https://dx.doi.org/10.24016/2023.v9.333
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Psychometric properties of the Stress Coping Scale Brief-COPE 28 in a Peruvian
population
Propiedades psicométricas de
la Escala de Afrontamiento al Estrés
Brief-COPE 28 en una
población peruana
Neicer Joel Delgado-Requejo 1*, Julio
Cesar Castillo Ramos 1, Lourdes Carolina Cerda Sánchez 1
1 Facultad de Psicología, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima,
Peru.
* Correspondence: neicer.delgado@unmsm.edu.pe.
Received: May 16, 2023 | Revised: August
15, 2023 | Accepted: September 15, 2023 | Published
Online: September 30, 2023.
CITE IT AS:
Delgado-Requejo, N. J., Castillo Ramos, J. C., & Cerda Sánchez, L.
C. (2023). Psychometric properties of the Stress Coping Scale Brief-COPE 28 in
a Peruvian population. Interacciones, 9,
e333. https://dx.doi.org/10.24016/2023.v9.333
ABSTRACT
Background: The highly stressful events we
are currently experiencing require great cognitive and emotional effort and
affect the mental health of the population. In this sense, coping with stress
provides evidence of how people use their resources to cope with or avoid
stressful events, which requires validated and reliable instruments to measure
accurately. Objective: To determine the psychometric properties of
reliability and validity of the BRIEF COPE 28, Spanish version. Method: The
design used was instrumental; 530 people participated, 60% men and 40% women,
between 18 and 60 years old, from different regions of Peru, selected by non-probability
convenience sampling. Results: It is evident that the alpha coefficient
of coping styles ranges from α ordinal = 0.74 to 0.82; while in strategies it
was between α ordinal = 0.59 to 0.90. In terms of internal structure, the
four-factor model obtained a good fit SB-χ²/gl=1.836;
CFI=0.92; TLI=0.90, SRMS=0.09 and RMSEA=0.10. A good fit was found with the ten
coping strategies model SB-χ²/gl=1.902; CFI=0.96;
TLI=0.95, SRMS=0.056, RMSEA=0.069. Conclusion: COPE 28 has good internal
consistency; and the model with the four coping styles is inconclusive, while
the model with ten strategies has adequate goodness of fit.
Keywords: Coping Behaviours,
Coping Skills, Coping, coping strategies, coping styles, stress, psychometric
properties.
RESUMEN
Introducción: Los acontecimientos altamente estresantes que vivimos actualmente demandan gran esfuerzo cognitivo y emocional y afectan la salud mental de la población; en este sentido el
afrontamiento al estrés proporciona evidencia de cómo las personas recurren a sus recursos para afrontar o evadir los eventos
estresantes, lo cual necesita de instrumentos validados y confiables para medirlo con precisión. Objetivo: Determinar
las propiedades psicométricas
de confiabilidad y validez
del BRIEF COPE 28, versión española.
Método: El diseño
usado fue instrumental; participaron 530 personas, 60% varones
y 40% mujeres, entre 18 y 60 años,
de distintas regiones del
Perú, seleccionadas con el muestreo no probabilístico por conveniencia. Resultados: Se evidencia
que el coeficiente alfa de los estilos de afrontamiento oscila entre α
ordinal=0.74 a 0.82; mientras que en
las estrategias fue entre α
ordinal=0.59 a 0.90. En cuanto
a la estructura interna, el
modelo de cuatro factores obtuvo buen ajuste
de bondad SB-χ²/gl=1.836;
CFI=0.92; TLI=0.90, SRMS=0.09 y RMSEA=0.10. Asimismo,
se encontró buen ajuste con el modelo
de 10 estrategias de afrontamiento
SB-χ²/gl=1.902; CFI=0.96; TLI=0.95, SRMS=0.056,
RMSEA=0.069. Conclusión: El COPE 28 tiene buena consistencia
interna; y que el modelo
con los cuatro estilos de afrontamiento no es concluyente; mientras el modelo
con 10 estrategias tiene adecuado ajuste de bondad.
Palabras
claves: Comportamientos de afrontamiento,
habilidades de afrontamiento,
Afrontamiento, estrategias
de afrontamiento, estilos
de afrontamiento, propiedades
psicométricas.
BACKGROUND
Currently, there are highly stressful events that generate mental health
problems in the world and national population, related to a high incidence of
stress, anxiety, depression, decreased optimism (Santos et al., 2022), negative
psychological impact (Brooks et al., 2020) and overflow in the capacity to
respond to stress (Guillén-Díaz et al., 2021).
