Social and Emotional Resources Inventory- revised (SERI)

1. Abstract

The Social and Emotional Resources Inventory- revised (SERI) is an 80-item retrospective psychometric instrument designed to assess internal and external protective factors, compensatory mechanisms, and socio-ecological resources present during childhood and adolescence. Originally conceptualized by Leslie A. Shirley and Lee A. Rosén (2010) and subsequently refined and psychometrically validated by Danielle Mohr (2012) at Colorado State University, the SERI operationalizes resilience from a developmental-ecological perspective. Rather than framing childhood adversity solely through the lens of deficit and trauma exposure, the SERI quantifies the presence of salutogenic assets across individual, familial, extra-familial, and community domains. Respondents evaluate developmental experiences using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Very Inaccurate) to 5 (Very Accurate). The inventory captures critical dimensions including cognitive competence, self-esteem, active and avoidant coping styles, temperament, parental warmth and expectations, parent-child relational security, extended kinship support, external adult mentors, socioeconomic and healthcare stability, school quality, community safety, faith and spirituality, and participation in prosocial organizations. Validation studies demonstrate robust psychometric properties, featuring an overall internal consistency estimate exceeding α = .95, reliable subscale internal consistencies ranging from .70 to .92, and established convergent validity with standardized resilience, adaptive functioning, and psychopathology inventories. The SERI serves as a vital clinical and empirical assessment tool for developmental psychopathologists, trauma researchers, and mental health clinicians investigating the protective mechanisms that buffer against adverse childhood experiences (ACEs).

2. Keywords

Social and Emotional Resources Inventory, SERI, resilience, protective factors, adverse childhood experiences, ecological systems theory, developmental psychopathology, retrospective assessment, social support, positive youth development, psychometrics

3. Authors

The development, refinement, and psychometric evaluation of the Social and Emotional Resources Inventory (and its revised form) were conducted within the Department of Psychology at Colorado State University by:

• Danielle Mohr, M.S. — Department of Psychology, Applied Social and Health Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
• Leslie A. Shirley, M.S. — Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
• Lee A. Rosén, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Primary faculty supervisor and research advisor on developmental psychopathology, childhood maltreatment, and resilience mechanisms.

4. Purpose

Historically, research on child development and developmental psychopathology has focused predominantly on deficit-oriented paradigms, prioritizing the identification of trauma, abuse, neglect, and socio-environmental risk factors. While instruments measuring Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) effectively identify vulnerability to negative long-term physical and psychological outcomes, they frequently fail to account for the substantial variability observed in developmental trajectories among individuals exposed to comparable levels of adversity. The Social and Emotional Resources Inventory- revised (SERI) was constructed to address this assessment imbalance by comprehensively cataloging the protective assets, environmental affordances, and internal psychological resources that foster adaptive functioning and resilience in the face of developmental stress.

The primary clinical and research purpose of the SERI is to provide an empirically grounded, multidimensional profile of childhood developmental resources. In clinical contexts, adult psychotherapy clients who have survived severe childhood maltreatment, poverty, or family dysfunction often present with complex cognitive schemas centered on defectiveness and complete developmental deprivation. Administering the SERI allows clinicians to systematically identify overlooked areas of historical competence, positive attachments, community engagement, and innate problem-solving abilities. This retrospective mapping enables strength-based interventions, cognitive reappraisal of childhood experiences, and the activation of latent resilience mechanisms. In developmental, epidemiological, and neuropsychological research, the SERI serves as an essential moderator and mediator variable. Investigators utilize the SERI to determine why certain individuals exposed to severe developmental toxic stress do not develop depressive disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), substance dependencies, or chronic metabolic illnesses in adulthood. By quantifying internal assets (e.g., intelligence, high self-esteem, active problem-solving) and external buffers (e.g., non-parental adult mentors, safe neighborhood environments, access to healthcare), the SERI facilitates the empirical modeling of compensatory and protective resilience pathways.

5. Psychological Construct

The SERI operationalizes resilience not as a static, unidimensional personality trait, but as a dynamic, interactive system of protective factors situated across multiple ecological strata. A protective factor is defined as any internal attribute or external condition that modifies, ameliorates, or alters a person’s response to an environmental hazard that predisposes them to a maladaptive outcome. The construct measured by the SERI incorporates several distinct yet interconnected psychological and socio-ecological domains:

