Scale Development of Meaning-Focused Coping

This article was downloaded by: [Peking University], [Yiqun Gan]
On: 22 December 2012, At: 20:16
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Loss and Trauma:
International Perspectives on Stress &
Coping
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/upil20
Scale Development of Meaning-Focused
Coping
Yiqun Gan a , Mingzhu Guo a & Jing Tong a
a Department of Psychology, Peking University, Beijing, China
Accepted author version posted online: 02 Apr 2012.
To cite this article: Yiqun Gan , Mingzhu Guo & Jing Tong (2013): Scale Development of Meaning-
Focused Coping, Journal of Loss and Trauma: International Perspectives on Stress & Coping, 18:1,
10-26
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2012.678780
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of Loss and Trauma, 18:10–26, 2013
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1532-5024 print=1532-5032 online
DOI: 10.1080/15325024.2012.678780
Scale Development of Meaning-Focused
Coping
YIQUN GAN, MINGZHU GUO, and JING TONG
Department of Psychology, Peking University, Beijing, China
Downloaded by [Peking University], [Yiqun Gan] at 20:16 22 December 2012
The objectives of the current study were to develop an inventory
that measures meaning-focused coping and to explore its reliability
and validity. In total, 668 middle school students who had experienced
significant negative events were recruited. The Meaning-
Focused Coping Questionnaire included 26 items within eight
dimensions: Changes in Situational Beliefs, Changes in Global
Beliefs, Changes in Goals, Meaning Making, Long-Term Prevention
Strategies, Rational Use of Resources, Acceptance, and Heuristic
Thinking. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the questionnaire
had good construct validity. The results based on item
response theory indicated that all of the item discrimination values
were greater than 0.5.
KEYWORDS classical test theory, item response theory, meaningfocused
coping, meaning-making, validity
Meaning-focused coping (MFC) has been proposed as an important type of
coping that is distinct from problem-focused coping and emotion-focused
coping (Park & Folkman, 1997). Meaning-focused coping does not attempt
to change a problematic situation, and it does not directly decrease pressure
that is caused by negative emotions or distress. Instead, it aims to change the
ways in which an individual evaluates a situation and to better reconcile beliefs,
goals, and stressful situations (Pearlin, 1991). Many studies have demonstrated
that meaning-focused coping and adaptation are related (Holahan, Moos,
Holahan, & Brennan, 1995), especially when an uncontrollable stressor, such
Received 3 February 2012; accepted 16 March 2012.
Preparation of this article was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China
(Project Number 31070913). This research was also partly sponsored by the Jet Li One
Foundation Project.
Address correspondence to Yiqun Gan, Department of Psychology, Peking University,
Beijing 100871, China. E-mail: ygan@pku.edu.cn
10

