Coping scale for children and youth: Scale development and validation

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 <

204

BRODZINSKY, ELIAS, STEIGER, SIMON, GILL, A N D HITT TABLE 3 Test-Retest Correlations for the CSCY

Total sample 6th graders 8th Graders Boys Girls

Assist

Probsol

Cavoid

Bavoid

.80 .79 .81 .81 .78

.80 .82 .79 .83 .76

.81 .78 .82 .80 .82

.73 .79 .70 .72 .74

Note. Assist = Assistance Seeking; Probsol = C o g n i t i v e - B e h a v ioral Problem Solving; Cavoid = Cognitive Avoidance; Bavoid = Behavioral Avoidance.

.005. In each case, sixth graders reported more frequent use of the coping strategy than eighth graders. In addition, a significant sex effect was found for assistance seeking, F(1, 467) -- 20.66, p < .001, as well as a marginally significant sex effect for cognitive-behavioral problem solving, F(1, 467) = 3.60, p < .06. For each category, girls reported more frequent use of different aspects of that coping strategy than did boys. In order to examine grade and sex differences in diversity of use of coping behaviors, childrens' responses were rescored, assigning a value of one if the child indicated use of the behavior at least sometimes, and zero for each item that was never used. Scores were then summed over the 29 coping items, yielding a total score ranging from 0 to 29. A 2 (Grade) x 2 (Sex) ANOVA, computed on the total coping score, indicated a significant grade effect, F(1,467) = 15.50, p < .001, and a marginally significant sex effect, F(1, 467) = 3.81, p < .06. Overall, sixth graders (M = 20.9) reported use of more diverse types of coping behavior in response to self-identified stressors than did eighth graders (M = 19.2), and girls (M = 20.3) tended to report use of more diverse coping behavior than did boys (M = 19.6).

Coping as a Function o f Stressor. Children's coping behavior also was examined as a function of the type of stressor identified. For analytic purposes, children's self-identified stressors were grouped into categories representing the three most common problems described by children: school-related problems, including both academic and behavior difficulties; family-related problems, including difficulties with parents or siblings, as well as difficulties between parents; and peer-related problems. In all, 69% of the children (N = 334) reported stressors in one o f these three categories. 2 Reliability of classifying the stressors 2Separate factor analyses were computed for subjects respondingto the three stressors. The factor patterns and the item loadings were quite similar across the three groups of children responding to family, peer, and academic stressors. Because of the low ratio of subjects to scale items for each group, however, these analyses must be viewed cautiously.

COPING STRATEGIES

205

TABLE 4 Mean Coping Scores and Standard Deviations on the CSCY as a Function of Grade and Sex 6th Graders Coping Category Assist M SD Probsol M SD Cavoid M SO Bavoid M SD

8th Graders

Boys

Girls

Boys

Girls

1.30 (.70)

1.59 (.69)

1.26 (.70)

1.58 (.74)

1.39 (.59)

1.49 (.56)

1.24 (.68)

1.35 (.58)

1.09 (.50)

1.12 (.52)

1.03 (.56)

0.93 (.57)

0.90 (.62)

0.92 (.57)

0.74 (.54)

0.75 (.60)

Note. Assist = Assistance Seeking; Probsol = C o g n i t i v e - B e havioral Problem Solving; Cavoid = Cognitive Avoidance; Bavoid = Behavioral Avoidance.

into the various categories, plus a fourth category of other stressors, was calculated as the percentage of agreement between the first and fourth authors. Approximately 90% agreement in classification was achieved. Differences in classification were settled through discussion until agreement was reached. To examine coping as a function of type o f stressor, a 2 (Grade) x 2 (Sex) x 3 (Stressor) MANOVA was computed on the four coping categories. Main effects were found for grade, F ( 4 , 3 2 7 ) = 2.53, p, < .05; sex of subject, F(4, 327) = 5.61, p < .001; and stressor, F ( 8 , 6 5 4 ) = 3.41, p < .00l. No interaction effects were significant. ANOVAs indicated that the grade and sex effects paralleled the results reported previously. Additional ANOVAs indicated that children use assistance seeking more often in response to peer problems (M = 1.67) than school problems (M = 1.38), and more often in response to school problems than family problems (M = 1.19). They also use cognitive-behavioral problem solving more often in response to peer problems (M = 1.46) and school problems (M = 1.43) than family problems (M = 1.21). In contrast, cognitive avoidance was reported to be used more often in response to family problems (M = 1.18) than either school problems (M = 1.00) or peer problems (M = .97). No differences were noted in the use of behavioral avoidance as a function of type of stressor.

