The development of the Internal Resource Perception Scale: Validity and reliability
Issued Date
2026-04-01
Resource Type
eISSN
19326203
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-105037474058
Journal Title
Plos One
Volume
21
Issue
4 April
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Plos One Vol.21 No.4 April (2026)
Suggested Citation
Saipanish R., Putthisri S., Srikosai S., Kaesornsamut P., Pandee P., Prachason T., Chattrattai T. The development of the Internal Resource Perception Scale: Validity and reliability. Plos One Vol.21 No.4 April (2026). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0348075 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/116588
Title
The development of the Internal Resource Perception Scale: Validity and reliability
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Background The perception of internal resources influences mental well-being and unlocks the potential for personal growth. However, there is currently no tool that directly addresses perceptions of internal resources. This cross-sectional psychometric study aimed to develop a tool for assessing personal perceptions of internal resources in a Thai context. Methods The Internal Resource Perception Scale (IRPS) was developed through a comprehensive literature review, a focus group interview, and the research team’s expertise. Content validity was assessed by experts in inner growth and psychotherapy. A convenience sample of 514 Thai adults participated in an empirical examination of the scale. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to determine the factor structure, and construct validity was examined using Spearman’s correlations between IRPS scores and other validated psychological measures. Results The scale content validity index (S-CVI) of the 42-item IRPS was .94, with item content validity index (I-CVI) values ranging from .80 to 1.00. The EFA and item reduction identified 25 items loaded onto four factors: Compassionate and Ethical Nature, Adaptable Mindset, Responsible Spirit, and Logical Perspective, explaining 62.4% of the observed variance. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported the four-factor structure, while a bifactor model indicated a strong general factor underlying the scale. The scale showed excellent internal consistency (McDonald’s omega = .96). The IRPS scores demonstrated positive correlations with measures of well-being (Resilience Inventory, ρ = .58; Revised Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, ρ = .37; World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index, ρ = .38) and negative correlations with measures of distress (Patient Health Questionnaire, ρ = −.41; Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, ρ = −.34). Conclusions The IRPS demonstrates strong psychometric properties and can serve as a useful tool for understanding how individuals perceive their own internal resources. It can help individuals improve their self-awareness, learning, and personal growth. Its applicability in clinical settings should be explored in future research.