Past research on coping behavior generally has taken one of two directions: (a) ... such as eating or drinking). ... stress in their lives, for it is clear they experience a wide range of major and .... Children and Youth (CSCY) proceeded in two phases. ..... Univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) indicated grade effects for ...
JOURNAL OF APPLIED DEVELOPMENTALPSYCHOLOGY 13, 195-214 (1992)
Coping Scale for Children and Youth: Scale Development and Validation DAVID M . BRODZINSKY MAURICE J. ELIAS CYNTHIA STEIGER JENNIFER SIMON MARYANN GILL JENNIFER CLARKE HITT
Rutgers University
A new self-report measure of children's coping is described. Scale development began with a compilation of 44 coping behaviors culled from previous research. These items were administered in small-group format to 498 children in sixth and eighth grades. Subjects were asked to rate how often they used each coping behavior in their efforts to deal with a self-identified stressor. Factor analysis of the data produced four discrete coping categories: assistanceseeking, cognitive-behavioral problem solving, cognitive avoidance, and behavioral avoidance. The factor pattern was the same across grade and sex of subject. Test-retest reliability and internal reliability for the four subscales were moderate to high. Data on grade and sex differences in coping are presented, as are data on the construct validity of the scale. Implications of the development studies and an assessmentof the attributes of the new scale are discussed.
In the past two decades, a sizable theoretical and empirical literature has emerged on the relationship between stressful life events and the individual's physical and emotional well-being (Dohrenwend & Dohrenwend, 1981; Goldberger & Breznitz, 1982; Haan, 1977; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Moos, 1986). Among the many variables that have been proposed as mediating between stress and adaptational outcome are the coping skills and behaviors manifested by the individuals. Past research on coping behavior generally has taken one of two directions: (a) studies of the influence of coping processes on adjustment, and (b) studies designed to develop a typology of coping behavior. The present research follows the second line of inquiry, especially as it relates to children's coping behavior. Portions of this research were supported by a grant from the William T. Grant Foundation to the second author. The authors express their deep appreciation for the assistance and cooperation of Norma Miele, Paul Yampolsky, and the teachers and students of the Randolph Township School District. We also thank Michael Gara for his help with the data analysis. Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to David M. Brodzinsky,Department of Psychology, Tillett Hall, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903. 195
196
BRODZINSKY, ELIAS,STEIGER,SIMON, GILL,AND HITT
Although a number of approaches have been taken to classify coping behavior, a common thread that runs through a majority of these efforts is the distinction between confrontational, or approach, strategies and avoidant strategies. The former involve behaviors that seek to change the stressful situation or control the distress, whereas the latter involve behaviors that avoid dealing with the problem, or address the problem indirectly. Other typologies have distinguished between behavioral strategies and cognitive strategies, or between active and passive strategies. Lazarus and Folkman (1984), for example, proposed a typology of coping behavior that distinguishes between problem-focused strategies (i.e., efforts to modify the source of the stress) and emotion-focused strategies (i.e., attempts to regulate the emotional distress caused by the stressor). On the other hand, Billings and Moos (1981) delineated three general coping strategies: active-behavioral strategies (i.e., overt behavioral attempts to deal directly with the problem), active-cognitive strategies (i.e., efforts to manage the appraisal of the stressfulness of the event), and avoidance strategies (i.e., attempts to avoid confronting the problem or to indirectly reduce tension by means of behavior such as eating or drinking). Still another model of coping distinguishes between primary versus secondary coping behaviors (Rothman, Weisz, and Snyder, 1982). Within this system, primary coping refers to efforts aimed at influencing objective conditions or events underlying the stress, whereas secondary coping refers to efforts aimed at maximizing one's goodness of fit with conditions as they exist. To date, most of the research on stress and coping has focused on adult populations. Application of theoretical models and intervention