ÄÛBÑо¿Ôº

Caregivers of Individuals with Dementia (Cooper, Katona, & Livingston, 2008; n=125 adult caregivers, mean age= 63.8(13.3), were assessed at three time points: Time 1 (18 Months Post-recruitment), Time 2 (1 Year Post-Time 1), and Time 3 (2 Years Post-Time 1))

• Dysfunctional Coping Score: SEM= 2.20**
• Emotion-focused Coping Score: SEM= 2.80**
• Problem-focused Coping Score: SEM= 1.80**

**Calculated using Chronbach¡¯s Alpha for ICC

Caregivers of Individuals with Dementia (Cooper, Katona, & Livingston, 2008)

• Dysfunctional Coping Score at 95% CI: MDC= 6.10
• Emotion-focused Coping Score at 95%: MDC= 7.77
• Problem-focused Coping Score at 95%: MDC= 4.99

Caregivers of Individuals with Dementia (Cooper, Katona, & Livingston, 2008; Time 1 n=125, Mean Age = 68, SD= 13.3; Time 2 n=92; Time 3 n=74)

Time 1

• Dysfunctional Coping Score: Mean= 16.1, SD= 4.4
• Emotion-Focused Coping Score: Mean= 19.4, SD= 5.3
• Problem-Focused Coping Score: Mean=11.7, SD= 4.5

Time 2

• Dysfunctional Coping Score: Mean= 16.0, SD= 4.2
• Emotion-Focused Coping Score: Mean= 20.0, SD= 5.0
• Problem-Focused Coping Score: Mean= 11.8, SD= 4.3

Time 3

• Dysfunctional Coping Score: Mean= 15.9, SD= 4.6
• Emotion-Focused Coping Score: Mean=21.2, SD= 4.5
• Problem-Focused Coping Score: Mean= 11.4, SD= 5.0

Caregivers of individuals with dementia: (Cooper, Katona, & Livingston, 2008; Time 1 n=125, mean age = 68 (13.3) years; Time 2 n=92; Time 3 n=74)

• Assessed caregivers with the Brief COPE over three time points: baseline (n = 125, mean age = 68 (13.3) years), one year later (n = 92, no statistically significant age differences), and two years later (n = 74, no statistically significant age differences).
• Adequate test-retest reliability for the comprised dysfunctional, emotion-focused, and problem-focused coping scores demonstrated with baseline scores that were significantly correlated with the same scores measured one year later (ICC=0.64, ICC=0.51, ICC=0.71 respectively; all p < 0.001).
• Adequate test-retest reliability for the comprised dysfunctional, emotion-focused, and problem-focused coping scores demonstrated with baseline scores that were significantly correlated with the same scores measured two years later (ICC=0.59, ICC=0.44, ICC=0.72 respectively; all p < 0.001).

Caregivers of Individuals with Dementia (Cooper, Katona, & Livingston, 2008)

• Dysfunctional Coping: Adequate (Chronbach¡¯s a= .75)
• Emotion-focused Coping: Adequate (Chronbach¡¯s a= .72)
• Problem-focused Coping: Excellent (Chronbach¡¯s a= .84)

Predictive validity:

Caregivers of individuals with dementia (Cooper, Katona, & Livingston, 2008):

• Adequate predictive validity over a 2 year testing period for changes in caregiver burden. Change in caregiver burden score was related to changes in the use of problem-focused (r = 0.33) and dysfunctional (r= 0.32) coping strategies, but not the use of emotion-focused coping.
• Using dysfunctional coping was predicted by reporting higher levels of caregiver burden (¦Â = 0.36, p < 0.001), more problem-focused coping (¦Â = 0.31, p < 0.01), and less secure attachment (¦Â = -0.25, p < 0.05).

Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) (Snell, Siegert, Hay-Smith, & Surgenor, 2011)

• Active Coping: Poor (Chronbach¡¯s a= .57)
• Planning: Adequate (Chronbach¡¯s a=.73)
• Positive Reframing: Poor (Chronbach¡¯s a= .55)
• Acceptance: Poor (Chronbach¡¯s a= .55)
• Humor: Excellent (Chronbach¡¯s a= .82)
• Religion: Excellent (Chronbach¡¯s a= .89)
•  Using Emotional Support: Excellent (Chronbach¡¯s a= .80)
• Using Instrumental Support: Excellent (Chronbach¡¯s a= .87)
• Self-distraction: Poor (Chronbach¡¯s a= .43)
• Denial: Poor (Chronbach¡¯s a= .64)
• Venting: Poor (Chronbach¡¯s a= .50)
• Substance Use: Excellent (Chronbach¡¯s a= .97)*
• Behavioral Disengagement: Adequate (Chronbach¡¯s a= .69)
• Self-blame: Adequate (Chronbach¡¯s a= .72)

* Scores higher than .9 may indicate redundancy in the scale questions.

Individuals with Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (Snell et al., 2011):

• Confirmatory factor analysis provided adequate support for Carver¡¯s (1997) original 9-factors of the Brief COPE (alpha values for the factors ranging from 0.50 to 0.97).

Exploratory factor analysis provided excellent support for a 3-factor structure of the Brief COPE for this population. The authors identified the factors as approach (alpha = 0.80), avoidant (alpha = 0.77), and help seeking (alpha = 0.84) coping strategies.

Female Breast Cancer Patients (Malaysian Population) (Yusoff, Low, & Yip, 2010; n=37, Mean Age= 49.1, SD=9.9; Measured at two times: Time 1= 2/3 weeks post surgery, Time 2= 10 weeks post-surgery)

Time 1 (2/3 weeks post surgery)

• Active Coping Score: Mean= 5.84, SD= 1.5
• Planning Score: Mean= 5.51, SD= 1.87
• Positive Reframing Score: Mean= 4.96, SD= 1.18
• Acceptance Score: Mean= 6.60, SD= 1.62
• Humor Score: Mean= 3.40, SD= 2.10
• Religion Score: Mean= 6.84, SD= 1.79
• Using Emotional Support Score: Mean= 5.62, SD= 1.50
• Using Instrumental Support Score: Mean= 5.84, SD= 1.72
• Self-Distraction Score: Mean= 5.41, SD= 1.57
• Denial Score: Mean= 5.70, SD= 1.47
• Venting Score: Mean= 5.49, SD= 1.48
• Substance Use Score: Mean= 2.05, SD= 0.33
• Behavioral Disengagement: Mean= 4.70, SD= 1.13
• Self-Blame Score: Mean= 4.92, SD= 1.01

Time 2 (10 weeks post-surgery)

• Active Coping Score: Mean= 6.89, SD= 1.21
• Planning Score: Mean= 5.83, SD= 1.67
• Positive Reframing Score: Mean= 6.57, SD= 1.44
• Acceptance Score: Mean= 6.71, SD= 1.63
• Humor Score: Mean= 2.86, SD= 1.54
• Religion Score: Mean= 7.09, SD= 1.08
• Using Emotional Support Score: Mean= 6.09, SD= 1.40
• Using Instrumental Support Score: Mean= 6.66, SD= 1.47
• Self-Distraction Score: Mean= 5.48, SD= 1.84
• Denial Score: Mean= 5.63, SD= 1.54
• Venting Score: Mean= 5.60, SD= 1.58
• Substance Use Score: Mean= 2.06, SD= 0.34
• Behavioral Disengagement: Mean= 4.63, SD= 1.11
• Self-Blame Score: Mean= 4.89, SD= 1.08

Female breast cancer patients (Malaysian population): (Yusoff, Low, & Yip, 2010; n=37, mean age = 49.1 (9.9) years)

• Excellent test-retest reliability over a 7-8 week retest window for the following coping scales: acceptance (ICC=0.99), denial (ICC=0.97), venting (ICC=0.92), behavioral disengagement (ICC=1.00), and self-blame (0.94).
• Poor to adequate test-retest reliability over a 7-8 week retest window for the following coping scales: active coping (ICC=0.44), planning (ICC=0.42), positive reframing (ICC<0.00), humor (ICC=0.32), religion (ICC=0.45), using emotional support (ICC=0.33), using instrumental support (ICC=0.36), self-distraction (ICC=0.50), and substance use (ICC=0.03).

