The social disruption caused by COVID-19 has adversely impacted several domains of child, caregiver, and family functioning (Gassman-Pines et al., 2020; Essler et al., 2021). Much of the early research on families focused on pandemic-related disruptions, such as the stressors of homeschooling (Deacon et al., 2021), parent work-life conflict (Wang et al., 2022), loss of income (Wang et al., 2021), and strained parent–child relationships (Cassinat et al., 2021). However, an important part of studying the sequelae of pandemic disruption is to examine processes of resilience—that is, the processes leading to positive adaptation despite exposure to significant threat, adversity, or trauma (Luthar et al., 2000; Masten and Cicchetti, 2016). Resilience is more than merely “bouncing back,” “shaking off,” or “breezing through” life’s challenges; rather, resilience is a dynamic process that affords the potential for personal and relational growth (Walsh, 2016, 2021). Adaptation is one of the many processes that encompass the construct of resilience (Walsh, 1996, 2021; Masten, 2021b). Importantly, such adjustment may not always be positive, as in the case of developing biases in threat perception or aggressive behaviors that promote survival in harmful environments. While these behaviors may be adaptive under settings of risk, they are not necessarily adaptive in settings where risk is low, where they may instead lead to several psychosocial problems (Ellis et al., 2012). In contrast, positive adjustment describes coping-related behaviors that are likely to be adaptive in multiple environments regardless of the level of risk (Ellis et al., 2017). In the current study, we are primarily interested in positive adaptation of families in the context of pandemic stress and disruption.

Early studies on resilience described this construct as situated within the individual—that is, specific traits such as high self-esteem or self-efficacy were examined as precursors to resilience (Rutter, 1987). However, a more nuanced understanding of positive adaptation in response to adversity considers a complex network of interacting systems (individual, relational, and collective; Masten, 2021b). In other words, the capacity for positive adaptation results from ongoing interactions across levels of functioning both within an individual and between the individual and their ever-changing environment (Masten and Cicchetti, 2016; Masten, 2021a). Notably, sources of resilience are themselves dynamic and susceptible to change. The focus of the current paper is the family system as a dynamic entity, subject to processes of risk and resilience during the pandemic (Prime et al., 2020).

Central to a multisystemic framework of positive adaptation is the idea of family resilience (Walsh, 1996). Bowen’s (1985) Family Systems Framework views the family as a holistic emotional and functional unit. As family members are interconnected and interdependent, stressors that impact one member have ripple effects on the others (Kerr and Bowen, 1988). Applied to the idea of resilience, family resilience describes the experience of recovery and growth of families following adversity, in the domains of shared belief systems (e.g., meaning-making: when families collectively make sense of stressful and adverse situations), organizational patterns (e.g., flexibility), and communication (e.g., emotional expression; Walsh, 2012, 2016, 2021). The aim of the current paper is to develop and validate a scale of positive family adaptation, which assesses the extent to which caregivers report positive changes to family processes amidst the pandemic.

Exploring patterns of positive family adaptation in response to the pandemic will help articulate processes of risk and resilience in children and families, including how family stressors and positive adaptation interact dynamically to influence family functioning. To date, there are few empirically validated COVID-specific scales measuring family functioning. Some studies include items related to family-specific pandemic stressors (Prime et al., 2021), work-family management strategies (Shockley et al., 2021), and pandemic exposure and impact on family functioning (Kazak et al., 2021). However, no study to date has considered pandemic-related positive adaptation and coping. Moreover, although previous studies included items indexing the positive impact of the pandemic on children (e.g., benefits of home quarantine, parent–child discussions on COVID-19, and family coping strategies), they are not validated scales (Eales et al., 2021; Tang et al., 2021). Thus, an empirically-validated measure of positive family adaptation to pandemic stress and disruption is needed. As the pandemic is likely to have a long-term impact on many children and families, a practical tool for assessing how families are functioning in the months and years ahead is necessary.

There are important sex- and/or gender-based differences that have been demonstrated among parents during the pandemic. Specifically, female caregivers have been reported to experience greater stress and burden during the pandemic than male caregivers (Aguiar et al., 2021; Kerr et al., 2021; Wade et al., 2021). However, it is unclear whether female and male caregivers are positively adapting in different ways in response to pandemic stressors. In general, there is limited research exploring differences between mothers and fathers in processes of resilience. In one study, there were no significant differences in resilience levels (i.e., the capacity to thrive in response to adversity) between mothers and fathers parenting a child with autism spectrum disorder (Bitsika et al., 2013). However, there is some evidence that women and men may have different responses to adversity, which may signal differences in coping or adaptation (Kelly et al., 2008). More research is therefore needed to better understand similarities and differences in the extent or manner in which mothers and fathers cope with pandemic-related stressors.

In giving a questionnaire to individuals who differ on some characteristic (e.g., sex), it is essential to empirically examine whether the construct is meaningful across groups (Millsap, 2011). Invariance testing can be used when creating a new scale to make such a comparison (Bialosiewicz et al., 2013). Measurement invariance is a statistical property of a questionnaire or test that demonstrates that a construct is comparable across groups of people (i.e., multigroup invariance) or across timepoints (i.e., longitudinal invariance; Millsap, 2011; Bialosiewicz et al., 2013; Putnick and Bornstein, 2016; Wang et al., 2018). Measurement invariance is a necessary precondition to testing differences between groups or change over time, particularly because variations in test scores can result for several reasons, many of which are not due to actual differences between groups or timepoints (van de Vijver, 2015). In the case of a measure of family positive adaptation and coping, it is critical to examine whether the measure is invariant across female and male caregivers.

