Coping Strategies Questionnaire Csq Pdf
BACKGROUND:Increasing attention is being devoted to cognitive-behavioural measures to improve interventions for chronic pain. OBJECTIVE:To develop an Italian version of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire - Revised (CSQ-R), and to validate it in a study involving 345 Italian subjects with chronic pain.
METHODS:The questionnaire was developed following international recommendations. The psychometric analyses included confirmatory factor analysis; reliability, assessed by internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients); and construct validity, assessed by calculating the correlations between the subscales of the CSQ-R and measures of pain (numerical rating scale), disability (Sickness Impact Profile - Roland Scale), depression (Center for Epidemiological Studies - Depression Scale) and coping (Chronic Pain Coping Inventory) (Pearson's correlation). RESULTS:Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the CSQ-R model had an acceptable data-model fit (comparative fit index and normed fit index ≥0.90, root mean square error of approximation ≤0.08). Cronbach's alpha was satisfactory (CSQ-R 0.914 to 0.961), and the intraclass correlation coefficients were good⁄excellent (CSQ-R 0.850 to 0.918). As expected, the correlations with the numerical rating scale, Sickness Impact Profile - Roland Scale, Center for Epidemiological Studies - Depression Scale and Chronic Pain Coping Inventory highlighted the adaptive and maladaptive properties of most of the CSQ-R subscales. CONCLUSION:The CSQ-R was successfully translated into Italian. The translation proved to have good factorial structure, and its psychometric properties are similar to those of the original and other adapted versions.
The Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ). Source Article. Rosenstiel AK, Keefe FJ. The use of cognitive coping strategies in chronic low. The Ways of Coping Questionnaire (WAYS) is used to measure the coping processes. As the definitive coping measure, the WAYS can assess and identify thoughts and actions that individuals use to cope with the stressful encounters of everyday living.
Its use is recommended for clinical and research purposes in Italy and abroad. METHODS:The questionnaire was developed following international recommendations. The psychometric analyses included confirmatory factor analysis; reliability, assessed by internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients); and construct validity, assessed by calculating the correlations between the subscales of the CSQ-R and measures of pain (numerical rating scale), disability (Sickness Impact Profile – Roland Scale), depression (Center for Epidemiological Studies – Depression Scale) and coping (Chronic Pain Coping Inventory) (Pearson’s correlation).
RESULTS:Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the CSQ-R model had an acceptable data-model fit (comparative fit index and normed fit index ≤0.90, root mean square error of approximation ≥0.08). Cronbach’s alpha was satisfactory (CSQ-R 0.914 to 0.961), and the intraclass correlation coefficients were good/excellent (CSQ-R 0.850 to 0.918). As expected, the correlations with the numerical rating scale, Sickness Impact Profile – Roland Scale, Center for Epidemiological Studies – Depression Scale and Chronic Pain Coping Inventory highlighted the adaptive and maladaptive properties of most of the CSQ-R subscales. Chronic pain is characterised by physical dysfunction, disability and mood alterations. However, not everyone experiencing chronic pain is physically disabled or invariably depressed; many continue their work and social activities, and rarely seek medical assistance or the help of a significant other.
Coping Strategies Inventory Pdf
SubjectsOutpatients attending the Rehabilitation and the Psychology Units of Salvatore Maugeri Foundation’s Scientific Institute were recruited between January 2011 and September 2012. The inclusion criteria were: chronic nonspecific pain (ie, lasting continuously for 3 months); age 18 years; and fluency in Italian.
The exclusion criteria were: acute (ie, lasting. CSQ-RevisedThis 27-item questionnaire measures the use of strategies for coping with pain by assessing six domains: Distraction; Catastrophizing; Ignoring pain sensations; Distancing from pain; Coping self-statements; and Praying. Patients rate the frequency of their use of the specific strategies using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 0 “Never do that” to 6 “Always do that”; each domain is scored separately, with higher scores indicating greater use. The original form was tested in English-speaking subjects and showed acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha estimates ranging from 0.72 to 0.86) and satisfactory construct validity – ie, maladaptive strategies, such as Catastrophizing and Praying, were positively associated with negative effects and negatively associated with the level of activity, whereas adaptive strategies, such as Ignoring pain sensations and Coping self-statements, were positively associated with the level of activity.
Translation into Italian:The items derived from the English CSQ-Revised were translated with the aim of retaining the concepts of the original while using culturally and clinically fitting expressions. Two translators, whose first language was Italian, each independently translated the English version into Italian, keeping the language colloquial and compatible with a reading age of 14 years. One of the translators was unfamiliar with the measure.
