This systematic review evaluates the psychometric properties of resilience measurement scales used in general and clinical populations. The study identified 19 resilience measures, with four being refinements of original scales. The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), the Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA), and the Brief Resilience Scale received the highest psychometric ratings. However, many scales lacked sufficient information on their psychometric properties, and the conceptual and theoretical adequacy of some scales was questionable. No single scale was identified as the 'gold standard' for resilience measurement. The study highlights the need for further validation of existing scales and the development of more robust measures. Researchers are urged to report relevant validation statistics when using these measures. The review also notes that most scales focus on individual characteristics and resources, with few examining resilience across multiple levels. The study emphasizes the importance of considering cultural and contextual factors when selecting resilience measures. The findings suggest that while some scales show promise, there is a need for more comprehensive and culturally appropriate measures to accurately assess resilience across different populations and contexts. The review concludes that further research is needed to improve the reporting and validation of resilience measurement scales to support effective interventions and policies.This systematic review evaluates the psychometric properties of resilience measurement scales used in general and clinical populations. The study identified 19 resilience measures, with four being refinements of original scales. The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), the Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA), and the Brief Resilience Scale received the highest psychometric ratings. However, many scales lacked sufficient information on their psychometric properties, and the conceptual and theoretical adequacy of some scales was questionable. No single scale was identified as the 'gold standard' for resilience measurement. The study highlights the need for further validation of existing scales and the development of more robust measures. Researchers are urged to report relevant validation statistics when using these measures. The review also notes that most scales focus on individual characteristics and resources, with few examining resilience across multiple levels. The study emphasizes the importance of considering cultural and contextual factors when selecting resilience measures. The findings suggest that while some scales show promise, there is a need for more comprehensive and culturally appropriate measures to accurately assess resilience across different populations and contexts. The review concludes that further research is needed to improve the reporting and validation of resilience measurement scales to support effective interventions and policies.