The widespread social disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted the functioning and well-being of many families around the world. Families with school-aged children have experienced financial burden (Low and Mounts, 2022), food insecurity (Steimle et al., 2021), school closures (Almeida et al., 2021), and lack of child support (Poulain et al., 2021), with associated strain on the functioning of the family system (Prime et al., 2020). Notwithstanding its negative consequences, many families have been able to mobilize social, interpersonal, and familial resources to adapt to these disruptions and cope with the stress that accompanies them. Yet measures that capture this family-based resilience have been largely overlooked. A focus on coping and positive adaptation is crucial not only to understand how families in the current pandemic will recover from the disruption it has created, but also for future disaster mitigation. Thus, development of measures that capture the ability of families to overcome, endure, or otherwise cope with significant social disruption caused by the pandemic are essential to current recovery efforts and planning for future crises. The current study provides one of the first attempts to validate such a measure, the Family PACS, in a relatively large multinational sample of female and male caregivers.

Our findings provide initial validation of a very brief, easily implemented scale indexing several constructs important for family resilience in the face of adversity (Walsh, 1996, 2016). The seven-item Family PACS maps onto themes of meaning-making (e.g., “Found new meaning in life”), connectedness (e.g., “Engaged in or developed new family activities”), and social and economic resources (e.g., “Reorganized living situation to facilitate working”). Items within the Family PACS align with emerging international evidence during the pandemic. Specifically, a comprehensive literature review found that constructs of adaptability, family cohesion, re-creating routine, and flexibility were all important contributors to enhancing family resilience during the pandemic (Gayatri and Irawaty, 2022). Our findings build on this important work by putting forth a valid and reliable tool for measuring key constructs of family resilience aligned with emerging literature. This will allow for consistency across studies in measuring pandemic-specific family positive adaptation.

Importantly, the one-factor structure of the Family PACS demonstrated strong measurement invariance. That is, the factor structure (i.e., number of factors and pattern of factor loadings), strength of factor loadings, and item thresholds were indistinguishable by caregiver sex. Strong measurement invariance is a necessary condition to testing differences between groups to ensure that significant differences in scores are attributed to actual population differences and not a result of measurement bias (Bialosiewicz et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2018). Thus, our findings will enable researchers to explore whether there are sex differences in experiences of family coping and positive adaptation during the pandemic. This is important as previous research has found differences in coping styles and stress responses between females and males (e.g., Kelly et al., 2008; Wade et al., 2021).

The Family PACS had acceptable concurrent validity, with positive correlations in the small range with positively-valenced items. This demonstrates that the Family PACS, which asks questions specific to pandemic-related processes, is related to constructs of other, more stable, positive family processes including caregiver positive coping (e.g., “I am able to adapt when changes occur”), positive parenting (e.g., “I enjoy doing things with [younger child’s name]”), couples’ satisfaction (e.g., “I have a warm and comfortable relationship with my partner”), and family functioning (e.g., “We can express feelings to each other”). It was initially surprising that the Family PACS was not significantly correlated with any of the negatively-valenced scales since past research has demonstrated that dimensions of stress, anxiety, and distress correlate with coping behaviors (Compas et al., 2019). One possible explanation is that, very early in the pandemic (May 2020), processes of positive adaptation and negative caregiver and family processes were operating independently. That is, positive adaptation may not simply be the inverse of maladjustment. As risk and resilience are dynamic constructs (Masten, 2021a), the associations between the Family PACS and negatively-valenced scales of interest may be more strongly related at later points in the pandemic, or when assessing predictive validity. Despite this, it is promising that our measure of positive adaptation is related to positive family processes.

Notably, there was initial support for a three-factor structure with acceptable factor loadings and conceptually meaningful themes (i.e., flexibility, meaning-making, and routines/rituals), which was not pursued due to few indicators on factors. However, this provides some support for a multidimensional scale, which is corroborated by the acceptable, but not optimal, internal consistency of the Family PACS. As such, next steps may include item development to increase the number of measured variables aligned with the identified factors, with the goal of creating a multidimensional scale. Relatedly, there are other relevant items that may strengthen the Family PACS. For example, items related to having a positive outlook (hope, confidence, and “can-do spirit”) and open emotional sharing (expression of negative feelings, shared gratitude, humor; Walsh, 2016, 2021) may provide additional insight into family adaptation during this time. Further item development of the scale may lead to improvements in both validity and reliability. At present, the current brief scale may be useful in capturing processes related to positive family adaptation during the pandemic, with potential to facilitate research in the areas of family risk and resilience. As the Family PACS asks about experiences specific to the pandemic, adjustments and further evaluation will be necessary if it is implemented as a measure of family positive adaptation during other adverse circumstances.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the University of Waterloo, University of Toronto, and York University. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

GS: conceptualization, analysis, and writing. DB: conceptualization, methodology, data collection, reviewing, and editing. MW: reviewing and editing. HP: analysis, writing, reviewing, and editing. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

This work was funded by Tri-agency/Canadian Government sponsor; Canadian Government Agency: SSHRC—Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council; Program Name: Canada Research Chair; Work-order/award number: # 950-232347 (DB); and by Sciences and Humanities Research Council Insight Grant; Work-order/award number: 435-2019-1052 (HP).

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.