Manual for the Children's Coping Strategies Checklist

Recommendations

Info

HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHILDREN’S COPING STRATEGIES CHECKLIST (CCSC) AND THE HOW I COPED UNDER PRESSURE SCALE (HICUPS) UP TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CCSC-R1 The Children's Coping Strategies Checklist (CCSC) is a self-report inventory in which children describe their coping efforts. The items for the scale were derived from several sources. An initial pool of items were adapted from the Behavior-based Coping Inventory (Wills, 1985). These items were supplemented with additional items that were seen as appropriate for children ages 9 - 13 and which were written to represent 11 dimensions of coping that were identified in a content analysis of coping in children of divorce (Sandler, Ayers, Bernzweig, Wampler, Harrison, Lustig, 1990). The 11 dimensions were Cognitive Decision Making (CDM), Direct Problem Solving (DPS), Seeking Understanding (SU), Positive Cognitive Restructuring (PCR), Expressing Feelings (EF), Physical Release of Emotion (PRE), Distracting Action (DA), Avoidant Action (AA), Cognitive Avoidance (CA), Emotion Focused Support (EFS) and Problem Focused Support (PFS) (Ayers, Sandler, Bernzweig, Harrison, Wampler, & Lustig, 1989). In addition, a non-coping Problem Behavior category was created which is similar to that found in prior coping scales. The content analysis that generated these dimensions were based on open ended descriptions of coping with divorce related stressors (i.e., problems between you and your mom; problems between you and you dad; and problems between your mom and dad) given by 60 children (ages 8-15) whose parents had divorced in the prior two years. There are two versions of this checklist, one assessing situation specific coping, in which children describe the coping efforts they employed to cope with a specific event (i.e. How I Coped Under Pressure Scale; HICUPS), and another which tapped the child's dispositional style of coping, that is how they usually cope Awhen faced with a problem@ (i.e., CCSC). Earlier versions of this scale have been used in prior studies at the Program for Prevention Research (PIRC). Ayers, Sandler, West, and Roosa (1990) reported a confirmatory factor analysis of seven of the eleven dimensions. This study found that a five dimensional structure provided the best fit for the data (problem-focused strategies, positive cognitive restructuring, distraction strategies, avoidance strategies and support-seeking strategies). The study also tested a structural model that suggested that problemfocused strategies lead to lower depression and conduct disorder and higher self-esteem. Positive cognitive restructuring lead to lower conduct disorder. Distraction strategies lead to higher conduct disorder and higher depression and avoidant strategies lead to lower self-esteem. More recently, Ayers et al., (1996) examined the dimensional structure of the CCSC using two samples of 9-13 year old children from predominately lower and middle class families. One sample was comprised of children who attended a preventive intervention for children who perceived their parents as problem drinkers (e.g., Stress Management Awareness Program). Children in the other sample were recruited from three school districts in the Phoenix metropolitan area (e.g., Family Influences Survey). Analysis of these datasets revealed that a four dimensional structure (composed of active coping strategies; i.e. CDM, DPS, SU, and PCR; distraction strategies; i.e. PRE and DA; avoidance strategies; i.e. CA and AVA; and support seeking strategies; i.e. PFS and EFS) fit the data better than either the two dimensional structures of problem versus emotion-focused coping proposed by Lazarus and Folkman (1984) or the approach (active) versus avoidant (passive) coping conceptualization offered by Moos and his colleagues (Ebata & Moos, 1991). This underlying four dimensional structure was supported for both the dispositional (i.e., CCSC) and situational (i.e., HICUPS) measures of coping, and although the factor structures were generally similar, factor loadings and correlations between dimensions across the two measures were not equivalent (i.e., the measures were not factorially invariant). Manual for CCSC & HICUPS page 4