5.1. Individual Intrapersonal Assets

• Cognitive Competence and Intelligence: Self-perceived intellectual capabilities, problem-solving aptitude, and academic efficacy (e.g., Item 1: “I was intelligent”; Item 46: “I got good grades in school”). Intellectual ability historically serves as one of the most robust buffers against environmental chaos, supporting flexible cognitive appraisal.
• Self-Esteem and Self-Efficacy: Internalized beliefs regarding personal worth, self-confidence, and perceived capability to exert control over one’s destiny (e.g., Item 7: “I had strong self-confidence”; Item 52: “I believed in myself”).
• Disposition and Emotional Reactivity: Innate temperamental qualities characterized by an easygoing, laid-back nature, low baseline trait anxiety, and emotional stability under stress (e.g., Item 5: “I had an easygoing disposition”; Item 65: “I wasn’t much of a worrier”).
• Special Talents and Domain-Specific Competence: Recognition of mastery and distinct aptitude in sports, arts, music, or academics, providing sources of external validation and internal mastery (e.g., Item 9: “I had a talent”; Item 39: “Others noticed my special ability in an activity”).
• Coping Strategies: The bifurcation between approach-oriented, active cognitive problem-solving (e.g., Item 15: “When problems came up, I would deal with them head on”; Item 45: “I would sit down and plan out how to overcome problems”) and avoidant, passive, or suppressive coping styles (e.g., Item 60: “I would pretend there weren’t any problems”; Item 78: “I would try to avoid dealing with problems”).

5.2. Relational and Familial Resources

• Parenting Practices: Parental emotional warmth, availability, nurturance, and dependable caregiving practices (e.g., Item 2: “I received warm parenting”; Item 47: “My parents were emotionally available”).
• Parent Connections and Attachment Security: Felt security, emotional closeness, and safe-haven attachment bonds with primary caregivers (e.g., Item 12: “I felt connected to a parent/guardian”; Item 32: “I was emotionally close to my parents”).
• Parental Expectations: Positive developmental scaffolding characterized by high parental aspirations, belief in the child’s potential, and goal-directed encouragement (e.g., Item 6: “My parents had high expectations for me”; Item 66: “My parents wanted me to reach my full potential”).
• Kinship Connections: Relational support, dependability, and safety nets provided by extended family members, including grandparents, aunts, and uncles, especially during periods of parental unavailability (e.g., Item 10: “I had positive connections to my extended family”; Item 69: “My extended family was there for me when my parents couldn’t be”).

5.3. Extra-Familial and Community-Level Protections

• Prosocial Adults and Non-Parental Mentors: The presence of at least one stable, caring adult outside the nuclear family (such as a teacher, coach, neighbor, or family friend) who validates, guides, and protects the youth (e.g., Item 3: “There was an adult outside my family who took an interest in my welfare”; Item 18: “I had an adult mentor other than my parents”).
• Socioeconomic Security and Basic Needs: Household financial comfort, absence of debilitating economic stress, and continuous access to shelter, nutrition, and healthcare (e.g., Item 13: “My family did not have to worry excessively about money”; Item 38: “My family had access to adequate health care”; Item 58: “My family always had food and shelter”).
• Educational Quality: Attending well-resourced schools characterized by skilled, supportive pedagogy, safe learning climates, and responsive educational interventions (e.g., Item 4: “My school met students’ academic needs”; Item 34: “My school had skilled teachers”).
• Neighborhood Safety: Community-level security defined by low violent crime, absence of physical danger, and positive environmental stability (e.g., Item 8: “I lived in a good neighborhood”; Item 23: “My community was safe”).
• Faith and Spirituality: Personal spiritual beliefs, existential meaning systems, and regular involvement in religious institutions providing moral, psychological, and social support (e.g., Item 11: “I had a strong sense of faith or spirituality”; Item 77: “I took comfort in my faith or spirituality”).
• Prosocial Organizations and Community Involvement: Youth engagement in structured extracurricular activities, civic groups, youth clubs, and altruistic community-service organizations (e.g., Item 14: “I was involved in an organized group”; Item 44: “I was involved in groups that served others”).

6. Theoretical Framework

The SERI is theoretically anchored in the intersection of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory and the seminal developmental resilience paradigms pioneered by Norman Garmezy, Ann Masten, Emmy Werner, and Michael Rutter.

Urie Bronfenbrenner’s socio-ecological model posits that human development is nested within concentric environmental systems: the microsystem (immediate interpersonal interactions within the family, peer group, and classroom), the mesosystem (interrelations among microsystems, such as family-school partnerships), the exosystem (contexts indirectly affecting the developing child, such as parental employment and neighborhood conditions), and the macrosystem (cultural beliefs, socioeconomic structures, and institutionalized values). Traditional psychometric tools often isolate intrapsychic traits from environmental contexts. The SERI operationalizes Bronfenbrenner’s ecological framework by simultaneously evaluating intrapersonal traits (cognitive skills, temperament), microsystemic relational bonds (parental warmth, teacher interactions), and exosystemic resources (economic stability, neighborhood safety, healthcare infrastructure).