In complex situations of such magnitude, coping with stress provides
evidence of how people act to a stressful event. Here it can be highlighted
that some coping strategies cushion the negative effect of stressors, while
others lead to avoiding them; but all this depends on the perceived control of
the event (Dijkstra & Homan, 2016).
In a more functional sense, coping with stress acts as a stabilizing
factor because it facilitates adequate personal adjustment to a stressful
situation (Morán et al., 2010), also allows the adaptation of cognitive schemes
and regulates the perception of the stressor threat that alters the adequate
coping (Mate et al., 2016).
From a cognitive approach, coping with stress refers to the efforts made
by the person to manage the demands of adaptation when interacting with their
context (Lazarus, 2006) and tries to prevent or reduce the threats, damage and
anguish generated by stress (Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010). In this sense,
stress arises from the person-context interaction, in addition to being
classified as changing all the time. Now, when these experiences of stress
arise, the person performs a primary evaluation where a set of values, beliefs
and cognitive filters influence; while in the secondary evaluation he makes
available his personal resources to face the event; both forms of evaluation
determine the actual damage or loss generated by stress (Folkman, 2010).
These two evaluative forms are synthesized in responses to stress
focused on the problem and emotion (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). In the first,
the object of study is in the planned resolution of the problem, while in the
second it is intended to regulate the emotion with negative impact, using
evasive strategies such as distancing, the search for emotional support and
flight-avoidance (Folkman, 2010).
While some forms of stress response have allowed adaptive coping towards
stressors; others, on the other hand, have received criticism in the scientific
literature because they have always associated negative emotions as those that
drive coping; however, to correct these shortcomings, the new conceptions
develop a third style focused on meaning and positive emotions, which help
restore and maintain problem- and emotion-centred coping in the long term
(Folkman, 2008).
On the other hand, different positions have emerged that relate coping
as something situational (Lazarus, 2006). This theoretical position served to
design different measuring instruments; however, the psychometric
inconsistencies reported in initial studies led to the inclusion of
dispositional coping to give greater consistency to the construct (Carver et
al., 1989).
Thus, the COPE 28 Brief scale measures stress coping in its situational
or dispositional version, maintaining its orientation of state and trait
(Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010) In this regard, several studies that used the
scale reported significant psychometric inconsistencies, since the evidence of
validity throws several factors and low reliability (Solberg et al., 2022).
In the Spanish version, the critical point was located in the
reliability of the factors, but that after the second-order factor analysis, 4
factors were found that explain 52.9% of the variance and an improvement in
reliability 0.71 to 0.80 (Morán et al., 2010); however, in a Portuguese sample,
the factors reported were 14, similar to the original structure, whose goodness
indices are appropriate and factorial loads greater than 0.40 (Nunes et al.,
2021).
Studies using populations with health problems, cultural characteristics
or evolutionary stages also found discrepancies in internal structure. For
example, in French patients and caregivers, 4 factors were evidenced with
adequate adjustment of goodness RMSEA=0.047; CFI=0.923 and RMSEA=0.031;
CFI=0.938 (Baumstarck et al., 2017); in people with
liver transplantation, 6 factors were found (Amoyal
et al., 2016); in breast cancer survivors, the 14-factor model showed the best
fit (Rand et al., 2019) and in (Amoyal et al., 2016;
Tang et al., 2021).
On the other hand, in people with aggressiveness, the 4-factor model
yielded adequate adjustments of kindness (Cramer et al., 2020); while in other
cultures a three-factor model was found with adequate adjustment indices GFI =
0.924; TLI=0.904; RMSEA=0.039 and good reliability 0.84, 0.75 and 0.81
(Alghamdi, 2020).
Regarding the Latin American context, a study with Argentine older
adults reported that the model with the best fit was two factors CFI = 0.937;
TLI=0.908; RMSEA=0.091) and a reliability of 0.81 (Richard’s et al., 2021). On
the contrary, Chilean adaptation found structure of 14 factors with expected
goodness indices and good internal consistency (García et al., 2018). As for
Peru, no psychometric studies of COPE 28 have been reported, but in the version
of 52 items itself (Cassaretto Bardales & Chau
Perez-Aranibar, 2016).