strategies derived from this literature to the coping efforts and adaptational outcomes manifested by children has only just begun. Yet, this is not because children lack stress in their lives, for it is clear they experience a wide range of major and minor stressors, including parental death, parental separation and divorce, illness of family members, personal illness, parental unemployment, peer problems, academic problems, family violence, and so on (Compas, 1987b; Garmezy & Rutter, 1983; Johnson, 1982). Furthermore, Band and Weisz (1988) reported that children as young as 6 years old are sufficiently aware of stress and coping in their own lives to report on conditions and events they find stressful, describe their own efforts to cope, and evaluate the efficacy of those efforts (see also Altshuler & Ruble, 1989). Moreover, like adults, children show a wide range of adverse behavioral, emotional, and physical reactions when efforts to cope with stressful life events prove unsuccessful (Compas, 1987a, 1987b). In a recent review of the literature on coping in children, Compas (1987a) noted: The first task confronting researchers interested in further clarifying the nature of coping during childhood and adolescence involves the development of comprehen-
COPING STRATEGIES
197
sive measures of coping that allow for systematic comparisons of responses to different stressors and over time in response to the same stressful episode. (p. 401) Recent attempts to investigate children's coping behavior have relieved heavily on interview procedures (Altshuler & Ruble, 1989; Band & Weisz, 1988; Brown, O'Keeffe, Sanders, & Baker, 1986; Compas, Malcarne, & Fondacaro, 1988; Curry & Russ, 1985; Wertlieb, Weigel, & Feldstein, 1987). Although this approach yields a rich array of data and has the advantage of procedural flexibility and maximum response variability, it also has several drawbacks. The most important of these are possible interviewer bias, the lack of standardization across subjects, and interinvestigator variability in assigning the narrative data to reliable and theoretically comparable coping categories. Reliance on individual interviews also makes it difficult to collect information on children's coping from large numbers of subjects. Other research has utilized observational procedures for gathering data on children's coping (Curry & Russ, 1985; Zeitlin, 1980). In addition to these problems, observational techniques are poorly equipped to detect intrapsychic or cognitive coping strategies. By contrast, research on adult coping has generally relied on the use of objective, self-report questionnaires, although movement toward more open-ended formats is beginning to emerge. For example, Lazarus and Folkman (1984) developed the Ways of Coping Scale as a measure of problem-focused and emotion-focused coping strategies. Similarly, Moos and his colleagues (Billings & Moos, 1981; Moos, Cronkite, Billings, & Finney, 1983) developed a self-report scale measuring active-behavioral, active-cognitive, and avoidant coping strategies. In each case, the scales have been shown to be reliable and valid. A recent effort to develop a more objective, self-report scale of children's coping has been reported by Spirito, Stark, and Williams (1988) and Stark, Spirito, Williams, and Guevremont (in press). Two versions of the "Kidcope" were developed, one for children and another for adolescents. Although the authors reported acceptable test-retest reliability for the scales, as well as data supporting their validity, there are two problems with the Kidcope. First, the coping categories, like those from previous research using interview techniques, are defined a priori by the investigators. There has been no attempt, however, to determine the extent to which children make the same distinctions among coping categories as do adults, or whether their actual coping behaviors correspond to the conceptual groupings as defined by the measure. Second, the investigators decided that each coping category would be defined by only one or two items. This raises questions about the instruments' psychometric properties and potential predictive validity. In light of these problems, and in an effort to provide researchers with alternative ways of measuring children's coping, the goal of the present research was to develop an objective, self-report questionnaire of children's coping that could be used either individually or in small-group format.
198
BRODZINSKY, ELIAS,STEIGER,SIMON, GILL, AND HITT
Rather than define coping categories a priori, our strategy entailed allowing children to respond to a large number of items which were then subjected to factor analysis as a means of identifying specific coping dimensions.
