A validity and reliability study of the coping self-efficacy scale

TLDR: The CSE scale provides a measure of a person's perceived ability to cope effectively with life challenges, as well as a way to assess changes in CSE over time in intervention research.

Abstract: Stress and coping theory has provided a foundation for a wide range of descriptive studies of the stress process. There is less evidence for its utility as a foundation for coping interventions. One of the impediments of the translation of stress and coping theory into intervention has to do with well-documented problems with the measurement of intervention-associated changes in coping (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004). The present study describes a measure of coping self-efficacy (CSE), which provides an alternate approach to the measurement of coping for intervention studies. This measure focuses on changes in a person’s confidence in his or her ability to cope effectively, which, according to self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997), is an important prerequisite to changing coping behaviour. Stress and coping theory defines stress as a person-environment relationship that is evaluated as personally significant and as exceeding a person’s resources for coping. This process is referred to as ‘primary appraisal’. Coping is defined as behavioural or cognitive efforts to manage situations that are appraised as stressful (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Coping involves both emotion-focused coping (i.e. responses that focus on managing emotional responses to stressful events), and problem-focused coping (i.e. responses that focus on changing problematic aspects of stressful events). The choice of coping strategy is influenced by the appraisal of options for coping, referred to in stress and coping theory as ‘secondary appraisal’ (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Secondary appraisal refers to the question, ‘What can I do?’ A key aspect of secondary appraisal is the judgment concerning the extent to which the individual can control the outcome of the situation. Self-efficacy contributes to this judgment, which in turn influences coping (see Park & Folkman, 1997 for review). Maladaptive coping (e.g. coping that fails to regulate distress or manage the underlying problem) occurs when people respond to uncontrollable stressors primarily with problem-focused coping strategies, or when people respond to controllable stressors primarily with emotion-focused coping strategies (Strentz & Auerbach, 1988; Vitaliano, DeWolfe, Maiuro, Russo, & Katon, 1990). Adaptive coping refers to situations in which there is a fit between the controllability of the stressful situation and the choice of coping strategy (i.e. emotion-focused versus problem-focused). When people obtain a ‘fit’ between stressful events and their coping strategies, they experience fewer psychological symptoms than when there is a lack of fit (Park, Folkman, & Bostrom, 2001). Cognitive behavioural interventions such as coping effectiveness training (CET; Chesney, Chambers, Taylor, & Johnson, 2003; Chesney, Chambers, Taylor, Johnson, & Folkman, 2003; Chesney, Folkman, & Chambers, 1996; Folkman & Chesney, 1995), which are based on social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997) as well as stress and coping theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), strive to increase adaptive coping, and, by doing so, reduce psychological distress and improve well-being. Perceived self-efficacy, defined as a belief about one’s ability to perform a specific behaviour, is a pivotal component of social cognitive theory in that beliefs of personal efficacy determine the acquisition of knowledge on which skills are founded (Bandura, 1997). Thus, beliefs about one’s ability to perform specific coping behaviours, or CSE, would be expected to influence outcomes of interventions designed to improve coping. This concept is also relevant to stress and coping theory and the secondary appraisal of controllability. Part of secondary appraisal is the judgment that an outcome is controllable through coping; another part addresses the question of whether or not the individual believes he or she can carry out the requisite coping strategy. Beliefs about self-efficacy are not a general disposition; a high level of efficacy in one domain does not necessarily correlate with high levels of self-efficacy in other domains (DiClemente, 1986; Hofstetter, Sallis, & Hovell, 1990). To achieve predictive and explanatory power, measures of self-efficacy must be designed and tailored to the sphere of activity (Forsyth & Carey, 1998). For example, self-efficacy regarding diabetic self-care behaviours has been identified as a pivotal psychosocial variable in diabetes research (Glasgow & Osteen, 1992; Jenkins, 1995), with scores on self-efficacy significantly associated with self-care by diabetics in the areas of diet, exercise and blood glucose testing (Williams & Bond, 2002). Efficacy beliefs also predict adherence to habits that lower cardiovascular risk and prevent myocardial infarctions in persons with coronary heart disease (Ewart, 1992; Jensen, Banwart, Venhaus, Popkess-Vawter, & Perkins, 1993). These lines of clinical investigation each developed specialized efficacy scales. The current study is designed to assess the reliability and validity of the CSE scale, a 26-item measure of perceived self-efficacy for coping with challenges or threats. The original instrument was developed by the authors, in collaboration with Dr Albert Bandura of Stanford University, for use in two randomized clinical trials investigating the efficacy of a theory-based CET intervention in reducing psychological distress and increasing positive mood in persons coping with chronic illness. In this paper, we subjected the CSE scale items to focused analyses with the specific goal of deriving a psychometrically sound and reduced form of the scale for use in future research. Analyses included assessing construct validity through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA and CFA, respectively), assessing reliability through internal consistency coefficient alphas and test–retest correlations, and assessing concurrent and predictive validity through partial correlations and multiple regression analyses, respectively.