As can be seen in various studies, the scale has different factorial
structures. This is due to the limitations of methodological nature, as well as
practical functionality such as, for example, having been adapted exclusively
in specific samples and with university students; also, to the validations in
their dispositional version, use it in a dichotomous response modality, have a
disparate number of items in each scale and for presenting some items with
negative charge (Cano et al., 2007; Guillén-Díaz-Barriga et al., 2021)
These limitations and the gaps in studies in the Peruvian context led us
to analyse the psychometric evidence of the COPE 28 scale in a Peruvian
population. In this sense, the study is justified because it provided relevant
background on the internal structure of the instrument, so as to strengthen the
theory of coping with stress and confirm factors of the scale in the Peruvian
context. It also provides an instrument with psychometric properties of
validity and reliability for other researchers to use in different contexts of
our country.
The objective was to determine the psychometric evidence of reliability
and validity of the BRIEF COPE 28 scale in a Peruvian population.
METHODS
Design
From a quantitative approach, an instrumental design was used because it
analysed the psychometric properties (Ato et al.,
2013) COPE-28 scale Spanish version (Morán et al., 2010).
Participants
The initial calculation of the sample was performed using the Sample
Size Calculator web (Arifin, 2023) and the criterion of CFI = 0.95 and RSMEA=
0.05 was considered, together with the 28 items and four factors of the
instrument, significance level 0.05 and a statistical power of 80% (Kim, 2005).
For this reason, to obtain a CFI=0.95 requires a minimum sample of 289 people;
similarly, to obtain an RSMEA=0.05 a minimum of 97 participants is needed. In
this line, the selection of the sample was carried out using an intentional
non-probabilistic procedure (Echevarría, 2016) snowball technique (Baltar &
Gorjup, 2012) which 530 people participated, 60% men and 40% women, of which
76.4% have higher education, 20% secondary education and the rest primary
studies. Regarding the origin, 59.4% reside in Metropolitan Lima, 21% in Piura
and the remaining 20% in other regions such as Cajamarca and La Libertad; Ages
range from 18 to 65 years. The inclusion criteria considered men and women who
voluntarily agreed to participate in the study and who have physical and mental
health conditions preserved at the time of answering the questionnaires. People
who did not agree to participate in the study and those who did not fill out
the questionnaire were excluded.
Instruments
COPE-28 was used (Morán et al., 2010) composed of 28 items, divided into
14 strategies and four styles: cognitive coping, social support, coping
blockage and spiritual. It has a Likert-type ordinal measurement with four
response options 1 = “I never do this” and 4 = “I always do”. Regarding the
psychometric properties of the Chilean adaptation of COPE, 28, an internal
structure of 14 factors was found, whose reliability ranged from 0.53 to 0.82
(García et al., 2018).
Procedure
To collect data, Google forms were used to systematize the questions.
The dissemination of the instruments was done through the social networks
Facebook, WhatsApp and emails, in addition participants were invited to
disseminate the link with their contacts and obtain greater participation. The
data collection period was made between January and August 2022, and from this
a database was obtained that was exported to Software SPSS, 26, SPSS AMOS 28, Jamovi and R study.
Statistical analysis
To establish the statistical power in the analysis, an initial sample
was established through the Sample Size Calculator (web). The criteria that
were established were a CFI = 0.95 and an RSMEA = 0.05, in addition to
p<0.05, a statistical power of 80%, all the items and factors of COPE 28.
The result of this calculation yielded a minimum sample that was needed to
carry out the statistical analysis. Regarding internal consistency, a
descriptive analysis of each item was performed, as well as the 14 strategies
and 4 coping styles, taking into account the measures of central tendency and
the correlation item test; finally, evidence of reliability was obtained
through the alpha and ordinal alpha coefficient. Subsequently, confirmatory
factor analysis was performed to find evidence of validity of COPE 28 through
SPSS Software, version 26, SPSS AMOS 28 and R Studio version 4.2.2, using the
statistical packages Psych, 4.2.3, Lavaan 0.6-16, SemPlot 4.2.3 and SemTools 0.5-6.
A first analysis was to find the multivariate normality of the items, and since
the assumption of normality was transgressed, the WLSMV estimates were used. In
coping styles, two models were tested to obtain the greatest goodness
adjustment, while in coping strategies four models were tested, considering the
following indices CFI = >0.90; TLI= >0.90; SRMR= <0.08; RMSEA=
<0.05 (Brown, 2015). On the other hand, to analyse the correlation of the
items, a polychoric matrix was used because the instrument has an ordinal
response form (Domínguez, 2014), whose maximum correlation value between
dimensions was 0.643 and to maintain the items with good factorial loads in the
models, criterion >0.30 was established.