Complementing ecological theory, the SERI integrates Emmy Werner and Ruth Smith’s landmark 40-year longitudinal Kauai study, which established that resilience is rarely an extraordinary individual trait; rather, it arises from ordinary developmental adaptational systems. Werner and Smith identified three primary clusters of protective factors: personal dispositional attributes (e.g., active problem solving, perceived competence), positive family cohesion (e.g., emotional warmth from at least one primary caregiver), and external community support systems (e.g., an adult mentor, church affiliations, or structured extracurricular groups). Michael Rutter expanded this conceptualization by distinguishing between compensatory models (where assets exert an independent direct positive effect that counteracts environmental liabilities) and interactive/protective models (where a protective factor operates specifically in the presence of severe stress to moderate or neutralize risk). The SERI provides the comprehensive empirical measurement required to test both compensatory main effects and protective buffering interactions across lifespan developmental psychopathology.

7. Validity

Empirical evaluations of the SERI’s psychometric validity have established strong construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity across non-clinical and trauma-exposed collegiate and community populations (Shirley & Rosén, 2010; Mohr, 2012).

7.1. Convergent Validity

Convergent validity was established by evaluating correlations between the SERI, its distinct subscale dimensions, and established standardized instruments measuring resilience, psychological adjustment, and subjective wellbeing:

• Resilience Scales: SERI total scores and individual-resource subscales (Self-Esteem, Coping, Talent) demonstrated substantial, statistically significant positive correlations with the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) (r = .58 to .67, p < .001) and the Ego-Resiliency Scale (ER89) (r = .52 to .63, p < .001).
• Positive Affect and Self-Concept: Moderate to strong positive correlations were documented with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) (r = .55, p < .001) and the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) positive affect subscale (r = .48, p < .001).
• Social Support Networks: The relational, kin, and mentor dimensions of the SERI correlated robustly with the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) (r = .51 to .66, p < .001).

7.2. Discriminant and Incremental Validity

Discriminant validity was evidenced by predicted negative correlations with standardized symptom indices. The SERI total score demonstrated significant inverse associations with the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) (r = -.42 to -.51, p < .001), the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) (r = -.32 to -.39, p < .001), and the Trauma Symptom Checklist-40 (TSC-40) (r = -.38, p < .001). In hierarchical multiple regression analyses predicting adult psychological adjustment following severe childhood maltreatment (assessed via the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire [CTQ]), the SERI demonstrated substantial incremental validity: entering SERI scores at step two accounted for significant unique variance in adult psychological functioning (ΔR² values ranging from .14 to .22, p < .001), over and above the variance explained by trauma severity alone.

8. Reliability

The SERI possesses high internal consistency across both its full composite inventory and its specific domain-level subscales. Reliability metrics established across validation cohorts (Shirley & Rosén, 2010; Mohr, 2012) include:

• Overall Instrument Reliability: The full 80-item composite inventory demonstrated an exceptional Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of α = .96, indicating excellent internal consistency and minimal measurement error across the broad construct of developmental resources.
• Subscale Internal Consistencies: Individual subscales demonstrated solid to excellent Cronbach’s alpha reliability estimates:
  • Faith / Spirituality (6 items): α = .92
  • Self-Esteem (5 items): α = .89
  • Parenting Practices (5 items): α = .88
  • Parent Connections (3 items): α = .86
  • Talent / Personal Competence (6 items): α = .85
  • Good Schools (4 items): α = .84
  • Money / Financial Comfort (3 items): α = .83
  • Prosocial Adults / Mentors (4 items): α = .82
  • Kin Connections (4 items): α = .81
  • Intelligence / Academic Mastery (4 items): α = .80
  • Resources / Basic Needs (3 items): α = .78
  • Prosocial Organizations (3 items): α = .76
  • Active Coping Strategies: α = .77
  • Avoidant Coping Strategies: α = .72
• Temporal Stability: In a subsample evaluated across a 3-week test-retest window, the SERI overall score exhibited an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of r = .88 (p < .001), confirming substantial temporal stability for retrospective childhood developmental appraisals.

9. Factor Analysis

During the structural validation of the SERI, both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were conducted to explore its dimensional architecture (Mohr, 2012). Because the 80 items capture resources spanning multiple developmental layers, factor analytic investigations have examined both first-order thematic facets and higher-order structural configurations.

Initial principal axis factoring with Promax (oblique) rotation was conducted to reflect theoretical correlations among protective resources. The EFA extracted clearly demarcated primary factors accounting for over 52% of the total cumulative variance. Items loaded cleanly onto their hypothesized primary dimensions (factor loadings generally ≥ .45, with cross-loadings < .25). For example, the Faith/Spirituality items exhibited exceptionally high, unambiguous primary loadings (ranging from .72 to .91), as did the Parenting Practices and Parent Connections items (loadings ranging from .64 to .84).

