Assessing Perceived Ability to Cope With Trauma
A Multigroup Validity Study of a 7-Item Coping Self-Efficacy Scale
Abstract
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
1996). Rating scales and checklists. Canada: Wiley.
(2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: APA. doi: 10.1176/appi.books.9780890423349
. (2008). Emotional reactions during and after trauma: A comparison of trauma types. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 16, 391–408. doi: 10.1080/10926770801926492
(1997). Amos users’ guide version 3.6. Chicago, IL: SPSS.
(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
(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
(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
(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
(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
(1999). Psychometric properties of a hurricane coping self-efficacy measure. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 12, 379–386. doi: 10.1023/A:1024792913301
(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
(1993).
(Alternative ways of assessing model fit . In K. A. BollenJ. S. LongEds., Testing Structural Equation Models (pp. 136–162). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.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
(1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16–29.
(1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. Applied social research methods series (Vol. 26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
(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
(1994). Causal attributions and recovery from rape and other stressful life events. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13, 1–14.
(1979). Impact of Event Scale: a measure of subjective stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 41, 209–218.
(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
(2010). IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, version 19.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
. (1993). Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language (Vol. 2, pp. 127–180). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
(1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000116
(1987). Self-efficacious control over reported physiological, cognitive, and behavioural symptoms of dental anxiety. Behaviour, Research and Therapy, 25, 341–347.
(1987). Self-efficacy and the control of anxious cognitions. Journal of Behavior Therapy & Experimental Psychiatry, 18, 33–40.
(1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York, NY: Springer.
(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
(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.
(1997). Meaning in the context of stress and coping. Review of General Psychology, 1, 115–144.
(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
(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
(2008). Posttraumatic stress disorder: An empirical evaluation of core assumptions. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 837–868. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2007.12.002
(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
(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
(2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
(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
(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.2014). Comments on item selection procedures. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30, 1–2. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000196
(