Ethical aspects
The study was conducted as part of the scientific writing course for the
Masters in Clinical and Health Psychology at the Universidad Nacional Mayor de
San Marcos. The research should have gone through the Ethics Committee;
however, at the time the study was carried out, the Faculty of Psychology did
not have this committee to review it. The research is a very low-risk study for
the participants. We also used informed consent, which included the ethical
principles of confidentiality, beneficence and nonmaleficence, and data
protection (American Psychological Association [APA], 2017). In addition, all
participants voluntarily accepted and signed the informed consent, which
included the purpose, potential risks, and other information relevant to the
study.
RESULTS
In a first analysis, it can be verified that the item-test correlations range
between 0.223 and 0.508; p<0.05, considered acceptable. Likewise, the
internal consistency of the items yields an alpha coefficient higher than
α=0.80, indicating good reliability (Furr, 2011; Reidl-Martínez, 2013) (Table
1).
Table 1. Analysis of the internal consistency of COPE
items 28.
|
|
M |
SD |
|
P1 |
2.24 |
0.703 |
|
P2 |
2.78 |
0.735 |
|
P3 |
2.82 |
0.716 |
|
P4 |
2.6 |
0.764 |
|
P5 |
1.84 |
0.827 |
|
P6 |
2.72 |
0.744 |
|
P7 |
1.96 |
0.785 |
|
P8 |
2.15 |
0.777 |
|
P9 |
2.22 |
0.717 |
|
P10 |
2.78 |
0.725 |
|
P11 |
1.69 |
0.746 |
|
P12 |
1.84 |
0.702 |
|
P13 |
1.74 |
0.735 |
|
P14 |
2.42 |
0.757 |
|
P15 |
1.41 |
0.704 |
|
P16 |
2.26 |
0.929 |
|
P17 |
2.2 |
0.73 |
|
P18 |
2.66 |
0.725 |
|
P19 |
1.78 |
0.721 |
|
P20 |
2.67 |
0.838 |
|
P21 |
2.45 |
0.747 |
|
P22 |
2.36 |
0.725 |
|
P23 |
2.06 |
0.701 |
|
P24 |
1.38 |
0.681 |
|
P25 |
1.54 |
0.676 |
|
P26 |
2.61 |
0.698 |
|
P27 |
1.91 |
0.771 |
|
P28 |
2.27 |
0.695 |
Note. M=Mean,
SD=standard deviation; r=correlation α=Alpha coefficient.
Regarding the internal consistency of the COPE 28 BRIEF by dimensions,
it is observed that, in coping styles, the ordinal alpha coefficient of the
cognitive style is α ordinal = 0.82, social support α ordinal = 0.81, blocking
coping α ordinal = 0.74 and spiritual coping α ordinal =0.75. In the same line,
the internal consistency of coping strategies shows that the lowest value is
found in Self-distraction α ordinal = 0.58, while the highest value in the use
of substances α ordinal = 0.93. These internal consistency values are acceptable
as they meet the established criteria and the instrument is reliable (Furr,
2011; Reidl-Martínez, 2013). It can also be evidenced that the correlations of
coping styles yield values above r=0.440, and in coping strategies higher than
r=0.234, which are statistically significant p<0.05 (Table 2).
Table 2. Reliability of COPE 28 coping styles and
strategies.
|
|
COPE 28 |
M |
SD |
r |
α ordinal |
|
Coping styles |
Cognitive |
13.4 |
2.7 |
0.63 |
0.82 |
|
Social support |
8.94 |
2.2 |
0.68 |
0.81 |
|
|
Blockade |
10.4 |
2.7 |
0.44 |
0.74 |
|
|
Spiritual |
4.93 |
1.5 |
0.58 |
0.75 |
|
|
Coping strategies |
Active |
5.56 |
1.3 |
0.56 |
0.79 |
|
Planning |
5.23 |
1.4 |
0.32 |
0.61 |
|
|
Positive reinterpretation |
5.09 |
1.3 |
0.62 |
0.72 |
|
|
Emotional support |
4.42 |
1.3 |
0.62 |
0.72 |
|
|
Social support |
4.52 |
1.2 |
0.64 |
0.67 |
|
|
Self-distraction |
4.96 |
1.2 |
0.5 |
0.58 |
|
|
Disconnection |
3.23 |
1.2 |
0.23 |
0.72 |
|
|
Substance use |
2.79 |
1.3 |
0.32 |
0.93 |
|
|
Humour |
3.74 |
1.3 |
0.26 |
0.69 |
|
|
Religion |
4.93 |
1.5 |
0.58 |
0.75 |
Note. α= alpha
coefficient; ordinal α= ordinal alpha coefficient.
