Establishing Concurrent Validity: Coping Questionnaires

Many different scales and questionnaires have been published that measure coping. Kato (2013) conducted a meta-analysis to determine the most frequently used coping scales in published research in databases between 1998 and 2012. The most commonly used questionnaire was the “COPE” (Carver, 1997). This questionnaire, including its short and revised versions, was applied in 20.20% of research. The “Ways of Coping Questionnaire” (WCQ; Folkman & Lazarus, 1980, 1985), including its short and revised versions, followed this at 13.60%. Other questionnaires of note also included the “Coping Strategies Questionnaire” (CSQ; 4.95%), “Coping Inventory of Stressful Situations” (CISS; 4.15%), “Religious COPE” (RCOPE; 3.40%), and “Coping Response Inventory” (CRI; 3.05%). Each is considered for inclusion alongside the UPNAS.

The COPE (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989; Carver, 1997) contains 60- items organised into 15 subscales; positive reinterpretation and growth, mental disengagement, focus on and venting of emotions, use of instrumental social support, active coping, denial, religious coping, humour, behavioural disengagement, restraint, use of emotional social support, substance use, acceptance, suppression of competing activities, and planning. The COPE was designed as a dispositional measure of coping but can be used as a measure of situational coping by altering the wording formats. This was based on research suggesting coping is stable across a wide variety of situations. Indeed, the reliability of the COPE has been demonstrated in a variety of different studies (Litman, 2006; Lyne & Roger, 2000). However, due to the length of the COPE, a brief version was designed to reduce the time and effort required from consenting

116

participants. This reduced the COPE to 28-items and 14 subscales, selected based on strong loadings from previous factor analyses. Despite the item reduction, internal reliability remained relatively high, similar to that of the original measure. The consistency of findings and frequency of use support the inclusion of the brief COPE in the current research.

The Ways of Coping Checklist (WCC), revised and renamed as the Ways of Coping Questionnaire (WCQ; Folkman & Lazarus, 1980, 1985, 1988), is the second most frequently used questionnaire in coping research. The authors suggest that when participants respond to statements, they must have a specific stressful event in mind. The WCQ consists of 66 items and 8 subscales. The subscales are confrontive coping, distancing, self-controlling, seeking social support, accepting responsibility, escape avoidance, planful-problem solving and positive reappraisal with Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients ranging from .61 to .79. However, some researchers have had problems recreating this factor structure with the number of factors extracted changing across situations (Parker, Endler, & Bagby, 1993). This reflects a general problem with most coping measures and is indicative of the unresolved state-trait debate (Schwarzer & Schwarzer, 1996). The authors of the questionnaire encourage researchers to adjust the WCQ to the specific study context to achieve a close match between the stress experience and the coping statements. As the UPNAS was designed as a dispositional measure of coping, the WCQ was rejected for inclusion in the current study.

The Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ; Rosenstiel & Keefe, 1983) contains subscales designed to measure the different methods individuals use to cope with chronic pain. The overall questionnaire was deemed reliable and the nine subscales include diverting attention, reinterpreting sensations, catastrophizing, ignoring sensations, coping self-statements, praying and hoping, increasing activity, ability to

117

control pain, and ability to decrease pain. As many of these subscales relate to pain management it is not deemed applicable to the current research.

The Coping Inventory of Stressful Situations (CISS; Endler & Parker, 1999) consists of 48 items which assess three main coping styles; task-orientated, emotion- orientated, and avoidance coping. There is also a shorter 21-item situation specific form (CISS:SSC). This has been used in a large number of studies, with consistent results reported across a variety of countries (Furukawa, Suzuki-Moor, Saito, & Hamanaka, 1993; Rafnsson, Smari, Windle, Mears, & Endler, 2006). The CISS is described as a psychometrically valid and reliable measure. However, other studies (Callaghan & Irwin, 2003) have found only modest correlations between the three main types of coping and paranormal belief. Three broad categories may not reflect the complexity and heterogeneity of paranormal coping. This questionnaire will not be considered further for the current research.

Pargament et al. (2000) applied Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) transactional

model of coping to the sphere of religion and suggested that it was critical to understand how individuals use religious coping to deal with a stressor. They suggest religious beliefs and practices may guide the individual in the process of selecting solutions to problems. The RCOPE (Pargament, Feuille, & Burdzy, 2011; Pargament, Koenig, & Perez, 2000) consists of three coping styles; self-directing, deferring, and collaborative. These vary on two key dimensions underlying the individual's relationship with God; the locus of responsibility, and the level of activity. The Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities for each of these scales was high (.94, .94, and .91 respectively). A brief RCOPE was developed as a shorter measurement of religious coping. This 14-item scale was derived using factor analysis which demonstrated two main styles of religious coping; positive and negative. Despite having overlapping constructs, religious coping is based on a

118

relationship with a God, unlike paranormal coping. This rendered the questionnaire inappropriate for the current research.

The 48-item Coping Response Inventory (CRI; Moos, 1988, 1993) identifies cognitive and behavioural responses an individual used to cope with a recent problem or stressful situation. There are two forms; actual and ideal. The actual form includes questions about the person’s actual coping behaviour. The ideal form comprises

questions about preferred coping styles. The eight subscales include approach-oriented coping (logical analysis, positive reappraisal, seeking guidance and support, and problem solving) and avoidance-oriented (cognitive avoidance, acceptance, seeking alternative rewards, and emotional discharge). Alternatively, these can be classified into cognitive and behavioural coping approaches. The CRI has been employed in a variety of populations and has evidence of good internal reliability (Moos, 1988, 1993). The main criticism of the CRI is that it restricts the meaning and interpretation of various coping responses to confine them to a classification system (Wong & Wong, 2006). However, arguably, by combining approach vs. avoidance with cognitive vs. behavioural methods, this questionnaire brings greater conceptual clarity to the different coping responses (Wong, Reker, & Peacock, 2006). This questionnaire will be considered for the current research.

Two questionnaires were therefore considered potentially appropriate for inclusion in the current research, the brief COPE and the Coping Response Inventory (CRI). Both can be used as dispositional measures of coping style in line with the newly developed Use of Paranormal and New Age Services (UPNAS) Questionnaire. However, the CRI takes longer to complete and has a significant cost associated with its use. Therefore, the brief COPE was selected for inclusion in the current research.

119

4.02 ESTABLISHING CONCURRENT VALIDITY: PARANORMAL BELIEF