Social and Emotional Resources Inventory – Revised (SERI-R)

Abstract

The Social and Emotional Resources Inventory-revised (SERI) is a comprehensive psychological instrument developed to measure a wide array of protective factors and resources available to an individual during their formative years, typically childhood and adolescence. Originally conceptualized in 2010 and substantially revised in 2012, the SERI aims to quantify the presence of internal assets and external social supports that contribute to psychological well-being and resilience, particularly in the face of adversity such as childhood maltreatment.

The inventory consists of 80 items and utilizes a 5-point Likert scale format, asking respondents to reflect on the accuracy of statements regarding their upbringing. The resulting scores provide a multi-dimensional profile of the resources that buffer against negative outcomes, making it a valuable tool for research in developmental psychology and clinical assessment.

Keywords

Protective factors, resilience, social resources, emotional resources, childhood maltreatment, psychological assessment, self-esteem, coping mechanisms, developmental psychology.

Authors

Shirley, L.A., Rosén, L.A., Danielle Mohr

Purpose

The primary purpose of the SERI is to provide a detailed, empirically-based measure of resources that act as protective factors. These factors are hypothesized to mitigate the negative impacts of stressful life events or chronic adversity experienced during childhood. By quantifying these resources, researchers can better understand the mechanisms underlying individual differences in adaptation and psychological health.

The scale is specifically designed to move beyond simple measures of distress and focus instead on the strengths and assets within an individual’s personal history and environment. This strength-based approach is crucial for designing effective interventions aimed at fostering resilience among vulnerable populations.

Construct

The SERI measures a broad, multi-faceted construct encompassing both internal and external resources pertinent to healthy development. These resources are organized into 12 distinct subscales, reflecting the comprehensive nature of protective influences. The items require retrospective self-report concerning the environment and personal attributes present during the respondent’s childhood.

The 12 subscales measured by the SERI include:

• Intelligence: Reflecting perceived academic ability and brightness.
• Parenting Practices: Assessing the quality of care, warmth, and responsiveness received from parents/guardians.
• Parent Connections: Measuring emotional closeness and felt connection to parents/guardians.
• Self-Esteem: Capturing feelings of self-worth, capability, and positive self-belief.
• Money: Reflecting the family’s perceived financial comfort and stability.
• Resources: Assessing access to essential resources like food, shelter, and health care.
• Faith: Measuring the importance and comfort derived from spirituality or religious belief.
• Talent: Assessing recognition of special abilities in areas like sports, music, or academics.
• Good Schools: Reflecting the perceived quality of education and teaching received.
• Prosocial Adults: Measuring the presence of supportive, caring, non-parental adult mentors.
• Kin Connections: Assessing positive connections and reliable support from extended family members.
• Prosocial Organizations: Measuring involvement in organized groups that serve others or the community.

Validity

While specific statistical validity metrics (e.g., construct, convergent, or discriminant validity coefficients) are detailed within the original Master’s Thesis by Danielle Mohr (2012), the development process was structured to ensure strong content validity. The extensive number of items (80 total) reflects a thorough attempt to cover the entire theoretical domain of protective factors identified in resilience literature.

The factor structure, derived through statistical analysis, supports the theoretical differentiation of the 12 proposed subscales, suggesting that the SERI effectively measures distinct dimensions of social and emotional support rather than a single global factor. This empirical structure provides evidence for the scale’s construct validity.

Reliability

The reliability of the SERI was established during its refinement and validation process. High internal consistency is expected across the 80 items, as well as within the individual subscales, indicative of the items within each factor measuring the same underlying construct. These reliability estimates (typically Cronbach’s Alpha) confirm the scale’s ability to consistently measure the perceived availability of these resources.

Factor Analysis

The structure of the SERI is based on factor analytic techniques applied during the revision and expansion phase documented by Danielle Mohr in 2012. The analysis resulted in the identification of the 12 empirically distinct factors listed under the Construct section. This robust factor structure allows for nuanced scoring, providing not just a total resilience score, but detailed scores across dimensions such as quality of Parenting Practices, perceived Self-Esteem, and the influence of Prosocial Adults.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report retrospective inventory

Format: 80 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale

Language Available: English

Population Group: Individuals reflecting on their childhood experiences; typically used with college students or adults in clinical settings.

Age Group: Adolescents (retrospectively) and Adults (current administration).

Population Details: Originally validated on college students at Colorado State University.

Test Methodology: Respondents indicate the degree to which statements about their childhood were “Inaccurate” or “Accurate” using the 5-point response key.

Keywords

Psychological inventory, protective factors, resilience measurement, childhood support, mental health, academic research, resource assessment.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source content.

Correspondence Address: Correspondence is typically directed through Colorado State University, where the scale was developed.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The original development of the SERI was completed in 2012 by Danielle Mohr. The initial version was proposed by Shirley and Rosén in 2010. Information regarding formal licensing fees or specific permissions for commercial use is not explicitly detailed in the source material, but the scale is available in the public domain via the Colorado State University repository.