The first model retains the 4 styles of the original version adapted to
Spanish, whose adjustment indexes do not comply with the established (Table 3).
For this reason, items 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 19, 21 and 26 (Table 4) with
low factor loads <0.30 were eliminated and a second model was tested, which
retains the 4 styles, but with 17 items. It was found that the goodness
adjustment indices SB-χ²/gl=1.836; CFI=0.92; TLI=0.90
are within the established to be considered a good fit of the model; however,
SRMS=0.09 and RMSEA=0.10 have values higher than allowed (Brown, 2015); these
indicators are influenced by the amount of the sample, but demonstrate that the
tested model is inconclusive (Table 3).
Table 3. Confirmatory factor analysis of the coping
styles and strategies of COPE 28.
|
Model |
SB-χ²/gl |
CFI |
TLI |
SRMR |
RMSEA |
|
4 styles (28 items) |
2.237 |
0.80 |
0.78 |
0.118 |
0.100 |
|
4 styles (17 items) |
1.836 |
0.92 |
0.90 |
0.099 |
0.101 |
|
14 strategies (28 items) |
2.237 |
0.92 |
0.88 |
0.069 |
0.074 |
|
13 strategies (26 Items) |
2.161 |
0.94 |
0.91 |
0.063 |
0.070 |
|
12 strategies (24 Items) |
2.076 |
0.95 |
0.92 |
0.06 |
0.068 |
|
10 strategies (20 items) |
1.902 |
0.96 |
0.95 |
0.056 |
0.069 |
Note. Relative
Chi-square (2/gl); comparative adjustment index
(CFI); Tucker-Lewis index (TLI); Standardized Residual
Mean Square Root (SRMR); Mean square error of approximation (RMSEA).
Table 4. Items eliminated in the analysis of the four
styles.
|
Styles |
Original items |
Deleted items |
Final version |
|
Cognitive |
2, 3, 6, 10, 14, 18, 21, 26 |
3, 21, 26 |
2, 6, 10, 14, 18 |
|
Social support |
1,9,17, 28 |
None |
1, 9, 17, 28 |
|
Blockade |
13, 5, 4, 22, 8, 27, 11, 25, 12, 23, 15, 24, 7, 19 |
4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 19, 23 |
12, 15, 22, 24, 25, 27 |
|
Spiritual |
16, 20 |
None |
16, 20 |
Note: Model
with 4 styles and 17 items.
On the other hand, in the evidence of validity of coping strategies, 4
models were tested. The first model was performed with the 14 factors of the
original version, which showed adjustment rates below the established, which
led to the purification of the strategies of acceptance, denial,
self-incrimination and relief (Table 5) that had factorial loads <0.30.
Subsequently, three other models were tested, which show good goodness
adjustments; however, the fourth model consists of 10 strategies with adequate
fit indices SB-χ²/gl=1.902; CFI=0.96; TLI=0.95,
SRMS=0.056 and RMSEA=0.069 and meet the statistical criteria (Brown, 2015) to
determine that BRIEF COPE 28 presents acceptable psychometric properties (Table
3).
Table 5. Strategies that make up each of the models of
confirmatory factor analysis.
|
Model 1 (14 strategies) |
Items |
Model 2 (13 strategies) |
Items |
Model 3 (12 strategies) |
Items |
Model 4 (10 strategies) |
Items |
|
Active coping |
2,10 |
Active coping |
2,10 |
Active coping |
2,10 |
Active coping |
2,10 |
|
Planning |
6,26 |
Planning |
6,26 |
Planning |
6,26 |
Planning |
6,26 |
|
Positive reassessment |
14, 18 |
Positive reassessment |
14, 18 |
Positive reassessment |
14, 18 |
Positive reassessment |
14, 18 |
|
Acceptance |
3, 21 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Emotional support |
9,17 |
Emotional support |
9,17 |
Emotional support |
9,17 |
Emotional support |
9,17 |
|
Social support |
1, 28 |
Social support |
1, 28 |
Social support |
1, 28 |
Social support |
1, 28 |
|
Negation |
3,5 |
Negation |
3,5 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Self-distraction |
4,22 |
Self-distraction |
4,22 |
Self-distraction |
4,22 |
Self-distraction |
4,22 |
|
Self-incrimination. |
8,27 |
Self-incrimination. |
8,27 |
Self-incrimination. |
8,27 |
- |
- |
|
Disconnection |
11,25 |
Disconnection |
11,25 |
Disconnection |
11,25 |
Disconnection |
11,25 |
|
Relief |
12,23 |
Relief |
12,23 |
Relief |
12,23 |
- |
- |
|
Substance use |
15,24 |
Substance use |
15,24 |
Substance use |
15,24 |
Substance use |
15,24 |
|
Humour |
7,19 |
Humour |
7,19 |
Humour |
7,19 |
Humour |
7,19 |
|
Religion |
16,20 |
Religion |
16,20 |
Religion |
16,20 |
Religion |
16,20 |
Note: The four
models with their coping strategies.