Subsequent Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) evaluated a hierarchical, tri-partite higher-order structure aligning with ecological systems theory:

1. Higher-Order Factor 1: Individual / Personal Assets — subsuming Intelligence, Self-Esteem, Talents, Positive Disposition, and Active Coping.
2. Higher-Order Factor 2: Relational / Familial Resources — subsuming Parenting Practices, Parent Connections, Parental Expectations, and Kin Connections.
3. Higher-Order Factor 3: Contextual / Community Resources — subsuming Financial Resources, School Quality, Adult Mentors, Prosocial Organizations, Faith, and Neighborhood Safety.

Model fit indices for this hierarchical model supported its empirical adequacy: Comparative Fit Index (CFI = .912), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI = .904), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA = .048, 90% CI [.045, .051]), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR = .053). These structural findings confirm that while individual subscale scores provide granular diagnostic utility, higher-order ecological domain composites and a generalized protective index represent theoretically and statistically defensible constructs.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Social and Emotional Resources Inventory- revised (SERI)
• Alternative Titles: SERI-Revised; Social and Emotional Resources Inventory: A Comprehensive Measure of Protective Factors
• Developers: Leslie A. Shirley (2010); Danielle Mohr & Lee A. Rosén (2012)
• Institutional Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Colorado State University
• Target Population: Adults and emerging adults (ages 18+) completing retrospective developmental self-reports on childhood experiences. Adaptable for older adolescents reflecting on childhood environments.
• Item Count: 80 items
• Administration Format: Self-report questionnaire, available in paper-and-pencil or computerized/online formats.
• Completion Time: Approximately 15 to 20 minutes.
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type scale:
  • 1 = Very Inaccurate
  • 2 = Moderately Inaccurate
  • 3 = Neither Inaccurate nor Accurate
  • 4 = Moderately Accurate
  • 5 = Very Accurate
• Identified Core Subscales & Item Distributions:
  • Intelligence: Items 1, 16, 31, 61
  • Parenting Practices: Items 2, 17, 42, 47, 62
  • Parent Connections: Items 12, 32, 57
  • Self-Esteem: Items 7, 22, 37, 52, 67
  • Money / Financial Stability: Items 28, 43, 72
  • Resources / Basic Needs: Items 13, 38, 53
  • Faith / Spirituality: Items 11, 26, 41, 56, 70, 77
  • Talent / Personal Mastery: Items 9, 24, 39, 54, 68, 76
  • Good Schools: Items 4, 19, 34, 64
  • Prosocial Adults / Mentors: Items 18, 33, 48, 63
  • Kin Connections: Items 10, 40, 55, 69
  • Prosocial Organizations: Items 44, 59, 73
  • Active / Problem-Solving Coping: Items 15, 30, 45, 50, 79
  • Avoidant Coping / Anxiety (Reverse-Scored for Overall Protective Index): Items 60, 74, 78, 80
  • Disposition / Temperament: Items 5, 20, 35, 65
  • Neighborhood Safety: Items 8, 23
  • Parental Expectations / Belief: Items 6, 21, 36, 51, 66
  • Family / Safety Net Breadth: Items 25, 27, 29, 49, 58, 71, 75
• Scoring Procedures: Subscale scores are derived by calculating the mean or sum of items within each respective domain. An overall Composite Resilience / Resource Index is calculated by summing all items following the reverse-scoring of passive/avoidant coping and anxiety indicators (items 60, 74, 78, and 80: where 1 becomes 5, 2 becomes 4, 3 remains 3, 4 becomes 2, and 5 becomes 1). Higher scores reflect greater availability and utilization of socio-emotional resources during childhood.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The original Social and Emotional Resources Inventory was established in 2010 by Leslie A. Shirley and Lee A. Rosén, with the refined, comprehensive revised edition (SERI) completed in 2012 by Danielle Mohr under the faculty advisement of Dr. Lee A. Rosén at Colorado State University. The scale was developed as part of university-sponsored graduate research and thesis dissertations. As academic research instruments, the SERI and SERI-revised are accessible for non-commercial, academic, clinical, and scientific research without licensing fees, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution is cited. Researchers wishing to use, translate, or adapt the scale for clinical or empirical protocols are advised to contact the authors or reference the primary academic archives at Colorado State University.

12. References

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674028845

Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18(2), 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.10113

Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56(3), 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227

Mohr, D. (2012). The Social and Emotional Resources Inventory: A comprehensive measure of protective factors (Master’s thesis, Colorado State University). Colorado State University Libraries Digital Repository. Available online at CSU Digitool

Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57(3), 316–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1987.tb03541.x

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

Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children from birth to adulthood. Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501732645

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)