Female Breast Cancer Survivors (Malaysia)(Yusoff, Low, & Yip, 2010)

• Active Coping: Poor (Chronbach¡¯s a= .50)
• Planning: Excellent (Chronbach¡¯s a=.83)
• Positive Reframing: Poor (Chronbach¡¯s a= .60)
• Acceptance: Excellent (Chronbach¡¯s a= .80)
• Humor: Excellent (Chronbach¡¯s a= .81)
• Religion: Excellent (Chronbach¡¯s a= .92)*
• Using Emotional Support: Adequate (Chronbach¡¯s a= .72)
• Using Instrumental Support: Excellent (Chronbach¡¯s a= .83)
• Self-distraction: Poor (Chronbach¡¯s a= .57)
• Denial: Poor (Chronbach¡¯s a= .58)
• Venting: Poor (Chronbach¡¯s a= .54)
• Substance Use: Excellent (Chronbach¡¯s a= 1.00)*
• Behavioral Disengagement: Adequate (Chronbach¡¯s a= .74)
• Self-blame: Poor (Chronbach¡¯s a= .25)

* Scores higher than .9 may indicate redundancy in the scale questions.

Discriminant validity:

Female breast cancer patients (Malaysian population): (Yusoff, Low, & Yip, 2010)

• Active coping (p<0.01), planning (p<0.01), and acceptance (p<0.05) coping scales were able to distinguish between women with mastectomy and women with lumpectomy. None of the other coping strategy scales on the Brief COPE were able to discriminate between these groups.

Inpatient Psychiatric Patients with Severe Mental Illness (Meyer, 2011;n= 70; mean age= 40.7 (11.97) years)

• Adaptive Coping Score: SEM= .31**
• Maladaptive Coping Score: SEM= .43**

**Calculated using Chronbach¡¯s Alpha for ICC

Inpatient Psychiatric Patients with Severe Mental Illness (Meyer, 2001)

• Adaptive Coping Score at 95% CI: MCD= .85
• Maladaptive Coping Score at 95% CI: MCD= 1.18

Inpatient Psychiatric Patients with Severe Mental Illness (Meyer, 2001;n=70, Mean Age = 40.70, SD=11.97)

** (Scores for individual coping scales were lumped into composite adaptive and maladaptive coping scores, ranging from 1-4. NOTE: Non-schizophrenia comparison group members were diagnosed with another serious mental illness)

Total Sample Normative Information

• Adaptive Coping Score: Mean= 2.37, SD= .70
• Maladaptive Coping Score: Mean= 2.02, SD= .65

Schizophrenia Group (n=39)

• Adaptive Coping Score: Mean= 2.16, SD= .70
• Maladaptive Coping Score: Mean= 1.94, SD= .59

Non-Schizophrenia Comparison Group (n=31)

• Adaptive Coping Score: Mean= 2.62, SD= .63
• Maladaptive Coping Score: Mean= 2.12, SD= .71

Trauma Survivors (Carver, 1997)

**Chronbach¡¯s Alpha coefficients averaged across all three administration times.

• Active Coping: Poor (Chronbach¡¯s a= .68)
• Planning: Adequate (Chronbach¡¯s a=.73) Positive Reframing: Poor(Chronbach¡¯s a= .64)
• Acceptance: Poor (Chronbach¡¯s a= .57)
• Humor: Adequate (Chronbach¡¯s a= .73)
• Religion: Excellent (Chronbach¡¯s a= .82)
• Using Emotional Support: Adequate (Chronbach¡¯s a= .71)
• Using Instrumental Support: Poor (Chronbach¡¯s a= .64)
• Self-distraction: Adequate (Chronbach¡¯s a= .71)
• Denial: Poor (Chronbach¡¯s a= .54)
• Venting: Poor (Chronbach¡¯s a= .50)
• Substance Use: Excellent (Chronbach¡¯s a= .90)* Behavioral Disengagement: Poor (Chronbach¡¯s a= .65)
• Self-blame: Poor (Chronbach¡¯s a= .69)

* Scores higher than .9 may indicate redundancy in the scale questions.