Discussion Four core strategies of coping were identified in our initial study. These behavioral categories are quite similar to those found in other research, especially the

206

BRODZINSKY, ELIAS,STEIGER,SIMON, GILL,AND HITT

work of Moos and his associates who differentiated between active-behavioral strategies, active-cognitive strategies, and avoidance strategies (Billings & Moos, 1981; Holahan & Moos, 1987). The scale was found to be reliable, both in terms of its internal structure and short-term test-retest reliability. Furthermore, the factor pattern was comparable across grade and sex. This finding is important because it allows for direct comparison of coping behavior for boys and girls, at least within the age range studied. The present study also indicated that our newly developed scale is sensitive to grade and sex differences in coping behavior. Specifically, eighth graders displayed fewer overall coping behaviors than sixth graders, as well as less frequent use of specific strategies such as cognitive-behavioral problem solving, cognitive avoidance, and behavioral avoidance. However, these findings are only partially consistent with previous research. Although some investigators have reported a decline with age in the generation and/or use of certain types of problem-focused, or primary, coping strategies (Band & Weisz, 1988; Compas et al., 1988; Curry & Russ, 1985; Wertlieb et al., 1987), others have reported no consistent age differences (Stark et al., in press), or an increase in the use of various problem-focused strategies with age (Band & Weisz, 1988). Furthermore, in contrast to the current findings, the majority of studies have reported an increase in the use of cognitively based coping strategies as children get older (Altshuler & Ruble, 1989; Band & Weisz, 1988; Brown et al., 1986; Compas et al., 1988; Curry & Russ, 1985; Wertlieb et al., 1987). Various factors may account for the discrepancies between our findings and those of other researchers. First, the current study used a group administered, self-report format, whereas most other investigators collected data through individualized interviews. Interview methods implicitly tap a variety of cognitive abilities that cooccur with reports of coping behaviors, such as the ability to generate alternatives and decentering. This format would appear to favor greater numbers of prompted recollections by older children. Second, it is possible that, given the more anonymous atmosphere inherent in group administered procedures, the older children in this study simply chose to reveal less about themselves than the younger children. Finally, the decline in reported use of various coping behaviors among the older children may simply imply that the content categories of the CSCY constitute a less exhaustive coding scheme with increasing age. Our initial results also indicated that girls reported more frequent use of assistance seeking, and to some extent, cognitive-behavioral problem solving, than boys. This finding is consistent with previous research, especially those studies showing that girls more often use social support than boys (Stark et al., in press; Wertlieb et al., 1987). Finally, children's coping also varied as a function of self-identified stressor. Results indicated that assistance seeking and cognitive-behavioral problem solving are more often used in response to peer and school problems than family problems, whereas cognitive avoidance is more often used in response to family

COPING STRATEGIES

207

problems than peer or school problems. This finding is directly in line with the results reported by Band and Weisz (1988). These investigators noted that peer and school problems may evoke more primary coping (e.g., assistance seeking and cognitive-behavioral problem solving) because of children's perception that these types of stressors are directly controllable. In contrast, unfamiliar stressors and conflict with authority figures, including family members, may evoke more secondary coping (e.g., cognitive avoidance) as a way of minimizing the distress associated with a problem that is appraised as less directly controllable. Although intriguing, and in line with the findings of others, our results must be viewed with caution because the current design confounds subjects and stressor. Future research must examine patterns of coping across different categories of stressors within the same individual. Furthermore, the connection between coping behavior and the controllability of stressors must be examined in relation to the subject's perception of controllability rather than the investigator's a priori conceptualization of certain stressors as controllable or uncontrollable. STUDY 2 Having identified the factor pattern, internal reliability and test-retest reliability of the CSCY, as well as the sensitivity of the scale to grade/age and sex differences in children's coping, the next step in the development of the scale was to further examine its construct validity, particularly in relation to other measures of coping. Toward this end a study of children's coping was undertaken using both the CSCY and the Kidcope. Method