Meaning-Focused Coping 11
Downloaded by [Peking University], [Yiqun Gan] at 20:16 22 December 2012
as illness or loss, is involved (Moskowitz, Folkman, Collette, & Yittinghoff,
1996).
In the coping process of meaning evaluation, the individual evaluates the
positive meaning of an event or events. The person must answer questions,
such as ‘‘Why did this happen?’’ (e.g., Dollinger, 1986), ‘‘Why did this happen
to me?’’ (e.g., Frazier & Schauben, 1994), and ‘‘What part(s) of my life changed
after the incident?’’ (e.g., Collins, Taylor, & Skokan, 1990). Park and Folkman
(1997) noted that meaning-focused coping may yield positive consequences
by strengthening social resources and enhancing personal resources.
Folkman (2009) noted the need to develop a questionnaire about
meaning-focused coping. She commented that meaning-focused coping is
often measured at a very early stage and that a variety of coping-related tools
must be developed, especially tools that facilitate stress-related growth and
benefit-seeking. In addition, most studies that have assessed meaning-focused
coping have been limited in scope. For example, some studies have examined
meaning-focused coping using certain dimensions of the COPE scale that was
developed by Carver (1997), whereas others have assessed only emotional
processes (the processes by which an individual understands his or her
feelings) and failed to include cognitive processes (e.g., Stanton, Danoff-Burg,
& Huggins, 2002). Moreover, some studies use very simple questions, such as
‘‘How often have you found yourself searching to make sense of your illness?’’
or ‘‘Why me?’’ (e.g., Roberts, Lepore, & Helgeson, 2006).
Therefore, it is important to develop a new measure that can effectively
and systematically reflect the processes that are involved in meaning-focused
coping strategies. The aim of the current study was to develop a meaningfocused
coping questionnaire for this purpose.
CHANGES IN GLOBAL BELIEFS AND SITUATIONAL BELIEFS
One highlight of the existing research about MFC is the meaning-making
model proposed by Park and colleagues (Park & Folkman, 1997). According
to this model, a person who suffers a significant loss tends to perceive a discrepancy
between situational meaning (the appraised meaning of the event)
and global meaning (the set of beliefs that the individual usually holds) that
induces psychological distress. This discrepancy leads an individual to
engage in meaning-making processes in which he or she changes either
situational or global meanings (or both) that are related to a stressful event
to reduce the existing discrepancy and psychological distress.
However, the meaning-making model does not differentiate between
changes to global meaning and situational meaning, although making
changes to one type of meaning or the other may yield different adaptation
outcomes. If people who suffer a loss change their sense of global meaning
by concluding that the world is less fair, benevolent, and controllable than

12 Y. Gan et al.
they previously imagined, will they become better adjusted because doing so
minimizes the discrepancy between their worldview and the situation in
question? This idea is contrary to the results of previous studies (e.g., Xie,
Liu, & Gan, 2011) and even to what we know based on common sense.
Xie et al. (2011) found that 5 months after the Sichuan earthquake, earthquake
survivors believed more strongly in the justice of the world than did
university students who had not experienced the earthquake. This belief in
the justice of the world helped the earthquake survivors reduce their levels
of uncertainty, anxiety, and depression.
Downloaded by [Peking University], [Yiqun Gan] at 20:16 22 December 2012
THE ROLE OF MODERN TEST THEORY IN DEVELOPING
QUESTIONNAIRES
Classical test theory (CTT) is mainly associated with the true score model.
Although CTT is a common method of preparing psychological tests, it has
three shortcomings: (a) Because item analysis in CTT was conducted based
on project statistics, test results are seriously impacted by the random differences
between samples; (b) CTT cannot predict the probability of a correct
participant response within a new project; and (c) CTT assumes that the standard
error of measurement is equal for all participants, which is impossible.
Modern test theory was developed to address these three issues.
Item response theory (IRT) is comprised of a set of systems and
mathematical models for test scoring, item analysis, and reliability analysis
(Thissen & Steinberg, 2009). By defining the parameters of the functional
relationships between explicit responses and potential characteristic variables,
IRT estimates both tested abilities and item parameters using parameter
estimation. Thus, IRT is a more intuitive and precise method than a
CTT-based assessment in assessing the properties of each project and the
abilities of each participant.
In developing psychological tests, one should often combine classical
and modern test theories. Item response theory can test and analyze item
information, discrimination, and project characteristics using traditional
exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. In the past, some
researchers (e.g., Andrew & Petrides, 2010) have successfully applied IRT
approaches to the development of psychological questionnaires.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES OF THE PRESENT STUDY
Since Park and Folkman (1997) proposed the construct of meaning-focused
coping, other researchers (e.g., Schwarzer & Knoll, 2003) have provided evidence
indicating that method of coping does indeed occur. However, this
topic has not received widespread attention, and the number of related studies
has been relatively small. One reason for this lack of research may be

