4.3 Article

Dimensions of Coping in Chronic Pain Patients: Factor Analysis and Cross-Validation of the German Version of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ-D)

期刊

REHABILITATION PSYCHOLOGY
卷 58, 期 4, 页码 386-395

出版社

EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHING FOUNDATION-AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0034358

关键词

CSQ; factor analysis; coping; fibromyalgia; chronic pain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ) by Rosenstiel and Keefe (1983) is one of the most widely used measures of coping strategies in pain patients, although its construct and factorial validity is dissatisfying. Verra, Angst, Lehmann, and Aeschlimann (2006) translated the full measure, which assesses eight different coping strategies, into German (CSQ-D). Our aim was to identify stable latent dimensions and present a shorter and more valid version of the CSQ-D. Methods: A principal axes factor analysis (PFA) and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were performed for specification and cross-validation of the new model. Thus, two independent samples of patients with fibromyalgia-like symptoms (n = 321, n = 162) completed questionnaire batteries that included the CSQ-D and measures of fibromyalgia (FM) impact, pain, depression, and anxiety. Results: The most interpretable result appeared to be a six-factor model with an acceptable fit. The first four factors, (1) Catastrophizing (2) Ignoring Pain (3) Diversion, and (4) Reinterpreting Pain, resemble the original scales by Rosenstiel and Keefe (1983). The Praying or Hoping scale split up into distinct (5) Praying and (6) Hoping dimensions. Except Praying, all coping strategies were significantly associated with measures of psychological health outcomes, pain, overall FM impact, or social support. Conclusions: The new short form, called CSQ-DS, is a valid and reliable instrument, composed of 26 items and assessing six coping strategies. Future investigations are recommended to further prove both the external and construct validity of the CSQ-DS.

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

4.3
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