Subjects. Participating in the study were 122 fifth-grade children (62 boys and 60 girls) from a suburban, predominately white, middle-class community. The mean age of the children was 11.2 years. Children from self-contained special education classrooms were excluded from the study, although mainstreamed special education students were included. Measures and Procedures. Children were administered the CSCY and Kidcope in small groups, ranging from 15 to 24 students. The format and instructions for the 29-item CSCY were the same as those reported in the first study, with a few exceptions. The Kidcope, which was developed by Spirito et al. (1988), is a 15-item scale measuring l0 dimensions of coping: problem solving, distraction, social support, social withdrawal, cognitive restructuring, self-criticism, blaming others, emotional regulation, wishful thinking, and resignation. Half of the dimensions are represented by a single item and half by two items. The dimensions of the Kidcope were developed through conceptual analysis rather than empirically as in the case of the CSCY.

208

BRODZINSKY, ELIAS, STEIGER,SIMON, GILL, AND HITT

All instructions and scale items were read aloud to the students by an investigator or by the classroom teacher who had been trained by one of the investigators. Children were asked to think about a problem they had experienced within the past few months that had worried them or upset them. Examples of problems were offered, but no attempt was made to influence the children's problem selection. Each child identified their own specific problem and then described it on their answer sheet. Children were then asked to rate on a 3-point scale the extent to which the problem worried them or upset them: (1) a little bit, (2) a medium amount, or (3) a great deal. The next step involved having children rate the extent to which they used each of the strategies listed in the CSCY and Kidcope to deal with the self-identified problem described on their answer sheet. The same 4-point rating scale was used for completing the CSCY and Kidcope: (0) never, (1) sometimes, (2) often, and (3) very often. Half the children filled out the CSCY first and half filled out the Kidcope first. Results Inspection of Table 5 indicates that the pattern of correlations between CSCY and Kidcope dimensions is consistently in the expected direction. For example, assistance seeking (CSCY) is positively correlated with problem solving and social support and negatively correlated with social withdrawal and resignation as measured by the Kidcope. Similarly, cognitive-behavioral problem solving (CSCY) is positively correlated with problem solving, social support, and cognitive restructuring on the Kidcope and negatively correlated with resignation. In addition, cognitive avoidance (CSCY) is positively related to distraction, social support, social withdrawal, wishful thinking, and resignation. Finally, behavioral avoidance (CSCY) is positively related to distraction, social withdrawal, self-criticism, emotional regulation, and wishful thinking on the Kidcope. Roughly the same pattern of correlations was found for boys and girls. Correlations also were computed between the stressor-intensity ratings and children's scores on the CSCY and Kidcope. Results indicated that both measures showed a similar pattern of relationship between specific coping strategies and stressor intensity. For the CSCY, the more stressful the experience, the more likely children were to report using cognitive avoidance, r = .21, p < .05, and behavioral avoidance, r = .41, p < .001. For the Kidcope, the more stressful the experience, the more likely children were to report using social withdrawal, r = .28, p < .01; self-criticism, r = .23, p < .05; blaming others, r = . 18, p < .05; problem solving, r = .20, p < .05; emotional regulation, r = .26, p < .01; and wishful thinking, r = .36, p < .001. These patterns generally were the same for boys and girls. Discussion Results of the second study demonstrate that the CSCY is positively related to a similar measure, the Kidcope. In particular, the highest correlations between

COPING STRATEGIES

209

TABLE 5 Correlations Between Coping Categories on the CSCY and Kidcope CSCY Kidcope Problem solving Distraction Social support Social withdrawal Cognitive restructuring Self-criticism Blaming others Emotional regulation Wishful thinking Resignation

Assist

Probsol

Cavoid

Bavoid

.45"** .00 .38*** -.40"** -.05 -.01 .01 .06 .15 -.25**

.62"** -.03 .31 * * * -.15 .24** .12 -.07 .08 .10 -.24"*

-.04 .50"** .20* .21" .16 -.02 .15 .06 .22* .49***

.16 .30"** .13 .58"** -.10 .21" .13 .45*** .37"** .12

Note. Assist = Assistance Seeking; Probsol = Cognitive-Behavioral Problem Solving; Cavoid = Cognitive Avoidance; Bavoid = Behavioral Avoidance. * p < .05. * * p < .01. * * * p < .001.