STUDY 1
Method
Subjects. Participating in the initial phase of the research were 498 children from a suburban, predominately white, middle-class community. Of these children, 224 were in sixth grade (110 boys and 114 girls) and 274 were in eighth grade (138 boys and 136 girls). The children ranged in age from 10 to 15 years (M -- 11.6 years for sixth graders; 13.7 years for eight graders). The sample did not include special education children from self-contained classrooms, but did include those special education students who were mainstreamed. Scale Development and Procedures. Development of the Coping Scale for Children and Youth (CSCY) proceeded in two phases. In Phase 1, members of the research team compiled coping items from previous research on children's and adults' coping behavior. Final selection of items was governed by a simple conceptual scheme. Based on the literature cited earlier, it was assumed that in response to stress, children either take steps to approach or confront the stressor in order to eliminate or minimize it, avoid the stressor as a way of reducing tension, or respond in a passive, resigned manner. Furthermore, it was assumed that approach and avoidant strategies can occur either at cognitive/affective or behavioral levels. Thus, initial item selection was guided by five general strategies of coping: cognitive/affective engagement, behavioral engagement, cognitive/affective avoidance, behavioral avoidance, and passive resignation. Ultimately, 44 items were identified that could be reliably categorized into one of the five general strategies. Phase 2 of the research entailed identifying specific coping categories empirically through factor analysis. Factor analysis was selected because our goal was to establish general, normative categories of coping rather than focus on idiosyncratic patterns and strategies. Toward this end, the 44-item coping inventory was administered to the subjects in a small-group format ranging from 13 to 25 individuals. Instructions were read aloud either by one of the investigators or by teachers who had been trained by the investigators. The instructions, which were printed on the questionnaire for the children to follow, stated: All children and teenagers have some problems they find hard to deal with and that upset them or worry them. We are interested in finding out what you do when you try to deal with a hard problem. Think about some problem that has upset you or worried you in the past few months. It could be a problem with someone in your
COPING STRATEGIES
199
family, a problem with a friend, a school problem, or anything else. Briefly describe what the problem is in the space below. At this point children were given a minute or so to think about a particular problem in their life and to describe it in the space provided on the questionnaire. Subjects also described the problem on an index card that included their identification number, l This card was used in the retest administration (described later). Thus, each child's responses on the CSCY were anchored to his or her own selfidentified problem. At this point, the following additional instructions were read: Listed below are some ways that children and teenagers try to deal with their problems. Please tell us how often each of these statements has been true for you when you tried to deal with the problem you described above. The investigator or teacher then read aloud each of the 44 items, one at a time, and the children rated the frequency with which they used the particular coping behaviors to deal with their self-identified stressor. A four-point Likert scale was used for the ratings: (0) never, (1) sometimes, (2) often, and (3) very often. One week later, the CSCY was readministered to 145 children chosen randomly from the original sample. Of these children, 61 were girls and 84 were boys; 55 were sixth graders and 90 were eighth graders. The retest followed the original testing procedures, with the exception that children were asked to fill out the questionnaire in response to the same problem they had previously listed. As a reminder of the original stressor, the index card describing the problem was returned to each child.
Results
Initial Factor Structure. Data from both grades were combined and a principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation was computed. Although the initial factor analysis yielded 11 separate factors, accounting for 50% of the variance, an examination of the factor pattern, scree plot, and interitem correlations, suggested that a four-factor solution was conceptually and empirically the clearest and most distinct pattern. Most of the additional factors were composed of only one or two items. The four-factor solution accounted for 44% of the variance. A second factor analysis was then performed, with the final solution set at 1Children'sconfidentialitywas assured by using identificationnumbersrather than names on all data forms. Prior to distributingthe forms, children were informedabout the nature of the research and the means of assuring confidentiality.They also were given the opportunity to decline to participate, either before the materials were distributed,or any time duringthe data collectionphase. In fact, approximately 8 to 10 children in the three studies described chose not to fill out the selfreport measures. During the data collectionperiod, they remainedin the classroom and engaged in other classroom work.
