propiedades psicométricas coping strategy indicator (csi)

7/29/2019 Propiedades Psicomtricas Coping Strategy Indicator (CSI)

1/4

Person. indiurd.D~J:Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 157-160, 1997Pergamon Q 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reservedPrinted in Great BritainPII: S0191-8869(97)00012-3 0191-8869/97 $17.00+0.00

Psychometric properties of the Coping Strategy Indicator in a Flemish sampleP. Bijttebier* and H. Vertommen

Deparlment of Psychology, Katholieke Universiteir Leuven. Leucen. Belgium(Received I August 1996)

Summary-The Coping Strategy Indicator (CSI) is a self-report measure of the degree to which the copingstrategies of problem-solving, seeking social support and avoidance have been used in response to a specificstressor. The current study presents a factor analysis of the Dutch CSI and describes the psychometricproperties of the instrument. As expected, the analysis reveals a clear three-factor solution with the samefactor pattern as found in the original study. We also provide data concerning the relationship withdemographics. #Q 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

INTRODUCTIONSeveral studies have been aimed at uncovering general strategies that underlie specific coping responses to stress. Traditionally,two methodologies have been used to conduct this research, the one based on deduction (e.g. Beckham & Adams, 1984), theother based on induction (e.g. Salisbury, 1985). Amirkhan (1990) has combined the best of both methodologies: in theinductive tradition, he allowed naturally occurring clusters of responses to emerge from the data and, in line with deductivepriorities, he isolated only those clusters common to a wide spectrum of people and events. He conducted a whole sequenceof investigations in multiple, large community samples and identified three basic coping dimensions: Problem-Solving, SocialSupport Seeking and Avoidance. This trilogy, although not exhaustive of coping possibilities, is appealing because it seemsto correspond to the most basic human reactions to threat (Amirkhan, 1990). Problem-Solving, a strategy of direct assault,could be considered as derivative of primitive fight inclinations, while Avoidance, consisting of escape responses, seems tobe a derivative of ancient flight tendencies. Finally, Social Support Seeking taps the basic need for human contact in timesof duress.Over the course of studies, a short self-report questionnaire (Coping Strategy Indicator, CSI) has evolved that indicatesthe extent to which each of these three coping modes has been employed in response to a recent stressful event. As such, theCSI assesses responses to real-world event-like stressors, rather than tapping beliefs about typical coping or anticipatedreactions to hypothetical situations [as e.g. the Miller Behavioral Style Scale, Miller, 1987)]. In the studies reported by theauthor, CSI subscales prove to have high internal consistency and test-retest reliability coefficients (4- to 8-week intervals)and to be nearly perfectly orthogonal. Furthermore, Amirkhan (1994) provided very promising criterion-related validationevidence. Finally, the CSI is a very practical instrument. It is a brief measure, requiring only I5 minutes to complete. Scoringand interpretation are facilitated by the fact that all subscales have the same number of items.Clark,Bormann, Cropanzano and James (1995) compared the CSI with two other frequently used coping measures, theWavs of Coning-Revised (WOC-R: Folkman & Lazarus. 1985) and the COPE (Carver. Scheier & Weintraub. 1989). in termsof psychometrii properties. Their study confirmed the psychometric soundnessbf the &I and provided interestingconstructvalidity evidence. The three-factor structure was again replicated and convergent and discriminant validity with relevantsubscales from the other coping measures was found.The current research was carried out in an attempt to provide a Dutch translation of the scale and explore the factor-structure and scale properties of this version of the CSI in a Flemish sample.

METHODSubjects

Ss were 289 adults, recruited by 100 students in psychology. Each student was given a profile of three persons he or shehad to look for, specifying gender, age and educational level in order to guarantee a good cross-section of the popu1ation.tThere were I44 male (49.8%) and I45 female (50.2%) respondents, which corresponds with the sex ratio in the Flemishpopulation$ (x2=0.00, P=O.95). Five different age ranges were represented: 18-24 years (17.3%), 25-34 years (28.0%), 35-44 years (21.8%) 45-54 years (18.3%) and 5567 years (14.6%). With respect to the educational level, 9.3% only followedelementary school, 52.6% finished highschool and 38. I % followed higher education. The distribution of the Ss over the agegroups and the educational levels corresponds to the distribution in the Flemish population (x*=4.68, P=O.32 for age andx2=2.98, P=O.23 for educational level). The majority of the respondents (64.8%) were married or living together with apartner, 30.7% were unmarried, 3.8% divorced and 0.7% widowed.

*Department of Psychology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Tiensestraat 102, 3000 Leuven, Belgiumtout of 300 protocols, I I protocols did not return.:We compared our sample with data on the Flemish population, provided by the Nationaal Instituut voor Statistiek.


