Skip to main content
Multistudy Report

Assessing Perceived Ability to Cope With Trauma

A Multigroup Validity Study of a 7-Item Coping Self-Efficacy Scale

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000266

Abstract. Aim of the present study was to examine the construct validity of the trauma-related coping self-efficacy (CSE) scale. While assessing the psychometric properties of this 20-item scale among four different samples (514 victims of disaster, 1325 bereaved individuals, 512 victims of acute critical incidents, 169 severe burn victims), we found no measurement equivalence across groups. A shortened version was composed using only those items that were applicable to all types of potentially traumatic events (PTEs). In contrast to the CSE-20, the CSE-7 has a robust factor structure; factor structure and factor loadings were similar across study samples, indicating that it measured the same construct across different PTEs. These results offer strong support for cross-event construct validity of the CSE-7. Associations of the CSE-7 with posttraumatic stress symptoms showed the same pattern as with the CSE-20, indicating that the reduction in items did not diminish the scales’ power to predict posttraumatic stress.

References

  • Aiken, L. R. (1996). Rating scales and checklists. Canada: Wiley. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: APA. doi: 10.1176/appi.books.9780890423349 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Amstadter, A. B. & Vernon, L. L. (2008). Emotional reactions during and after trauma: A comparison of trauma types. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 16, 391–408. doi: 10.1080/10926770801926492 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Arbuckle, J. (1997). Amos users’ guide version 3.6. Chicago, IL: SPSS. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Benight, C. C. & Bandura, A. (2004). Social cognitive theory of posttraumatic recovery: The role of perceived self-efficacy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42, 1129–1148. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2003.08.008 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Benight, C. C., Cieslak, R., Molton, I. R. & Johnson, L. E. (2008). Self-evaluative appraisals of coping capability and posttraumatic distress following motor vehicle accidents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 677–685. doi: 10.1037/0022-006x.76.4.677 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Benight, C. C., Freyaldenhoven, R. W., Hughes, J., Ruiz, J. M. & Zoschke, T. A. (2000). Coping self-efficacy and psychological distress following the Oklahoma city bombing. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1331–1344. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02523.x First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Benight, C. C., Harding-Taylor, A. S., Midboe, A. M. & Durham, R. L. (2004). Development and psychometric validation of a domestic violence coping self-efficacy measure. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17, 505–508. doi: 10.1007/s10960-004-5799-3 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Benight, C. C., Ironson, G. & Durham, R. L. (1999). Psychometric properties of a hurricane coping self-efficacy measure. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 12, 379–386. doi: 10.1023/A:1024792913301 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Benight, C. C., Ironson, G., Klebe, K., Carver, C. S., Wynings, C., Burnett, K., … Schneiderman, N. (1999). Conservation of resources and coping self-efficacy predicting distress following a natural disaster: A causal model analysis where the environment meets the mind. Anxiety Stress and Coping, 12, 107–126. doi: 10.1080/10615809908248325 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. BollenJ. S. LongEds., Testing Structural Equation Models (pp. 136–162). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Cox, K. S., Resnick, H. S. & Kilpatrick, D. G. (2014). Prevalence and correlates of posttrauma distorted beliefs: Evaluating DSM-5 PTSD expanded cognitive symptoms in a national sample. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 27, 299–306. doi: 10.1002/jts.21925 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Curran, P. J., West, S. G. & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16–29. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Devellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Applied social research methods series (Vol. 26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Devins, G. M., Orme, C. M., Costello, C. G., Binik, Y. M., Frizzell, B., Stam, H. J. & Pullin, W. M. (1988). Measuring depressive symptoms in illness population: Psychometric properties of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES-D) scale. Psychology and Health, 2, 139–156. doi: 10.1080/08870448808400349 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Frazier, P. A. & Schauben, L. J. (1994). Causal attributions and recovery from rape and other stressful life events. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13, 1–14. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Horowitz, M., Wilner, N. & Alvarez, W. (1979). Impact of Event Scale: a measure of subjective stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 41, 209–218. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hu, L.-t. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • IBM. (2010). IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, version 19.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Jöreskog, K. G. & Sörbom, D. (1993). Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language (Vol. 2, pp. 127–180). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000116 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kent, G. (1987). Self-efficacious control over reported physiological, cognitive, and behavioural symptoms of dental anxiety. Behaviour, Research and Therapy, 25, 341–347. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kent, G. & Gibbons, R. (1987). Self-efficacy and the control of anxious cognitions. Journal of Behavior Therapy & Experimental Psychiatry, 18, 33–40. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lazarus, R. S. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York, NY: Springer. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Luszczynska, A., Benight, C. C. & Cieslak, R. (2009). Self-efficacy and health-related outcomes of collective trauma a systematic review. European Psychologist, 14, 51–62. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040.14.1.51 First citation in articleLinkGoogle Scholar

  • Muthen, B. & Kaplan, D. (1985). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 171–189. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Park, C. L. & Folkman, S. (1997). Meaning in the context of stress and coping. Review of General Psychology, 1, 115–144. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pfefferbaum, B. S., Call, J. A., Lensgraf, S. J., Miller, P. D., Flynn, B. W., Doughty, D. E., … Dickson, W. L. (2001). Traumatic grief in a convenience sample of victims seeking support services after a terrorist incident. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry, 13, 19–24. doi: 10.1023/A:1009008614219 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pfefferbaum, B. S., Flynn, G. M., Kearns, B. W., Doughty, L. J., Gurwitch, D. E., Nixon, R. H. & Nawaz, S. J. (2003). Case finding and mental health services for children in the aftermath of the Oklahoma city bombing. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 30, 215–227. doi: 10.1007/BF02289809 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rosen, G. M. & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2008). Posttraumatic stress disorder: An empirical evaluation of core assumptions. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 837–868. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2007.12.002 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Scherpenzeel, A. (2011). Start of the LISS panel: sample and recruitment of a probability-based internet panel. Retrieved from http://www.lissdata.nl/assets/uploaded/Sample_and_Recruitment.pdf First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Silver, N. C. & Dunlap, W. P. (1987). Averaging correlation coefficients: Should Fisher’s z transformation be used? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 146–148. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.72.1.146 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Stevens, J. E. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Van der Ploeg, E., Mooren, T. T., Kleber, R. J., van der Velden, P. G. & Brom, D. (2004). Construct validation of the Dutch version of the impact of event scale. Psychological Assessment, 16, 16–26. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.16.1.162004-11653-003 First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Weiss, D. S. & Marmar, C. R. (1997). The Impact of Event Scale-Revised. In J. P. WilsonT. M. KeaneEds., Assessing psychological trauma and PTSD (pp. 399–411). New York, NY: Guilford Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Ziegler, M. (2014). Comments on item selection procedures. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30, 1–2. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000196 First citation in articleLinkGoogle Scholar