200
BRODZINSKY, ELIAS,STEIGER,SIMON, GILL,AND HITT
four factors. The beta weight criterion for factor loading was .40 or greater. This analysis resulted in a four-factor scale composed of 29 items. The other 15 items were eliminated because of insufficient factor loading. Examination of the factor solution suggests that our preliminary conceptual scheme was only partially confirmed. Factor 1, Assistance Seeking, is comprised of 4 items involving interpersonal problem solving. Examples include getting advice, or sharing feelings with another person. Factor 2, Cognitive-Behavioral Problem Solving, includes 8 items which have both cognitive/affective and direct behavioral components. Examples include making a plan to solve the problem and then following the plan, and thinking about the problem in a new way so as to minimize distress. Factor 3, Cognitive Avoidance, includes 11 items that involve emotion management, cognitive redefinition, selective attention, and minimization of the problem. Examples include putting the problem out of one's mind, and trying to pretend that the problem did not happen. Finally, Factor 4, Behavioral Avoidance, is comprised of 6 items that involve taking oneself out of the vicinity of the stressor or reducing tension by indirect means such as displacement of anger on to another person. Examples include staying away from people who remind you of the problem, or being mean to someone even though they did not deserve it. Table 1 presents a complete listing of the items for each factor.
Comparability of Factor Structure Across Grade and Sex. To determine the comparability of the factor structure across grade and sex of subject, canonical correlations were run between factor loadings for sixth and eighth graders, as well as between factor loadings for boys and girls (Cohen & Cohen, 1975). Results suggested that the factor structure is highly comparable across the two grades, R = .89, F(16, 65) = 16.45, p < .0001; and for boys and girls, R = .98, F(16, 65) = 43.39, p < .0001. Interfactor Correlations. To examine the interrelationship among categories of coping behavior, Pearson correlations were computed for children's coping scores on the overall data set, as well as for each grade and sex separately. Inspection of Table 2 (p. 203) indicates that, in general, assistance seeking is positively related to cognitive-behavioral problem solving and negatively related to cognitive avoidance. In addition, cognitive-behavioral problem solving is negatively related to cognitive avoidance. Finally, cognitive avoidance and behavioral avoidance are positively correlated with each other. These patterns were similar for each grade and sex, the only exception being a low-level, but significant, relationship between cognitive-behavioral problem solving and behavioral avoidance for sixth graders and for boys. Internal Reliability. To evaluate the internal reliability of the CSCY, coefficient alphas were computed for each coping dimension. The results indicated an
COPING STRATEGIES
201
TABLE 1 Items and Factor Loadings for the Coping Scale for Children and Youth Factor Loadings Factors and Items
Assist
Probsol
Cavoid
Bavoid
.585
.237
-.057
-.049
.697
.227
-.159
.088
.789
.187
-.055
.049
-.617
-.053
.284
.198
.142
.602
-.221
.150
.027
.727
-.147
.012
,099
,700
-.133
-,033
,095
,592
-.165
,063
.188
.542
.187
.074
.124
.641
.077
-.081
.366
,413
.000
.185
.121
.689
-.162
-.043
-.011
-.100
.497
.176
-.121
-.120
.512
-.126
-.190
-.061
.625
-.040
-.107
-.207
.481
.203
Assistance Seeking 1. 2. 3. 4.
I asked someone in my family for help with the problem. I got advice from someone about what I should do. I shared my feelings about the problem with another person. I kept my feelings to myself.
Cognitive- Behavioral Problem Solving 1.
2, 3.
4.
5.
6. 7, 8.
I thought about the problem and tried to figure out what I could do about it. I took a chance and tried a new w a y to solve the problem. I made a plan to solve the problem and then I followed the plan. I went over in my head some of the things I could do about the problem. I t h o u g h t about the problem in a new w a y so that it didn't upset me as much. I learned a new w a y of dealing with the problem. I tried to figure out h o w I felt about the problem. I figured out what had to be done and then I did it.
Cognitive Avoidance 1. 2, 3, 4.
I tried not thinking about the problem. I went on with things as if nothing was wrong. I pretended the problem wasn't very important to me. I knew I had lots of feelings about the problem, but I just didn't pay any attention to them.
