-R) consists of 18 items, including forward and backward questions and covering all three scales of the questionnaire (involvement, control and risk taking). The pilot sample included 430 managers experiencing stress due to changes in the company. Managers have been documented to have an increase in subjective stress and illness rates over a 10-year period. The study was conducted over 12 years. Both for measuring hardiness and for examining stress-related symptoms of illness, mostly self-report data were used; in some cases, objective data, expert reports and data were also considered. medical records. Hardiness indicators turned out to be independent of education, age, gender, marital status, status in society, as well as religion and ethnicity.

The third, final to date, version of the questionnaire included the most valid and reliable items, and the items were considered internally valid if they predicted the development somatic diseases in a stressful situation within a year after measuring hardiness. The studies of Muddy and his colleagues confirmed the reliability and consistency of the questionnaire (Cronbach's alpha, according to various data, ranged from 0.70 to 0.75 for the involvement component, from 0.61 to 0.84 for the control, from 0.60 to 0.71 for the acceptance risk and from 0.80 to 0.88 on the total hardiness scale) and its reliability-stability (in general on the hardiness scale 0.58 after 3 months, 0.57 after 6 months). Factor analysis confirmed the presence of a three-factor structure corresponding to the model proposed by S. Maddy.

Hardiness studies have not found a relationship of hardiness with the race of subjects studying in the United States. According to cross-cultural studies of immigrants from Asia to the United States, from Turkey to Canada and from Latin America to Australia, the higher the hardiness, the faster the adaptation to new conditions occurs, the less pronounced culture shock and subjective level stress. Similarly, hardiness among US residents who went to work in China for 2 years was positively correlated with stabilization. emotional state and quality of work after culture shock.

Validity testing of the resilience questionnaire was the most important task. In a number of studies, the goal was to reveal the relationship between the results of measuring hardiness and its individual components, on the one hand, and other variables (indicators of health / illness, efficiency, etc.) - on the other.

Adaptation by Leontiev and Rasskazova

Validation was carried out on 727 subjects from Moscow, Kemerovo and Petropavlovka-Kamchatsky, both mentally healthy and schizophrenic patients. It was found that resilience does not depend either on gender, or on profession or social status, but changes with age: openness to new experience especially decreases, which may be due to a larger amount of already existing experience in adulthood, and the lack of it in youth.

To test convergent and discriminant validity short version The following methods were used in TJS:

1. Test of dispositional optimism by Carver and Scheier (Life Orientation Test) adapted by T.O. Gordeeva, O.A. Sychev and E.N. Aspen
2. Short version (36 items) of the questionnaire "Style of explaining successes and failures"
3. Scale of hope as traits (Russian version by T.O. Gordeeva and E.N. Osin)
4. Questionnaire of general self-efficacy by Ralph Schwarzer and Erusalem Matthias, adapted by Vladimir Romek
5. McLane Uncertainty Tolerance Scale (MSTAT-I) adapted by E.G. Lukovitskaya
6. Diener life satisfaction scale (Satisfaction With life Scale) adapted by D.A. Leontiev and E.N. Aspen
7. Questionnaire of activity motivation for the educational and professional context (The Academic Motivation Scale) adapted by T.O. Gordeeva, O.A. Sychev and E.N. Aspen.

A significant positive correlation of the items of the questionnaire among themselves was revealed, high: test-retest reliability, reliability-consistency. When compared with the indicators of Leontiev's life-meaning orientations test, a high correlation of the methodology scales with the test scales was revealed and confirmed external validity. The same is confirmed by some other studies.

A check was also made for the possible installation responses. To do this, the subjects were presented in pairs with a technique with "deaf" and "setting" instructions. A significantly significant correlation of responses to statements was found in the transition from sincere responses to attitude responses, i.e. the questionnaire retains its significance in a socially tense situation, but at the same time it requires comparison with the standards of the corresponding (setting) sample.

Modification of Aspen and Rasskazova

The reliability of the obtained short version of the 24-item hardiness test was 0.90 on the student sample, and 0.91 on the cross-validation sample. All items in both samples demonstrate medium or high correlation coefficients with the scale (r>0.2). Due to the fact that the items that measure the resilience construct are not formulated directly, but indirectly (in terms of ideas about oneself, the world, and interaction with it), further restriction of the set of items could lead to a decrease in the validity of the scale and therefore was not carried out.

The average (through the Fisher transform) correlation with the scale for the excluded items was 0.34, for the retained items - 0.50 (in original version for 45 points it averaged 0.43). The set of 24 stored items contains 7 forward and 17 reverse items, including 11 related to engagement, 7 to control, and 6 to risk taking. This ratio roughly corresponds to the proportion of items of each type in the full version of the test.

Screening version

Despite the fact that all three subscales in most cases show approximately the same moderate correlations with other variables, regression analysis shows that the nature of the variance of the subscales of the test is not the same in content. Engagement as a baseline is the best predictor of engagement concrete activity, both professional and educational (this is evidenced by the pattern of relationships between the subscales of the hardiness test and indicators of work engagement, according to V. Shaufeli, as well as intrinsic motivation labor and learning activities, respectively, for employees and students). Engagement also predicts positive mood in the organization, satisfaction labor activity and general well-being (satisfaction with life in general, meaningfulness of life). The indicator of control is more related to overall self-efficacy, lower levels of negative attitudes in the workplace, as well as tolerance for uncertainty among employees. For students, the indicator of control is associated with educational self-efficacy, optimistic attribution of success, as well as tolerance for uncertainty. Employee risk acceptance is a significant predictor (though weaker than other subscales) of dispositional optimism, life satisfaction, and uncertainty tolerance. For students, this indicator turns out to be the strongest predictor of dispositional optimism, tolerance for uncertainty, and optimistic attribution of failures.