Inpatient Psychiatric Patients with Severe Mental Illness (Meyer, 2001)

• Adaptive Coping Scale: Excellent (Chronbach¡¯s a= .81)
• Maladaptive Coping Scale: Poor (Chronbach¡¯s a= .48)
• Maladaptive Coping Scale (Without the Substance Use and Self-Distraction subscales): Poor (Chronbach¡¯s a= .57)

Medical Students (Malaysia) (Yusoff, 2010)

Overall internal consistency was Excellent (Chronbach¡¯s a= .85)

• Active Coping: Poor (Chronbach¡¯s a= .68)
• Planning: Adequate (Chronbach¡¯s a=.74)
• Positive Reframing: Adequate (Chronbach¡¯s a= .78)
• Acceptance: Excellent (Chronbach¡¯s a= .80)
• Humor: Excellent (Chronbach¡¯s a= .89)
• Religion: Excellent (Chronbach¡¯s a= .85)
• Using Emotional Support: Excellent (Chronbach¡¯s a= .82)
• Using Instrumental Support: Excellent (Chronbach¡¯s a= .80)
• Self-distraction: Poor (Chronbach¡¯s a= .57)
• Denial: Adequate (Chronbach¡¯s a= .74)
• Venting: Poor (Chronbach¡¯s a= .56)
• Substance Use: Excellent (Chronbach¡¯s a= .87)
• Behavioral Disengagement: Excellent (Chronbach¡¯s a= .84)
• Self-blame: Excellent (Chronbach¡¯s a= .80)

* A 15^th coping style ¡°Restraint Coping¡± showed Adequate internal consistency (Chronbach¡¯s a= .64)

Concurrent validity:

Inpatient psychiatric patients with severe mental illness (Meyer, 2001):

• Adequate concurrent validity of the comprised adaptive coping score as adaptive coping was significantly negatively related to schizophrenic symptoms (measured by the BPRS) in the total sample (r=-0.44) and schizophrenia group (r=-0.49).
• Adequate concurrent validity of the comprised adaptive coping score as adaptive coping was significantly positively related to psychological well-being (measured by the PWBQ-9) in the total sample (r=0.28) and schizophrenia group (r=0.62).
• Adequate concurrent validity of the comprised adaptive coping score as adaptive coping was significantly positively related to positive social functioning (SAS) in the total sample (r=0.33).
• Adequate concurrent validity of the comprised maladaptive coping score as maladaptive coping was significantly positively related to depression (measured by the MHRSD) in the total sample (r=0.37) and non-schizophrenia group (r=0.41)
• Adequate concurrent validity of the comprised maladaptive coping score as maladaptive coping was significantly negatively related to well-being (measured by the PWBQ-9) in the total sample (r=-0.26) and non-schizophrenia group (r=-0.44).

Medical students (Yusoff, 2010):

• Confirmatory factor analysis provided adequate support for Carver¡¯s (1997) original 9-factors on the 30-item Brief COPE (factor loadings ranging from 0.49 to 0.92).

Trauma Survivors (from Hurricane Andrew ) ( Carver, 1997):

• The author reported that the factor structure of the Brief COPE was ¡°remarkably similar¡± to the factor structure of the full COPE. Only 3 scales of the Brief COPE (positive reframing, self-distraction, and venting) loaded differently than on the full COPE. However, this was expected because all of these scales were either new additions, or were modified on the brief COPE.