coping categories on the CSCY and those on the Kidcope were for those dimensions which were conceptually most similar: assistance seeking and cognitivebehavioral problem solving on the CSCY and problem solving, social support, and social withdrawal (negatively related) on the Kidcope; cognitive avoidance on the CSCY and distraction and resignation on the Kidcope; and behavioral avoidance on the CSCY and social withdrawal, emotional regulation, and wishful thinking on the Kidcope. The results also indicated that when life experiences are appraised as more stressful, children are more likely to report using a variety of cognitive and behavioral avoidance strategies, particularly those strategies that minimize or otherwise reduce the distress associated with the problem. As other investigators have noted, this finding is perhaps best explained in terms of the person's appraisal of the stressor. To the extent that highly stressful events are seen as less controllable, the activation of avoidant strategies and other secondary, or emotion-focused, coping mechanisms may be quite adaptive as a way of regulating the distress associated with an otherwise uncontrollable situation (Altshuler & Ruble, 1989; Band & Weisz, 1988; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Miller & Green, 1985). STUDY 3 In the third study, further efforts were made to examine the construct validity of the CSCY; therefore, the relationship between children's coping and perceived self-competence was examined. Specifically, the literature suggests a positive association between children's self-esteem and perceived self-efficacy and their

210

BRODZINSKY, ELIAS,STEIGER,SIMON, GILL, AND HITT

use of assistance-seeking strategies and cognitive-behavioral problem solving; similarly, lower self-esteem and perceived self-efficacy is expected to be associated with more consistent use of avoidance strategies in dealing with problem situations. Method

Subjects. Participating in the study were 190 seventh-grade children (101 boys and 89 girls) from a suburban, predominately white, middle-class community. Children were either 12 or 13 years old. As in the previous studies, children from self-contained special education classrooms were not included in the research. Measures and Procedures. Data were collected as part of a larger study on the impact of school-related stress on middle-school children (Gill, 1989). In the present article, only those measures and procedures relevant to the current validation study will be reported. Children were administered the CSCY and the Self-Perception Profile for Children (SPPC) in small-group format. For both measures, instructions and scale items were read aloud by the classroom teacher. The procedures for the CSCY were the same as those used previously, with the exception that children were asked to indicate on the questionnaire a recent school-related experience that worried or upset them and to respond to the items on the CSCY in terms of this specific stressor. In addition, the stressor-intensity scale was not included in this study. The SPPC is a revision of the Perceived Competence Scale for Children developed by Harter (1982, 1985). It consists of 36 items, yielding six subscales: global self-worth, academic competence, social acceptance, athletic competence, physical appearance, and behavioral conduct. As in the earlier version of the scale, each item describes two different groups of children (e.g., children who are often unhappy with themselves versus children who are pretty pleased with themselves). The subject is first asked to decide which kind of child he or she is most like. Having made this decision, the child then decides whether the description is "sort of true" or "really true" for him or her. Each item is scored from 1 to 4, where a score of 1 indicates low perceived competence and a score of 4 reflects high perceived competence. Scores are summed and then averaged for each of the six subscales. Hatter reports acceptable reliability and validity for the measure. Results Pearson correlations were computed between children's scores on the CSCY and their scores on the SPPC. Inspection of Table 6 indicates that cognitive-behavioral problem solving and assistance seeking were generally positively associated

COPING STRATEGIES

211

TABLE 6 Correlations Between Children's Coping Behavior (CSCY) and Their Perceived Self-Efficacy (SPPC) Self-Efficacy Dimensions Coping Behavior

Glob

Aced

Soc

Ath

Phy

Beh

Assistance Seeking Total sample Boys Girls

.25*** .33*** .22*

.15" .14 .22*

.20"* .22" .19

.01 .12 .02

.16" .27** .13

.16" .18 .08

.35*** .38"** .31"*

.17" .22" .11

.18" .20" .16

.07 .07 .09

.25*** .26* .27*

.13 .16 .07

.10 .13 .01

-.23"* -.18 -.39"**

-.21"* -.18 -.22*

-.15" -.15 -.21

-.28"** -.26** -.30**

Cognitive- Behavioral Problem Solving Total sample Boys Girls

Cognitive Avoidance Total sample Boys Girls

-.21"* -.18 -.32"*

-.17" .14 -.30**

-.13 -.16 -.10

-.23"* -.22" -.29"*

-.22** -.21" -.27*

-.26** -.22* -.33**

Behavioral Avoidance Total sample Boys Girls

-.02 -.04 -.07

N o ~ . G l o b = GlobalSelf-Wo~h;Acad = AcademicCompetence;Soc = SocialAcceptance;Ath = A t h l ~ i c C o m p e t e n c e ; P h y = PhysicalAppearance;Beh = Behavioral Condu~. * p < .05. * * p < .01. * * * p < .001.