DISCUSION
The objective of this study was to determine the psychometric evidence
of reliability and validity of BRIEF COPE 28, Spanish version (Morán et al.,
2010) in a Peruvian population. The results of the internal consistency
analysis show item-test correlations superior to 0.223 and acceptable reliability
values in cognitive style, social support, blocking coping and spiritual.
Likewise, it was reported that in 8 coping strategies, the ordinal alpha ranges
from 0.72 to 0.93 (Furr, 2011; Reidl-Martínez, 2013), while the lowest values
were evidenced in self-distraction and planning.
These results are similar to studies that reported alpha coefficients
greater than 0.80 for coping styles (Cramer et al., 2020). Regarding coping
strategies, some studies reported similar reliability values between 0.71 and
0.82 (Baumstarck et al., 2017), 0.64 (Amoyal et al., 2016), 0.57 (Baumstarck
et al., 2017) and 0.93 (Tang et al., 2021). It is also consistent with low
scores for distraction (α=0.43) and high scores for substance use (α=0.88) (Nunes
et al., 2021). On the other hand, similarities were found in item-test
correlations greater than 0.20 (Amoyal et al., 2016),
between 0.20 and 0.63 (Tang et al., 2021) and between 0.30 and 0.80 (Morán et
al., 2010).
Regarding the evidence of validity, the model with the greatest
adjustment of goodness was that of 17 items with the four coping styles, whose
indices of χ²=1.836; CFI=0.92; TLI=0.90 were adequate; however, the parsimony
adjustments SRMS=0.09 and RMSEA=0.10 present values higher than the established
statistical criterion (Brown, 2015). This indicates that the model of 17 items
only has adjustment in relative Chi-square and in the comparative indices,
which coincide with what was found in systematic studies since it reaffirms the
inconsistency of the internal structure, especially in the number of factors
extracted and the fit of the models (Solberg et al., 2022).
On the other hand, some studies have also reported the presence of four
factors with good adjustment in the RMSEA = 0.047 and CFI = 0.923 (Baumstarck et al., 2017); the same was found in an
exploratory factor analysis, whose four factors explain 52% of the variance
(Morán et al., 2010). However, it differs from studies that reported a
three-factor structure GFI=0.924; TLI=0.904; RMSEA=0.039 (Alghamdi, 2020);
similarly, it disagrees with the four-factor adjustment indices CFI=0.089;
RMSEA=0.108; SMRM=0.078 reported in aggressive people (Cramer et al., 2020),
and with all three factors found in a sample of Chinese children (Tang et al.,
2021).
Regarding the coping strategies, the fourth model, consisting of ten
strategies, was found to have an optimal-fit-index χ²=1,902; CFI=0.96;
TLI=0.95; SRMS=0.056, RMSEA=0.069 (Brown, 2015), but the second and third
models with 13 and 12 strategies were also found to have a good fit (see Table
3). The result found differs from the internal structure of 14 strategies in
the Portuguese sample χ2=1.06; CFI=0.99; RMSEA=0.02 (Nunes et al., 2021), in
the Chilean adaptation (García et al., 2018) and in the sample of breast cancer
survivors (Rand et al., 2019). It also differs from the internal structure of 8
factors CFI = 0.937; TLI=0.908; RMSEA=0.091 (Richard's et al., 2021) and from
the internal structure of 6 factors (Amoyal et al.,
2016).
With what it is reported in this research and other cited studies, it is
found that the internal structure of COPE 28 has important variations in terms
of the original (Carver et al., 1989); these variations are explained due to
the context and characteristics of the studied samples (Solberg et al., 2022)
but it should be noted that the four coping styles maintain its structure,
reflecting the theoretical consistency of the instrument.
On the other hand, the methodological implications extracted allow
evaluating the instrument from a dispositional and situational perspective to
improve the internal structure of COPE 28 (Carver & Connor-Smith, 2010)
since coping styles present less adjustment and require more robust
methodologies. However, in general terms, the results obtained from COPE 28
show adequate psychometric properties that can be contrasted with other
studies.