2/4

158 Notes and Shorter CommunicationsTable I. Results of factor analysis with varimax rotation on the CSI (item wordings paraphrased)

Item FactorR 1 Factor 2 Factor 301 Let feelings out to friend05 Accept sympathy from someone07 Talk to people about the situation12 Confide-fears and wornes to friend14 Tell neonle about the situation19 Go rb fiend or professional23 Go to friend to help you to feel better24 Go to friend for advIce25 Accept sympathy from friends31 Accept help from friend/relative32 Seek reassurance02 Rearrange things around you03 Brainstorm all possible solutions08 Set some goals for yourself to deal with it09 Weigh your options11 Try different ways to solve the problem15 Think about what needs to be done16 Turn vour full attention to solving nroblem17 Form-a plan of action in mind - 20 Stand firm and fight for what you want29 Try to solve the problem33 Carefully plan a course of action04 Distract yourself06 Keep others from seeing how bad it is10 Daydream about better times13 Spent more time alone18 Watch television more than usual21 Avoid being with people22 Bury yourself in hobby/sports26 Sleep more than usual27 Fantasize28 Identify with characters in novels/movies30 Wish that people leave you alone

0.720.660.740.740.670.600.700.630.520.720.730.100.030.030.060.010.120.05-0.000.030.020.030.10-0.310.11-0.020.07-0.160.060.030.110.02-0.26

-0.04-0.020.080.020.100.10-0.050.250.040.070.040.410.670.680.740.530.570.590.690.640.630.71-0.200.04-0.030.05-0.130.060.01-0.120.010.03-0.00

- 0.020.01- 0.030.08-0.110.190.120.04-0.04- 0.020.05- 0.07-0.11-0.00-0.070.050.020.120.15-0.07-0.08-0.070.220.370.430.610.540.550.430.450.450.340.49

Note. Factor loadings above 0.40 are printed bold.

The CSI is a 33-item self-report measure of the degree to which three types of coping strategies (Problem-Solving, SocialSupport Seeking and Avoidance) have been used in response to a recent problem in ones life. Respondents first explain thestressful event and then rate all items on a three-point Likert scale. Problem-Solving is reflected in items such as Formed aplan of action in your mind, Social Support Seeking in items such as Sought reassurance from those who know you bestand Avoidance in items such as Fantasized about how things could have been different. Three subscale scores can becalculated for each S by summing responses to appropriate items (range 0 to 22), higher scores indicate greater use of thestrategy.Procedure

The CSI was translated into Dutch and re-translated into English by a native speaker of English. Differences between theoriginal version and the re-translation were discussed in order to improve the quality of the Dutch translation. Respondentsreceived the CSI via the students and filled out the instrument at their homes. The completed forms were re-collected by thestudents.

RESULTSFactor analysis of the CSI

CSI items were subjected to factor analysis. Three factors were retained using the mineigen criterion, and together theyexplained 77.6% of the common variance. The three-factor solution was rotated to orthogonal positions using the varimaxmethod, and yielded a factor solution that explained 37.3% of the total variance (Table I). Factor 1 (explained variance of17.3%) reflects a strategy of turning to others for comfort, advice or simple human contact. Factor 2 (explained variance of12.7%) can be identified as an instrumental, problem-directed strategy. Factor 3 (explained variance of 7.3%) reflects anavoidant strategy, involving either physical or psychological withdrawal. All items of the Social Support Seeking subscale inthe original instrument are loaded high on Factor 1, the items of the Problem-Solving subscale are loaded high on Factor 2and the items of the Avoidance subscale are loaded high on Factor 3.Taken together we can say that the results of the varimax solution yield the same factor pattern as found by Amirkhan(1990). Further evidence on that topic has been gathered by means of a congruence rotation. For that rotation we haverestricted the data to the five items of each subscale with the highest loadings on the concerning factor*. These items can beconsidered as the best markers of the different modes of coping. We found a great concordance between the results in both

*These were the only data we had available, as Amirkhan (1990) did not describe the item loadings for the total scale.


3/4

Notes and Shorter Communications 159Table 2. Means, standard deviations, internal consistency coefficients and subscale intercorrelationsfor the CSISubscale M SD I 2 3Problem-solving 25.40 5.04 0.87 - --Sot. support seeking 23.12 5.60 0.12 0.90Avoidance 17.67 3.96 -0.06 - 0.02 0.73Note. Values along the diagonal are internal consistency coefficients (Cronbachs alpha).Measured on a scale from 1 o3.P), 22, 71-15.


4/4

160 Notes and Shorter CommunicationsCarver, C. S., Scheier, M. F. dt Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 267-283.Clark, K. K., Bormann, C. A., Cropanzano, R. S. & James, K. (1995). Validation evidence for three coping measures.Journal of Personality Assessment, 9(3), 434455.Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and coping during three stages ofa college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48( 1), 15&170.Miller, S. M. (1987). Monitoring and blunting: Validation of a questionnaire to assess styles of information seeking underthreat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(l), 345-353.Salisbury, C. L. (1985). Internal consistency of the short-form of the Questionnaire on Resources and Stress. AmericanJournalof Mental Deficiency, 89,61&616.

propiedades psicométricas coping strategy indicator (csi)

Documents