with self-efficacy scores, whereas cognitive avoidance and behavioral avoidance were negatively associated with children's perceived self-efficacy. The one exception to this pattern is for perceived athletic competence which was unrelated to children's coping strategies. Finally, a breakdown of the data by sex indicated some differences between boys and girls. For example, the relationship between cognitive avoidance and self-efficacy is much stronger for girls than boys. Discussion Results of the third study demonstrate a significant relationship between the CSCY and SPPC. As expected, children with higher self-esteem, who are reasonably comfortable with and confident in themselves--especially in academic, social, physical, and behavioral areas--are more likely to report using cognitivebehavioral problem solving and assistance seeking in dealing with problem situations. Conversely, children with lower self-esteem and lower self-efficacy are more likely to cope by using various cognitive and behavioral avoidance strat-

212

BRODZINSKY,ELIAS,STEIGER,SIMON, GILL,AND HITT

egies. To the extent that self-esteem and self-efficacy problems are associated with a heightened sense of helplessness and lack of control, the current findings would support the notion that active, problem-focused strategies are more likely to be employed when the individual feels a sense of control over the problem being confronted, whereas avoidance strategies are more likely to be employed when the problem is seen as being beyond the individual's control. G E N E R A L DISCUSSION The findings of the current series of studies provide converging evidence in support of the goal of constructing a self-report measure of children's coping behavior with sound psychometric properties. The CSCY is composed of four general, conceptually meaningful patterns of coping that are quite similar to those reported by other investigators (e.g., Altshuler & Ruble, 1989; Billings & Moos, 1981; Holahan & Moos, 1987). The factor structure of the scale is clear and stable and the measure as a whole has been shown to be reliable and valid. The significance of the CSCY lies in its usefulness in facilitating large-scale data collection on children's coping. To date, most efforts to investigate children's coping behavior have relied upon interview methods. Although having many advantages, interviews present significant logistical and standardization challenges which effectively minimize the amount of data that can be collected. The use of self-report questionnaires, and specifically, the CSCY, offers the researcher another procedural option for investigating the development and manifestation of coping behavior. The format of the CSCY has been designed for maximum flexibility, allowing subjects to respond either to self-identified stressors or to stressors identified by the investigator. For example, in Study 1 and 2, children's coping responses were anchored to their own self-identified stressor, whereas in Study 3, the stressor was restricted by the researchers to a school-related problem. In ongoing research, we are using the scale to examine children's coping across a range of stressful situations (e.g., peer problems, family problems, being adopted, and entering foster care). Although the CSCY represents an important methodological advance in the area of children's coping, its limitations must be recognized. First, we make no claim that the CSCY incorporates all or even most of the coping strategies used by children. What we have identified are four general strategies that children use across a wide range of commonly experienced stressors. Idiosyncratic strategies and those coping efforts that are tied to specific types of stressors are not represented by our measure. We are exploring the use of targeted addenda of items consisting of coping strategies used in clinical populations (e.g., bullying and use of aggressive control, coping through drug and alcohol use) or in specialized situations (e.g., admission to a hospital, reactions to the death of a close relative or friend, etc.), but which are too infrequently endorsed in general community