Limitations
Regarding limitations, the selection of the sample was carried out with
a non-probabilistic method, which interferes to generalize results; in
addition, the sample size had an important influence on the fit of the reported
models. On the other hand, the collection technique used is prone to biases
that can influence the results. For this reason, other studies suggest
increasing the sample size and better characterizing it to achieve better
heterogeneity. It is also suggested to use the instrument in different contexts
and populations to further improve internal consistency.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Spanish version of BRIEF Cope 28 presents adequate
evidence of validity and reliability. Regarding coping styles, the four-style
model obtains good comparative fit, but not in the parsimony index, so the
results are not yet conclusive. On the other hand, the model of 10 factors or
coping strategies has optimal adjustment rates, which allows us to affirm that
COPE 28 has adequate validity.
ORCID
Neicer Joel Delgado
Requejo. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8387-5694
Julio César Castillo Ramos. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7582-5045
Lourdes Carolina Cerda Sánchez. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3704-0585
AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTION
Neicer Joel Delgado
Requejo: Introduction, methods, processing, statistical analysis, results, APA
style.
Julio Cesar Castillo Ramos: Methodology and discussion.
Lourdes Carolina Cerda Sánchez: results, discussion and spell checking.
FUNDING SOURCE
This study did not receive funding.
CONFLICTO DE INTERESES
The authors declare that there were no conflicts of interest in the
collection of data, analysis of information, or writing of the manuscript.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Not applicable.
REVIEW PROCESS
This study has been reviewed by external peers in double-blind mode. The
editor in charge was David Villarreal-Zegarra The review process is included as
supplementary material 1.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The database in SPSS and R Studio are attached as supplementary material
2 and 3.
DISCLAIMER
The authors are responsible for all statements made in this article.
REFERENCES
Alghamdi, M. (2020). Cross-cultural validation and psychometric
properties of the arabic brief cope in Saudi
population. Medical Journal of Malaysia, 75(5), 502–509. https://doi.org/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32918417/
Amoyal, N., Fernandez, A. C., Ng, R., & Fehon, D. C. (2016). Measuring coping behavior
in liver transplant candidates: A psychometric analysis of the brief cope. Progress
in Transplantation, 26(3), 277–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1526924816655253
American Psychological Association (2017). Ethical principles of
psychologists and code of conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/
Arifin, W. N. (2023). Calculadora de
tamaño de muestra
(web). http://wnarifin.github.io
Ato, M., López, J., & Benavente, A. (2013). Un sistema de clasificación de los diseños de investigación en psicología Introducción Un marco conceptual para la investigación.
[A classification system for research designs in psychology Introduction A
conceptual framework for research]. Anales
de Psicología, 29(3), 1038–1059. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=16728244043
Baltar, F., & Gorjup, M. T. (2012). Muestreo
mixto online: Una aplicación
en poblaciones ocultas. Intangible Capital, 8(1), 123–149. https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.294
Baumstarck, K., Alessandrini, M.,
Hamidou, Z., Auquier, P., Leroy, T., & Boyer, L.
(2017). Assessment of coping: A new french
four-factor structure of the brief COPE inventory. Health and Quality of
Life Outcomes, 15(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0581-9
Brooks, S. K., Webster, R. K., Smith, L. E., Woodland, L., Wessely, S.,
Greenberg, N., & Rubin, G. J. (2020). The psychological impact of
quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. The Lancet,
395(10227), 912–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30460-8
Brown, T. a. (2015). Methodology in the Social Sciences. In
Methodology in the Social Sciences.
Cano, F., Rodríguez, L., & Garcia, J. (2007). Adaptación
española del Inventario de Estrategias de Afrontamiento. 51 Actas Esp Psiquiatr, 35(1), 29–39. https://fjcano.info/images/test/CSI_art_esp.pdf
Carver, C. S., & Connor-Smith, J. (2010). Personality and coping. Annual
Review of Psychology, 61, 679–704. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100352
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, K. J. (1989). Assessing
Coping Strategies: A Theoretically Based Approach. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 56(2), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267
Cassaretto Bardales, M., & Chau
Perez-Aranibar, C. (2016). Afrontamiento al Estrés: Adaptación del Cuestionario COPE en Universitarios de Lima. Revista
Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico
y Evaluación - e Avaliação Psicológica, 42(2), 95–109. https://doi.org/10.21865/ridep42_95
Cramer, R. J., Braitman, A., Bryson, C. N., Long, M. M., & La
Guardia, A. C. (2020). The Brief COPE: Factor Structure and Associations with
Self- and Other-Directed Aggression Among Emerging Adults. Evaluation and
the Health Professions, 43(2), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278719873698
Dijkstra, M. T. M., & Homan, A. C. (2016). Engaging in rather than
disengaging from stress: Effective coping and perceived control. Frontiers
in Psychology, 7, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01415
Domínguez, S. (2014). ¿Matrices Policóricas/tetracóricas o Matrices Pearson? Un estudio
metodológico. Revista
Argentina de Ciencias Del Comportamiento,
6(1), 39–48.