In cross-sectional structural equation models, across the two separate samples, Ayers (1991) found that the use of active coping strategies was related to higher self-esteem and lower self-reports of depression, whereas the use of avoidant coping strategies was related to increases in self-report of depression and conduct disorder and a decrease in self-esteem. It should be noted that these effects are primarily within reporter, few significant relationships emerged when examining the cross-sectional structural equation models where children's self-report of coping and parent's report of child's symptomatology was used. Sandler, West, & Tein (1994) conducted a cross-sectional and prospective longitudinal study of coping using a very similar version of CCSC as mentioned above with a sample of children whose parents had recently divorced (i.e., Divorce Adjustment Project, see Appendix B for complete description of the changes in the CCSC during this project). They found that active coping was related to lower levels of depression over a five-month period after controlling for initial depression. Furthermore, distraction strategies were found to be prospective predictors of lower internalizing symptoms (Sandler et al., 1994). More significant revisions of the CCSC and HICUPS were made for use in the evaluation of New Beginnings program for mothers and children of divorce (and thus were labeled CCSC-R1 and HICUPS-R1). There was an interest in further investigation of and discrimination between the various forms of both Positive Cognitive Restructuring and Cognitive Avoidance dimensions of coping. The Positive Cognitive Restructuring dimension was broken into four underlying dimensions; Positive Focus (POS), Optimism (OPT), Control (CON) and Minimization (MIN) all of which were hypothesized to load on a Positive Cognitive Restructuring latent factor. Four items were re-written or written to represent each of these four dimensions. Positive Cognitive Restructuring as a latent factor was still conceptualized as thinking about the stressor in ways that emphasize the more positive aspects of the situation or that attenuate its negative implications for the child's well being. The additional subscales represent an attempt to broaden and refine the types of positive cognitions that were assessed. The Cognitive Avoidance dimension was broken down into two underlying dimensions; Repression (REP) and Wishful Thinking (WT) and these were combined with Avoidant Actions dimensions (as in the past) to represent the Avoidance latent factor. Again, four items were re-written or written to represent each of these two new dimensions. Some modifications in the items that assessed Support Seeking Strategies were made for the New Beginnings Project. These changes primarily consisted of removing from the items any reference to the person to whom the child sought support for feelings or support in their problem solving efforts. Due to theoretical interests and space limitations on the batteries, the New Beginnings project did not include the dimensions that assessed Distraction coping (i.e., PRE or DA). Sandler, Pitts, and Tein (1995), using a sample of 354 9-12 year old children of divorce, found during initial analyses that a three factor latent model of coping composed of a Problem Focused Coping (CDM, DPS and SU), Positive Cognitive Restructuring (POS, CON and OPT), and Avoidance Coping (AA, REP, and WT) provided a good fit to the data. The Minimization subscale did not discriminate well among the coping dimensions (i.e., high cross loadings across latent factors) and was dropped from the models. In addition, Sandler and colleagues (1995) found that when the Problem Focused Coping and Positive Cognitive Restructuring were combined into a single latent factor of Active Coping (as has been done in previous work) the unique effects of Positive Focus and Control were negatively related to children's self-report of anxiety and the unique effect of Optimism was negatively related to children's reports of depression. Other recent papers that have utilized the data from the New Beginnings Project (i.e. Pitts, Sandler, and Tein, 1995; Sandler, Tein, Mehta, Wolchik, and Ayers, (in press); Tein, Pitts, and Sandler, 1995) and which make contributions to both the development of the checklist and that have examined the relationships between various aspects of coping and other important constructs are also available. Manual for CCSC & HICUPS page 5
Page 1 and 2: MANUAL FOR THE CHILDREN’S COPING
Page 3: TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE HISTORY OF T
Page 7 and 8: DISTRACTION STRATEGIES 3 Physical R
Page 9 and 10: CHILDREN’S COPING STRATEGIES CHEC
Page 11 and 12: Repression (REP) You just forgot ab
Page 13 and 14: Sandler, I., N., Tein, J-Y., Mehta,
Page 15 and 16: PRE SUPF SUPA REP CDM OPT SUPF CON
Page 17 and 18: DPS SU WISH DA PRE SU 49. 50. 51. 5
Page 19 and 20: Published Articles Using this Versi
Page 21 and 22: The following pages describe the ea
Page 23 and 24: HOW I COPED UNDER PRESSURE SCALE (H
Page 25 and 26: Table A1. Dimensions of Children’
Page 27 and 28: Distracting Actions (DA) 1. Listen
Page 29 and 30: Table A4. Means, Standard Deviation
Page 31 and 32: Table A5. Means, Standard Deviation
Page 33 and 34: Distracting Actions (DA) 1. Listene
Page 35 and 36: Table A9. Internal Consistencies fo
Page 37 and 38: Slight changes were made to the CCS
Page 39 and 40: ___ 22. Cry by myself. ___ 23. Go f
Page 41 and 42: Test-Retest Reliabilities of the Ch

Manual for the Children's Coping Strategies Checklist

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?