Meaning-Focused Coping 13
Downloaded by [Peking University], [Yiqun Gan] at 20:16 22 December 2012
that there is no reliable measure of meaning-focused coping (Folkman,
2009). Therefore, the objective of this research was to develop a reliable
questionnaire that reflects the meaning-making process, as proposed by Park
and Folkman (1997), and that is capable of differentiating between an individual’s
efforts to change his or her global beliefs and the individual’s efforts
to adjust his or her situational beliefs.
In the present study, we focused on students who had experienced an
earthquake in 2008. Our survey was conducted 2 years after the 2008 Sichuan
earthquake. By that time, the daily lives of the survivors would have essentially
returned to normal, and thus their coping mechanisms were expected
to exhibit long-term adaptation. They were asked to answer questions about
the changes that occurred in their lives due to the earthquake. Although the
initial restoration of the affected area has been completed, the impact of the
earthquake will last for a much longer period. Therefore, it is both necessary
and meaningful to study meaning-focused coping 2 years after the occurrence
of an earthquake.
We discuss meaning-focused coping in this uncontrollable, irreversible,
and traumatic situation and address the question of whether meaningfocused
coping plays a protective role in the long-term mental health of
the affected individuals. Toward this end, we tested two hypotheses. First,
we aimed to use CTT and IRT methods to develop a questionnaire about
meaning-focused coping, and thus the resulting instrument should have
adequate psychometric properties. Second, changes in situational meaning
will be better predictors of psychological adjustment than changes in global
meaning.
Participants and Procedures
SAMPLE 1
METHODS
We first conducted structured interviews with adolescents who had experienced
traumatic events. Purposeful sampling, which has been considered
an appropriate sampling approach in qualitative research (Marshall, 1996),
was used to select the interviewees. Two selection criteria were used: the
time that had elapsed since the traumatic incident and the impact and controllability
of the traumatic event. To differentiate between situational and
global meaning, only participants who had suffered trauma within 1 year
of our survey were selected. The respondents were instructed to rate the
impact and controllability of the event on 7-point scales. On the impact scale,
1 indicates a ‘‘very small’’ impact and 7 indicates a ‘‘very large’’ impact; on the
controllability scale, 1 indicates a ‘‘completely controllable’’ event, whereas a
rating of 7 indicates a ‘‘completely uncontrollable’’ event. We screened the

14 Y. Gan et al.
Downloaded by [Peking University], [Yiqun Gan] at 20:16 22 December 2012
respondents to identify those who met our criteria, having reported both
impact and controllability values that were greater than 4. The recruitment
process was ended after the maximum amount of possible information had
been obtained from the interviews. The final sample that was selected for
further interviews was comprised of 15 middle school or university students,
each of whom had experienced a critical illness, a natural disaster, or the loss
of a family member. Four of these students were male, and 11 were female.
Two graduate students who had majored in clinical psychology conducted
the interviews. The interviewees were assured that their responses would
be kept confidential and would only be used for the purpose of this study. All
15 respondents agreed that their responses could be recorded and provided
written informed consent.
The interview outline included 11 topics that addressed the five major
areas of meaning-focused coping proposed by Folkman (2007), as follows.
First, meaning-focused coping may involve readjusting the perceived priority
of events and developing a proactive attitude toward life in which loss is
accepted. For example, a mother who must give up her job to take care of
her sick child may newly assign family a higher priority level than she does
her career. Second, meaning-focused coping may involve goal adjustment.
Individuals may abandon the pursuit of unattainable goals and instead focus
their efforts solely on pursuing attainable goals. Third, meaning-focused
coping may also involve seeking benefits from the events encountered and
viewing them from a more positive perspective. A person who exhibits
meaning-focused coping might experience personal growth that will make
him or her more lenient, patient, and wise. A fourth potential method of
meaning-focused coping is the use of benefit reminders. These cues lead
individuals to remind themselves about the benefits of a traumatic event,
as mentioned above. Finally, meaning-focused coping can involve assigning
meanings to daily events and being appreciative of and grateful for usual and
trivial things. An example of a question that was asked during the interviews
was ‘‘Recall the way in which you handled the incident at the time that it
occurred. Did you try to think of any positive aspects of it?’’ Each interview
lasted approximately 40 minutes.
The original transcripts from each case were coded by two researchers.
The coding rubric organized the transcribed content into seven categories:
(a) changes in situational meaning (in which the interviewees reappraised
the meaning of the traumatic events), (b) rumination (repeated thinking
about why an event occurred or why it happened to a particular person),
(c) changes in global meaning (in which the usually held beliefs of an individual
are shaken), (d) acceptance (i.e., the individual accepts the trauma in
its entirety), (e) perspective and vision (i.e., the individual seeks a new perspective
on his or her daily life), (f) diverting attention away from the event,
and (g) the rational use of resources (which involves learning to use available
resources more reasonably).

