CD-RISC-25: Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale

What this assessment is

The 25-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-25) sums 25 responses for a total from 0 to 100. Higher totals reflect more self-reported resilience, but there is no universal diagnostic cutoff. The scale cannot predict how one person will respond to future adversity.

Kathryn Connor and Jonathan Davidson introduced the scale in a 2003 development study. It describes a broad set of personal responses and resources associated with adapting under stress.

The total is a self-report measure, not a diagnosis or a fixed measure of personal strength.

Who it was designed for

The original research included adults from the general community, primary care, psychiatric outpatient care, and clinical studies of anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Later research has examined the scale across countries, languages, occupations, and health conditions. Results depend on the version and population used.

A score should be compared with evidence from a relevant group. Norms from one country or clinical sample should not be applied automatically to another.

How it is administered

The standard CD-RISC-25 uses the previous month as its recall period. It is a self-rating scale.

Use the complete 25-item version and a validated translation. Versions with 10 or 2 items have different score ranges.

Changing the recall period, wording, or response scale can make a result incompatible with the standard evidence.

What it measures

The CD-RISC-25 samples a broad set of perceived resources and responses linked with adaptation under stress. The output is one total. It is not a profile of separate strengths.

It is broader than the Brief Resilience Scale. The BRS focuses on perceived recovery after stress, while CD-RISC-25 samples a wider set of strengths and responses.

Neither scale measures all external conditions that shape resilience. Money, housing, discrimination, physical health, relationships, and access to support can affect how someone manages stress.

How scoring works

Each of the 25 responses scores from 0 to 4. Add the values for a total from 0 to 100. No reverse scoring is used.

Higher totals indicate more self-reported resilience. Lower totals indicate fewer of the measured resilience resources.

An independent systematic review found inconsistent factor structures across studies. This page therefore reports the single total and does not present the original exploratory factors as standard subscales. The current ePROVIDE record also distinguishes the 25-item form from its shorter versions.

Use all 25 responses. Do not average them or switch to a 1-to-5 scoring system. The reviewed sources do not give a general replacement or prorating rule, so an incomplete form should not be reported as a standard 0-to-100 total.

How to interpret a CD-RISC-25 score

The scale has no universal diagnostic cutoff or developer-defined low, moderate, and high bands.

Interpret the 0-to-100 total as a continuous score. When possible, comparisons should use norms from the same country, language, population, and administration method and should identify the reference group clearly.

A score can be repeated over time, but the number alone cannot establish why it changed. Use the same version and administration method, then review the person's circumstances and other outcomes with the result.

Do not convert an arbitrary set of online ranges into clinical categories.

What the score cannot tell you

The CD-RISC-25 cannot diagnose depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, or another condition. It cannot show which stressor is present or what support a person needs, and its total cannot reliably predict how one person will respond to a future event.

The total also cannot separate personal coping from the effects of safety, health, relationships, and material resources.

A high score does not rule out severe symptoms. A low score does not mean that someone lacks strength or cannot recover.

Evidence and limitations

The original study found expected differences between its community and clinical groups. Scores also changed alongside clinical improvement in its treatment samples, but that association does not make the CD-RISC-25 a treatment-effect test for every setting.

The same systematic review found extensive international use but also variation in measurement quality. This supports caution when comparing versions or treating subscales as established.

The broad total can support group comparisons or a wider assessment, but it remains nonspecific about what changed and why.