Corrigendum: The interplay between quality of life and resilience factors in later life: a network analysis

In the published article, there was an error in the labeling of the self-management ability subscales. Specifically, the labels assigned to certain categories of the scale were inadvertently switched, leading to some misinterpretations. The labeling errors occurred in the third, fourth, and fifth subscales. The third subscale was mistakenly labeled as “self-efficacy” when it should have been labeled as “variety.” Similarly, the fourth subscale was incorrectly labeled as “variety” instead of “multifunctionality,” and the fifth subscale was labeled as “multifunctionality” instead of “self-efficacy.” The main statistical analyses and overall findings remain valid and unaffected. However, the mislabeling of these subscales does yield minor implications for one of our secondary (exploratory) analyses. It turns out that self-efficacy, rather than multifunctionality, plays a significant role in linking self-management ability to quality of life. This is in line with an earlier study of Nieboer et al. (2020), who found that the self-efficacy subscale had the strongest relationship with loneliness. This discovery suggests that interventions aimed at fostering self-efficacy may be the most effective approach in promoting quality of life in later stages of life, rather than multifunctionality of resources. Several corrections have been made to the text throughout the article. A correction has been made to the Abstract. The corrected Abstract is shown below. Age-related challenges and transitions can have considerable social, psychological, and physical consequences that may lead to significant changes in quality of life (QoL). As such, maintaining high levels of QoL in later life may crucially depend on the ability to demonstrate resilience (i.e., successful adaptation to late-life challenges). The current study set out to explore the interplay between several resilience factors, and how these contribute to the realization and maintenance of (different facets of) QoL. Based on the previous work, we identified behavioral coping, positive appraisal, self-management ability, and physical activity as key resilience factors. Their interplay with (various facets of) QoL, as measured with the WHOQOL-OLD, was established through network analysis. In a sample of community-dwelling older adults (55+; N = 1,392), we found that QoL was most strongly (and directly) related to positive appraisal style and self-management ability. Among those, self-efficacy seemed to be crucial. It connected directly to “satisfaction with past, present, and future activities,” a key facet of QoL with strong interconnections to other QoL facets. Our analysis also identified resilience factor(s) with the potential to promote QoL when targeted by training, intervention, or other experimental manipulation. The appropriate set of resilience factors to manipulate may depend on the goal and/or facet of QoL that one aims to improve. Corrections have also been made to Results, Exploratory Analyses, How Do Different SMAs Relate to the QoL Facets and Other Resilience Factors?, Paragraphs 1–3. The corrected paragraphs are shown below. While earlier analyses suggest that especially SMA is an important factor, it remains unclear what specific self-management abilities are crucially involved. Through exploratory analyses, we aimed to establish whether there are substantial differences in the importance of the six SMA facets included in the SMAS. A third GGM again highlighted that almost all nodes were (in)directly connected to each other and revealed similar associations between the QoL facets (Figure 5A; Supplementary Table 4). Edge weights of connections among nodes of the individual facets of the SMAS, as well as the other resilience factors, are reported in Supplementary Table 5. Not surprisingly, we observed a particularly strong connection between positive appraisal style (PAS) and the PFM facet of the SMAS, and a relatively weak (and less stable) connection between PAS and MUL (p < 0.05, Figure 5A; Supplementary Figures 9, 10). Both relationships had similar instrength and outstrength values (p's > 0.05; Figure 5B), and influenced each other equally.