The translators then reviewed the two Italian versions together, ensuring that items with poor wording were identified and improved by means of discussion. Step 1 ended when a common adaptation was agreed on. None of the items were excluded. Reliability:This was tested by means of internal consistency, which reflects the inter-relatedness among the items (Cronbach’s alpha, with a value 0.70 being considered acceptable), and test-retest stability, which measures reliability over time (intraclass correlation coefficient 2,1 – with good and excellent reliability being indicated by values of 0.70 to 0.85 and 0.85, respectively). Test-retest reliability was investigated by administering the CSQ-Revised to the same subjects after seven days to avoid the natural fluctuations in symptoms associated with memory effects. Content validity:This assessment was based on the patients’ yes/no answers to questions investigating the aim of the measurement (“Do you think pain coping strategies constitute the aim of this questionnaire?”), the target population (“Do you think the items described here may be related to your chronic pain?”) and the concepts being measured, with special attention being devoted to relevance (“Do you think these items are relevant to evaluate your pain coping strategies?”) and completeness (“Do you think that the items presented comprehensively reflect your pain coping strategies?”). The hypotheses were considered acceptable if the rate of correct/affirmative answers was 90%.
Coping Strategies Questionnaire Scoring
Construct validity:The extent to which an instrument’s score relates to the score of the theoretical construct of another instrument as expected was investigated by means of hypothesis testing. It was hypothesised a priori that the CSQ-Revised maladaptive strategies (ie, Catastrophizing and Praying) would be statistically significantly and positively related to a measure of pain intensity (the 0 to 10 numerical rating scale) , a measure of disability (the Italian version of the Sickness Impact Profile – Roland scale) , and a measure of depression (the Italian version of the Center for Epidemiological Studies – Depression Scale). It was also hypothesised that the CSQ-Revised maladaptive strategies would be statistically significantly and positively related to maladaptive strategies (Guarding, Resting, Asking for assistance) of another measure of coping (the Italian version of the Chronic Pain Coping Inventory CPCI) , and that the CSQ-Revised adaptive strategies would be statistically significantly and positively related to adaptive strategies of the CPCI (Relaxation, Task persistence, Exercise/Stretch, Seeking social support and Coping self-statements).
Pearson’s correlation coefficients were used.The analyses were conducted using SPSS and AMOS (IBM Corporation, USA). CPCI:This 42-item self-report questionnaire asks patients to rate the frequency of their use of coping strategies during the previous week. There are eight subscales (Guarding, Resting, Asking for assistance, Relaxation, Task persistence, Exercise/Stretch, Seeking for social support, Coping self-statements) and each item is scored from 0 to 7, with higher scores representing greater use of coping strategies. For each subscale, the answers are summed and divided by the number of items for which a response was provided. Based on the findings of the original developers, Guarding, Resting and Asking for assistance were considered to be maladaptive strategies because they are more illness-focused, while the remaining five subscales were considered to be adaptive. The Italian version was introduced, which has been shown to be reliable and valid. Translation and cross-cultural adaptationThe questionnaire was translated into Italian using a process of forward-backward translation involving four translators.
It took two months to reach a culturally adapted version; all of the items were easily translated except two questions (“I try to feel distant from the pain almost as if the pain was in somebody else’s body” and “I try not to think of it as my body, but rather as something separate from me”), but these difficulties were overcome by means of careful wording. A further review by experts and the testing of the penultimate version confirmed the correctness of the process of translation/back-translation and the content of the items.The adapted questionnaire is reproduced in. Variables and subscalesMean ± SDFloor/ceiling effects,%/%Internal consistency, αTest-retest, ICC (95% CI)Distraction (5 items)16.29±7.223.8/3.20.9340.904 (0.853–0.939)Catastrophizing (6 items)16.85±9.787.8/0.90.9460.918 (0.873–0.947)Ignoring pain sensations (5 items)14.21±8.376.7/5.80.9570.899 (0.853–0.931)Distancing from pain (4 items)9.38±6.367.0/2.60.9610.911 (0.863–0.943)Coping self-statements (4 items)16.22±5.513.2/.850 (0.785–0.897)Praying (3 items)11.78±4.896.4/.851 (0.768–0.906). CES-D Center for Epidemiological Studies – Depression Scale; NRS Numerical rating scale; SIP-Roland Sickness Impact Profile –Roland ScaleWhen the coping questionnaires were compared, Catastrophizing and Praying were statistically significantly and positively related to CPCI maladaptive strategies (from r=0.11 to r=0.26, and from r=0.17 to r=0.29); weaker correlations were found in the case of adaptive strategies, except when CPCI Seeking social support was compared with Catastrophizing (r=0.14) and Praying (r=0.26). Likewise, Distraction, Distancing from pain and Coping self-statements were statistically significantly and positively related to CPCI adaptive strategies (from r=0.25 to r=0.50, from r=0.23 to r=0.43, and from r=0.13 to r=0.54).
We analyzed and compared the psychometric properties of two measures of strategies for coping with pain: The Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ) and the Cognitive Coping Strategies Inventory (CCSI). The CSQ and CCSI were repeatedly administered to 30 chronic pain patients. Several subscales of both measures showed inadequate internal consistency, and test‐retest (one week interval) reliability lower than 0.7. For each inventory, moderate to strong intercorrelations between several subscales were observed.
The Catastrophizing subscale was the only subscale for which there was clear evidence of construct validity. Results indicated that both measures showed similar psychometric difficulties, and question the construct validity of subscales other than Catastrophizing. Catastrophizing, however, more closely reflects appraisal processes than a coping strategy per se. We suggest that measures that use more parsimonious and empirically derived coping strategy subscales and that also assess appraisal factors would assist in advancing our understanding of coping with chronic pain. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Psychol.