An Investigation of Psychometric Properties of Coping Styles Scale Brief Form: A Study of Validity and Reliability.

Abstract

AbstractThe aim of the current study was to develop a short form of Coping Styles Scale based on COPE Inventory. A total of 275 undergraduate students (114 female, and 74 male) were administered in the first study. In order to test factors structure of Coping Styles Scale Brief Form, principal components factor analysis and direct oblique rotation was used. Factor analysis Results indicated that Coping Styles Scale Brief Form had 14 factors with two items. All factors explained 80.37% of the variance in the scale. In order to test concurrent validity of CSS-BF, the relationship between coping styles, social desirability, self-esteem, life satisfaction and A type personality were examined. Cronbach's alfa coefficient of subscales ranged from 0.39 (Restraint Coping) to 0.92 (Humor) and test re-tests (two weeks interval) coefficients were ranged from .44 (Restraint Coping) to .90 (Religion).Key WordsCoping, Coping Styles, Validity, Reliability.Though coping was defined in many different ways in terms of function and theory, the general trend is to define it as a dynamic process consisting of cognitive and behavioral responses given to reduce the premises/ sources leading to psychological restraint or stress. Besides, the variability of definition caused coping responses to be classified in different ways. The leading ones of those classifications are problem-focused coping versus emotionfocused coping and approach versus avoidance (Boekarts & Roder, 1999; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Roecker, Dubow, & Donaldson, 1996).In literature, many of the studies on coping are based on the coping model of Lazarus and Folkman (1984). According to the model of Lazarus and Folkman, coping means assessing of the individual the possible results at the time of facing stressors and the effect of this assessment process on his/her emotional and behavioral responses. The coping model is discussed as a three-phase process consisting of primary cognitive assessment, secondary cognitive assessment and coping.In studies on coping, the coping responses of individuals to a variety of stressors ranging from daily ones (Sean, Frances, & Deviney, 1998) to those which may change the person's life significantly such as chronic diseases (Felton & Revenson, 1984), death (Stroebe, 1993), divorce (Sandler, Tein, & West, 1994), natural disasters (Bokszczanin, 2008; Gilbar, & Hevroni, 2007; Iskender & Ayas, 2003) or war were investigated. In the relevelant literature, the idea that major experiences affect the life quality and functionality of an individual more than daily experience was discussed for a long time. However, last studies pointed out that daily challenges are more a source of stress (Boekarts & Roder, 1999).Various measurement tools were developed both in Turkey and abroad based on the theoretical structures on which the concept of coping depends. The leading ones used widely abroad are Ways of Coping (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985), Multidimensional Coping Inventory (Endler & Parker, 1990), Coping Strategies Inventory (Tobin, Holroyd, Reynolds, & Wigal, 1989), COPE Inventory (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989). In Turkey, on the other hand, scale development studies are also being conducted together with adaptation studies (Agargun, Besiroglu, Kiran, Ozer, & Kara, 2005; Sahin & Durak, 1995). Inventory for Attitudes of Coping with Stress developed by Ozbay and Sahin (1997), Scale for Strategies of Coping with Stress developed by Aydin (2008) and Coping with Stress Scale developed by Turkum (2002) can be given as examples.It is realized that, though using the scales for measuring coping in studies contributes to understanding the relation of coping with the psychological structures, this causes some problems as well. The fact that many of the coping scales include a large number of items causes the participants to become impatient and distracted, in which case a healthy measurement gets difficult. …