Echevarría, H. (2016). Los diseños de investigación cuantitativa en psicología y educación; Primera ed).
Folkman, S. (2008). The case for positive emotions in the stress
process. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 21(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615800701740457
Folkman, S. (2010). Stress, coping, and hope. Psycho-Oncology,
19, 901–908. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.1836
Furr, R. M. (2011). Scale construction and psychometrics for Social
and Personality Psychology.
García, F. E., Barraza-peña, C. G.,
Wlodarczyk, A., Alvear-carrasco, M., & Reyes-reyes, A. (2018). Psychometric properties of the Brief-COPE
for the evaluation of coping strategies in the Chilean population. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 31(22), 3–11. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-018-0102-3
Guillén-Díaz-Barriga, C., Díaz-Sosa, D. M., Hernández Cariño, L. M.,
Vega Ramírez, E. H., & Robles García, R. (2021). Desempeño
psicométrico de la Escala Brief COPE en hombres que tienen sexo con hombres. Enseñanza
e Investigación En Psicología, 3(2), 46–58. https://www.revistacneip.org/index.php/cneip/article/view/174
Kim, K. H. (2005). La relación entre los índices de ajuste, la potencia y el tamaño de la muestra en el
modelado de ecuaciones estructurales. Modelado
de ecuaciones estructurales,
12(3), 368-390
Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Estrés
y procesos cognitivos. In
Martínez Roca.
Lazarus, R. S. (2006). Emotions and interpersonal relationships: Toward
a person-centered conceptualization of emotions and
coping. Journal of Personality, 74(1), 9–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00368.x
Mate, A. I., Andreu, J. M., & Pena, M. E. (2016). Psychometric
properties of the Spanish version of the Brief COPE Inventory (COPE-28) in a
sample of teenagers. Behavioral Psychology-Psicologia Conductual, 24(2),
305–318.
Morán, C., Landero, R., & González, M. T. (2010). COPE-28: Un análisis psicométrico de la versión en español
del brief COPE. Universitas Psychologica,
9(2), 543–552. http://pepsic.bvsalud.org/pdf/up/v9n2/v9n2a20.pdf
Nunes, C., Pérez-Padilla, J., Martins, C., Pechorro,
P., Ayala-Nunes, L., & Ferreira, L. I. (2021). The brief cope: Measurement
invariance and psychometric properties among community and at-risk portuguese parents. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(6), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18062806
Rand, K. L., Cohee, A. A., Monahan, P. O., Wagner, L. I., Shanahan, M.
L., & Champion, V. L. (2019). Coping Among Breast Cancer Survivors: A
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Brief COPE. Journal of Nursing
Measurement, 27(2), 259–276. https://doi.org/10.1891/1061-3749.27.2.259
Reidl-Martínez, L. M. (2013). Confiabilidad en la medición. Investigación En Educación Médica, 2(6),
107–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2007-5057(13)72695-4
Richard’s, M. M., Krzemien, D., Comesaña, A.,
Zamora, E. V., & Cupani, M. (2021). Confirmatory factor analysis of the
Spanish version of the brief-COPE in Argentine elderly people. Current
Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01285-z
Santos, T., Uva, A. D. S., Rodrigues, J. F.,
Ferreira, R., Monteiro, D., Hernández-Mendo, A., & Rodrigues, F. (2022).
The Future Looks Good: Examining the Associations Between Coping, Psychological
Distress, and Optimism. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(May), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.838835
Solberg, M. A., Gridley, M. K., & Peters, R. M. (2022). The Factor
Structure of the Brief Cope: A Systematic Review. Western Journal of Nursing
Research, 44(6), 612–627. https://doi.org/10.1177/01939459211012044
Tang, W. P. Y.,
Chan, C. W. H., & Choi, K. C. (2021). Factor structure of the Brief Coping
Orientation to Problems Experienced Inventory in Chinese (Brief-COPE-C) in
caregivers of children with chronic illnesses. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 59, 63–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2021.01.002