CD-RISC-25: Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale

What this assessment is

The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, or CD-RISC-25, is a 25-item self-report measure of perceived resilience.

Kathryn Connor and Jonathan Davidson introduced it in a 2003 development study. The scale covers a broad set of personal qualities and responses associated with adapting under stress.

The CD-RISC-25 measures a person's report of resilience-related resources. It does not diagnose a disorder or predict how someone will respond to every future event.

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.

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 asks how much each statement applied during the previous month. It is usually self-completed, although the questions can be read aloud when needed.

The timeframe is fixed.

Use the complete 25-item version and a validated translation. Short forms with 10 or 2 items also exist, but they are separate measures with different score ranges.

They differ. Keep them separate.

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 several perceived resources linked with resilience. These include adapting to change, coping with pressure, persistence, confidence, and a sense of control or purpose.

The total is broad.

Breadth has limits.

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.

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

The developer manual recommends reporting the single total. It advises against using the five factors from the original exploratory analysis as subscale scores because later studies have not reproduced that structure consistently.

Those subscales are not supported.

Do not average the responses or switch to a 1-to-5 scoring system. Complete all 25 items when possible and follow the manual when responses are missing.

Use one system.

How to interpret a CD-RISC-25 score

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

No single cutoff applies.

Interpret the 0-to-100 total as a continuous score. Comparisons should use norms from the same country, language, population, and administration method when possible.

Population fit matters.

A score can also be tracked over time. A change is easier to understand when the same version and conditions are used and the person's circumstances are reviewed 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.

It cannot predict outcomes.

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. Both results need context.

Evidence and limitations

The original study reported strong internal consistency and expected differences between study groups. It also found that scores could change during treatment, which supports use as an outcome measure in some settings.

An independent systematic review found extensive international use but also variation in measurement quality and factor structure. This supports caution when comparing versions or treating subscales as established.

The scale gives a broad resilience total. That breadth can be useful, but it makes the number less specific about what changed and why.