The full instrument can be found on pages 66-69 of THE SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL RESOURCES INVENTORY: A COMPREHENSIVE MEASURE OF PROTECTIVE FACTORS. The original PDF can be downloaded here: http://digitool.library.colostate.edu///exlibris/dtl/d3_1/apache_media/L2V4bGlicmlzL2R0bC9kM18xL2FwYWNoZV9tZWRpYS8xOTIwMjQ=.pdf

Reference’s

Mohr. Danielle. (2012). THE SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL RESOURCES INVENTORY: A COMPREHENSIVE MEASURE OF PROTECTIVE FACTORS. In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Master of Science, Colorado State University.

Shirley, L.A. & Rosén, L.A. (2010). Measuring resilience to childhood maltreatment in college students. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Colorado State University, Colorado.

Items of the Social and Emotional Resources Inventory- revised (SERI)

Response Options: 1: Very Inaccurate, 2: Moderately Inaccurate, 3: Neither Inaccurate nor Accurate, 4: Moderately Accurate, 5: Very Accurate

When I was growing up: Inaccurate Accurate

1. I was intelligent
2. I received warm parenting
3. There was an adult outside my family who took an interest in my welfare
4. My school met students’ academic needs
5. I had an easygoing disposition
6. My parents had high expectations for me
7. I had strong self-confidence
8. I lived in a good neighborhood
9. I had a talent (i.e., talented in sports, music, drama, academics, etc.)
10. I had positive connections to my extended family (e.g., grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc.)
11. I had a strong sense of faith or spirituality
12. I felt connected to a parent/guardian
13. My family did not have to worry excessively about money
14. I was involved in an organized group (e.g., church group, school-related group, Girl or Boy Scouts, etc.)
15. When problems came up, I would deal with them head on
16. I was smart
17. My parents were loving
18. I had an adult mentor other than my parents
19. I received a good education
20. I was laid-back
21. My parents believed I was capable
22. I felt positively about myself
23. My community was safe (i.e., little violence, few crimes, etc.)
24. I was skilled in at least one activity
25. I had a close relationship with family members other than my parents/guardians and siblings
26. My faith or spirituality was important to me
27. A parent/guardian in the home looked out for me
28. My family was financially comfortable
29. I was involved in extra-curricular activities (including school-related and non school-related activities)
30. I would think about how to take control of problems instead of trying to ignore them
31. I was bright
32. I was emotionally close to my parents
33. An adult outside of my family motivated me to succeed
34. My school had skilled teachers
35. Few things in my life got me too worked up or excited
36. My parents expected me to succeed
37. I had high self-esteem
38. My family had access to adequate health care
39. Others noticed my special ability in an activity (e.g., sports, music, drama, academics, etc.)
40. I could depend on family members other than my parents and siblings
41. Religion/spirituality was a central part of my life
42. I had a parent/guardian I could rely on
43. My family was able to afford the things we needed
44. I was involved in groups that served others
45. I would sit down and plan out how to overcome problems
46. I got good grades in school
47. My parents were emotionally available
48. There was an adult outside my family who cared about me
49. I learned a lot at school
50. I was able to deal well with stress
51. My parents encouraged me to achieve goals
52. I believed in myself
53. My family and I had access to good health services
54. I had a skill that I was proud of
55. I felt that my extended family was there for me
56. I attended religious services
57. I was connected to my family
58. My family always had food and shelter
59. I was involved in a group that did good things for the community
60. I would pretend there weren’t any problems even when there really were
61. I did well academically
62. My parents cared about me
63. Someone other than family made sure that I was okay
64. I went to a good school
65. I wasn’t much of a worrier
66. My parents wanted me to reach my full potential
67. I viewed myself as a capable individual
68. I felt that there was something special I could do (i.e., I was talented at something)
69. My extended family was there for me when my parents couldn’t be
70. I believed in a higher power or spiritual energy
71. I felt like part of my family unit
72. My parent(s) made enough money at their job for my family to be able to live comfortably
73. I was involved with a group or organization that focused on helping others
74. I would put off dealing with problems until later
75. An adult “believed” in me
76. I was seen as a “talented kid”
77. I took comfort in my faith or spirituality
78. I would try to avoid dealing with problems if they came up
79. I was good at things I “set my mind to”
80. I worried a lot about things

Subscale Item Groupings:

• Intelligence: 1, 16, 31, 61
• Parenting Practices: 2, 17, 42, 47, 62
• Parent Connections: 12, 32, 57
• Self-Esteem: 7, 22, 37, 52, 67
• Money: 28, 43, 72
• Resources: 13, 38, 53
• Faith: 11, 26, 41, 56, 70, 77
• Talent: 9, 24, 39, 54, 68, 76
• Good Schools: 4, 19, 34, 64
• Prosocial Adults: 18, 33, 48, 63, 75
• Kin Connections: 10, 40, 55, 69
• Prosocial Organizations: 44, 59, 73