Modification of Alfimova and Golimbet

To confirm the validity short test hardiness, the correlation of its results with traits reflecting mental ill health was analyzed, for which MMPI was used (Russian version of Berezin et al.), as well as with positive features nature associated with mental health. AT last case The Russian-language version of the Cloninger Temperament and Character Questionnaire, or TCI, was used.

For total score In hardiness, all correlations had the expected sign with the MMPI scales and indicated a decrease in depression, anxiety (Psychasthenia Scale), and a tendency to social self-isolation with an increase in hardiness. The same pattern of correlations with anxiety-depressive symptoms persisted for involvement and control. In addition, an increase in involvement scores correlated with a decrease in psychotic, asocial tendencies (Paranoia and Schizophrenia Scale), and an increase in control scores correlated with a decrease in impulsivity (Psychopathic Deviation Scale). An increase in scores on the Risk Acceptance Scale corresponded to an increase in activity and self-esteem (Mania Scale) and an increased focus on the opinions of others (Hysteria Scale).

From the scales of the Cloninger temperament and character questionnaire, resilience turned out to be positively associated with the character traits of self-direction and cooperation and negatively with the harm avoidance temperament trait, which is in good agreement with the content of the corresponding constructs. Thus, self-direction includes those aspects of the self-concept that allow the individual to feel like an autonomous entity, and is associated with feelings of personal integrity, pride, efficiency, and hope. At the same time, persons with a high score on this scale are described as mature, self-sufficient, responsible, purposeful and constructive. Cooperation is part of the self-concept, in which the self is seen as an integral part of the human community, from which a sense of community, empathy, conscience and mercy arise. High level avoidance of harm reflects anticipatory anxiety, fearfulness and fatigue, and low level- optimism, courage and energy.

A similar pattern of correlations was observed for engagement. Control was only significantly associated with self-direction and harm avoidance. In contrast to other scales, an increase in scores on the Scale of risk acceptance was accompanied by an increase in the severity of temperamental traits - the search for novelty and dependence on rewards. High scores on the Novelty Seeking Scale reflect a combination of enthusiasm, willingness to explore new, unfamiliar "worlds" with anger and unpredictability. Individuals with highly rated on the Reward Dependency Scale, they are responsive, sentimental, and sensitive to social pressure.

The level of resilience, measured using this version of the questionnaire, was negatively correlated with age and positively with the level of education, while its individual components were associated with gender factors. This distinguishes the short version from the original S. Muddy scale, and, to a certain extent, from the Russian version of the questionnaire by D.A. Leontiev and E.I. Rasskazova, who found the influence of age, but not gender and education, on the assessment of hardiness and its components.

The short liveness test showed good retest reliability and satisfactory internal consistency. In addition, its validity is not in doubt. results correlation analysis MMPI and TCI scores are in good agreement with the notion of resilience as overcoming anxiety and existential courage, as well as empirical data obtained when creating the original version of the test.

The correspondence of the structure of the short version of the Resilience Questionnaire to the theoretical three-factor model is the most weak characteristic this scale. The results of factor analysis rather indicate the presence of a single property underlying resilience.

Internal structure

In all versions, the questionnaire consists of a number of statements, with which the respondent must express his agreement or disagreement on a 4-point Likert scale. Points can be considered both in direct and in reverse sense.

Four indicators can be extracted from the scale: involvement, control, risk taking and total score resilience.

Interpretation

For scoring, answers to direct items are assigned points from 0 to 3 (“no” - 0 points, “rather no than yes” - 1 point, “rather yes than no” - 2 points, “yes” - 3 points) , answers to the reverse items are assigned points from 3 to 0 (“no” - 3 points, “yes” - 0 points). The total resilience score and scores for each of the 3 subscales (engagement, control, and risk taking) are then summed. The result obtained can be compared with the normative one.

Adaptation by Leontiev and Rasskazova

Raw points calculation

Standard values

Modification of Aspen and Rasskazova

Raw points calculation

Standard values

Screening version

Raw points calculation

Standard values

Standard values

Practical significance

The viability test is a reliable and valid tool psychological diagnostics, the results of which do not depend on gender, education and region of residence of a person. The results of the resilience test make it possible to assess the ability and readiness of a person to act actively and flexibly in a situation of stress and difficulties, or his vulnerability to experiencing stress and depression. At the same time, resilience is a factor in preventing the risk of impaired performance and the development of somatic and mental illness under stress, and at the same time promotes optimal experience situations of uncertainty and anxiety. Resilient beliefs create a kind of "immunity" to really hard experiences. It is important that resilience affects not only the assessment of the situation, but also the activity of a person in overcoming this situation (the choice of coping strategies).

Literature

1. Leontiev D.A., Rasskazova E.I. Vitality test. Methodological guide on new methodology psychological diagnostics of personality with a wide scope. It is intended for professional psychologists-researchers and practitioners. - M.: Meaning, 2006.
2. Osin E.N., Rasskazova E.I. A short version of the hardiness test: psychometric characteristics and application in an organizational context. Bulletin of Moscow University. Series number 14. Psychology. 2013. No. 2, pp. 147-165
3. Osin E.N. Factor structure of the short version of the Vitality Test. Organizational psychology. 2013. Vol. 3. No. 3. pp. 42–60
4. Alfimova M. V., Golimbet V. E. Russian version of the short scale of hardiness. Social and Clinical Psychiatry 2012, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 10-15