COPING STRATEGIES

213

samples to be incorporated within a replicable factor structure. Because the scale has not yet been validated for clinical diagnostic purposes, care also should be taken by those individuals who are interested in using our coping measure in formal evaluation procedures. Caution also needs to be taken in using the scale with very different populations or with special groups. Although the measure has shown sound psychometric properties for middle-class children in the middle-school years (i.e., fifth grade through eighth grade), we have yet to investigate the utility of the scale with younger or older children or with children from different minority groups and socioeconomic backgrounds. Currently, we are initiating pilot work concerning these issues. Efforts to gather reliable and valid information on the development and manifestation o f children's coping have been hampered by the lack of comprehensive measures that allow for systematic comparisons of coping patterns over time and in response to various stressors (Compas, 1987a). Meichenbaum's (1985) work has highlighted the potential value of a too1 which would allow for the self-study of coping responses to different stressors. Indeed, in a number of social skills development programs and therapies (Feindler & Ecton, 1986; Matson & Ollendick, 1988), the goal of improving the coping skills of children and youth has not been accompanied by the availability of instruments for systematically recording the application o f such skills across situations and over time. With the development of the CSCY, researchers and practitioners now have available a means o f augmenting their interviews and observations in their efforts to clarify and optimize the way in which children cope with stressful life experiences.

REFERENCES Altshuler, J.L., & Ruble, D.N. (1989). Developmentalchanges in children's awareness of strategies for coping with uncontrollable stress. Child Development, 60, 1337-1349. Band, E.B., & Weisz, J.R. (1988). How to feel better when it feels bad: Children's perspectives on coping with everyday stress. Developmental Psychology, 24, 247-253. Billings, A.G., & Moos, R.H. (1981). The role of coping responses and social resources in attenuating the impact of stressful life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 139-157. Brown, J.M., O'Keeffe, J., Sanders, S.H., & Baker, B. (1986). Developmentalchanges in children's cognition to stressful and painful situations. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 11, 343-357. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression~correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Compas, B.E. (1987a). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 393-403. Compas, B.E. (1987b). Stress and life events during childhood and adolescence. Clinical Psychology Review, 7, 275-302. Compas, B.E., Malcarne, V., & Fondacaro, K.M. (1988). Coping with stressful life events in older children and young adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 405411. Curry, S.L., & Russ, S.W. (1985). Identifyingcoping strategies in children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 14, 61-69.

214

BRODZINSKY, ELIAS,STEIGER,SIMON, GILL, AND HITT

Dohrenwend, B.S., & Dohrenwend, B.P. (1981). Stressful life events and their contexts. New York: Neale Wilson. Feindler, E., & Ecton, R. (1986). Adolescent anger control: Cognitive-behavioral techniques. New York: Pergamon Press. Garmezy, N., & Rutter, M. (1983). Stress, coping, and development in children. New York: McGraw-Hill. Gill, M. (1989). Coping with middle school: An examination of stressors, strategies, and behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University. Goldberger, L., & Breznitz, S. (Eds.). (1982). Handbook of stress: Theoretical and clinical aspects. New York: Free Press. Haan, N. (1977). Coping and defending: Processes of self-environment organization. New York: Academic. Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 53, 87-97. Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the seif-perception profile for children. Denver, CO: University of Denver. Holahan, C.J., & Moos, R.H. (1987). Personal and contextual determinants of coping strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 946-955. Johnson, J.H. (1982). Life events as stressors in childhood and adolescence. In B. Lahey & A. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in clinical child psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 219-253). New York: Plenum. Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer. Matson, J., & Ollendick, T. (1988). Enhancing children's social skills: Assessment and training. New York: Pergamon Press. Meichenbaum, D. (1985). Stress inoculation training. New York: Pergamon Press. Miller, S.M., & Green, M.L. (1985). Coping with stress and frustration: Origins, nature, and development. In M. Lewis & C. Saarni (Eds.), The socialization of emotions (pp. 263-314). New York: Plenum. Moos, R.H. (1986). Coping with life crises: An integrated approach. New York: Plenum. Moos, R.H., Cronkite, R.C., Billings, A.G., & Finney, J.W. (1983). Health and Daily Living Form manual. (Available from Social Ecology Laboratory, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305) Rothman, F., Weisz, J.R., & Snyder, S.S. (1982). Changing the world and changing the self: A twoprocess model of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 5-37. Spirito, A., Stark, L.J., & Williams, C. (1988). Development of a brief coping checklist for use with pediatric populations. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 13, 555-574. Stark, L.J., Spirito, A., Williams, C., & Guevremont, D. (in press). Common problems and coping strategies: I. Findings with normal adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. Wertlieb, D., Weigel, C., & Feldstein, M. (1987). Measuring children's coping. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 548-560. Zeitlin, S. (1980). Assessing coping behavior. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 50, 139-144.