(continued)
202
BRODZINSKY, ELIAS, STEIGER, SIMON, GILL, A N D HITT
TABLE 1
(Continued) Factor Loadings
Factors and Items 5.
6. 7. 8.
9. 10.
11.
I tried to get a w a y from the problem for a w h i l e by doing other things. I pretended the problem had nothing to do with me. I tried to pretend that the p r o b l e m didn't happen. I hoped that things w o u l d s o m e h o w w o r k out so I didn't do anything. I tried to pretend that m y p r o b l e m wasn't real. I realized there was nothing I could do. I just waited for it to be over. I put the problem out of m y mind.
Behavioral Avoidance 1. I stayed a w a y from things that reminded me about the problem. 2. I tried not to feel anything inside me. I w a n t e d to feel numb. 3. I w e n t to sleep so I w o u l d n ' t have to think about it. 4. When I was upset about the problem, I was mean to s o m e o n e even though they didn't deserve it. 5. I tried not to be with a n y o n e w h o reminded me of the problem. 6. I decided to stay a w a y from people and be by myself.
Assist
Probsol
Cavoid
Bavoid
-.018
.143
.502
.317
-.046
-.120
.532
.236
.072
.104
.671
.155
-.176
-.237
.462
.167
.059
-.012
.572
.177
-.175
-.233
.468
.260
-.118
.042
.647
-.085
.145
.118
.263
.538
-.077
-.078
.221
.549
.105
-.013
.103
.551
-.023
.032
.057
.558
.010
.099
.097
.647
-.186
.039
-.068
.703
Note. Assist = Assistance Seeking; Probsol = C o g n i t i v e - B e h a v i o r a l Problem Solving; Cavoid = Cognitive Avoidance; Bavoid = Behavioral Avoidance.
acceptable level o f reliability for each category: assistance seeking, r = .72; c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l p r o b l e m solving, r = .81; cognitive avoidance, r = .80; and behavioral avoidance r = .70.
COPING STRATEGIES
203
TABLE 2 Interfactor Correlations for the CSCY
Total Sample Assist Probsol Cavoid 6th Graders Assist Probsol Cavoid 8th Graders Assist Probsol Cavoid Boys Assist Probsol Cavoid Girls Assist Probsol Cavoid
Probsol
Caboid
Bavoid
.44"**
-.32"** -.24"**
-.04 .08 .37"**
.42"**
-.21"* -.15"
.46"**
-.37"** -,32"**
-.13" .00 .37"**
.45"**
-.27"** -.22"*
-.01 .15" .35"**
.40"**
-.33"** -.24"**
-.08 .01 .39"**
.06 .15" .34"**
Note. Assist = Assistance Seeking; Probsol = Cognitive-Behavioral Problem Solving; Cavoid = Cognitive Avoidance; Bavoid = Behavioral Avoidance. * p < .05. * * p < .01. * * * p < .001.
Test-Retest Reliability. Test-retest reliability of the CSCY was evaluated by means of Pearson correlations computed between children's coping scores for the first and second administration of the scale. A one-week period separated the two administrations. Results indicated a high degree of test-retest reliability for each coping category, both for sixth and eighth graders, as well as for boys and girls (see Table 3, p. 204). Grade and Sex Differences in Coping. To examine grade and sex differences in coping behavior, a 2 (Grade) x 2 (Sex) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed on the four categories of coping. Table 4 (p. 205) presents children's mean coping scores as a function of grade and sex of subject. Significant main effects were found for grade, F(4,464) = 4.11, p < .01, and sex, F(4, 464) = 5.34, p < .001, but not for the Grade x Sex interaction. Univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) indicated grade effects for cognitivebehavioral problem solving, F(1, 467) = 4.83, p < .05; cognitive avoidance, F(1,467) -- 5.72, p < .02; and behavioral avoidance, F(1,467) : 8.00, p
