4.2 Article

Measuring Coping Behavior in Patients With Major Burn Injuries: A Psychometric Evaluation of the BCOPE

期刊

JOURNAL OF BURN CARE & RESEARCH
卷 32, 期 3, 页码 392-398

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1097/BCR.0b013e318217f97a

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research in the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services in the US Department of Education [H133A070045]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Burn injuries involve significant physiological, psychological, and social challenges with which individuals must cope. Although the brief COPE (BCOPE) is frequently used, knowledge of its factor structure and construct validity is limited, thus limiting confidence with interpreting results. This study assessed psychometric properties of the BCOPE in hospitalized patients with burn injury. Participants had a major burn injury (n = 362). Measures assessed coping behavior and physical, psychological, and social functioning. Exploratory factorial analysis was conducted to evaluate patterns of coping strategies. To assess construct validity, the BCOPE scale scores were correlated with the distress measures across time points. Exploratory factorial analysis revealed seven factors accounting for 51% of total variance. The pattern matrix indicated four items loaded onto factor 1 (active coping = 0.47-0.80) and four onto factor 2 (avoidant coping = 0.59-0.73). The remaining factors were consistent with original scale assignments reported by Carver (Int J Behav Med 1997; 4:92-100). Construct validity of BCOPE scales (active and avoidant) was demonstrated by their association with the Davidson trauma scale, short form-12, and satisfaction with appearance scale. The results indicate that the BCOPE is valid, reliable, and can be meaningfully interpreted. Research using these factors may improve knowledge about interrelationships among stress, coping, and outcome, thus building the evidence base for managing distress in this population. (J Burn Care Res 2011;32:392-398)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据