Meaning-Focused Coping 15
Downloaded by [Peking University], [Yiqun Gan] at 20:16 22 December 2012
Folkman (2007) proposed five categories of meaning-focused coping
based on clinical observations. These five categories include general rather
than specific strategies (e.g., venting is a specific coping strategy). The interview
questions that were used in the current study were outlined according
to the five categories of meaning-focused coping that had been described by
Folkman (2007) and yielded measurements for 60 specific coping behaviors
within the seven aforementioned dimensions. These seven dimensions can
be regarded as parts of the process of meaning-making derived from the
qualitative data.
Investigator triangulation was used to maximize the reliability and validity
of the qualitative study (Golafshani, 2003). Two master’s students in
applied psychology (who both worked independently of the researchers
conducting the current study) were invited to collaborate in developing ideas
for and explanations of the coding and categorization of the interview data.
All of the investigators discussed their individual findings, and the group
reached a conclusion.
From the coded responses, we developed a 60-item initial questionnaire
that assessed the seven dimensions described here.
SAMPLE 2
Next, we sent 700 questionnaires to a middle school in Guangdong Province.
In total, 675 were returned; of those, 660 were valid, yielding an effective
response rate of 94.29%. Fifteen participants were excluded because more
than one-third of the data from each of their questionnaires was missing.
The same screening criteria that were used to screen the Sample 1 participants
were applied to this group; the participants were required to select
both controllability and impact ratings of at least 4 on a 7-point scale for
the event to be included in the later analysis. In total, 314 survey respondents
met our inclusion criteria; in the past two years, each included respondent
had experienced at least one significant negative life event and considered
this event to be both influential and uncontrollable. The data for these
individuals were retained for further analysis.
Of the 314 participants, 94 were men, 217 were women, and 3 did not
report their gender. In addition, 174 of the participants were in year 1 of middle
school, 126 were in year 2, and 14 did not indicate their grade in school.
The participants ranged from 15 to 27 years in age, and the mean age of the
sample was 17.62 years (SD ¼ 1.46). Respondents who completed all of the
questionnaires were compensated with a small gift.
SAMPLE 3
Next, 400 questionnaires were sent to middle schools in Mianyang City,
China. Mianyang was among the most strongly affected areas in the 2008

16 Y. Gan et al.
Downloaded by [Peking University], [Yiqun Gan] at 20:16 22 December 2012
Sichuan earthquake. Some of the school buildings collapsed, and the school
resources in the area were seriously damaged. Some students in this area had
family members and classmates who died or were seriously injured during
the earthquake.
In total, 371 of the 400 questionnaires were returned, and 339 of these
were valid; thus, the effective response rate was 84.8%. Of the valid respondents,
173 were boys, 160 were girls, and 6 did not report their gender; 163
students were in year 1, 175 were in year 2, and 1 did not report a grade. The
ages of the participants ranged from 14 to 19 years, and the mean age of the
group was 16.52 years (SD ¼ 0.80).
All of the participants signed informed consent forms. These forms
informed the participants that responding to the questionnaires might induce
uncomfortable feelings by asking them to recall traumatic events. The participants
were also informed that they should feel free to stop answering the
questions at any time and that their responses would be destroyed.
Measures
COPE
We used the ‘‘acceptance’’ and ‘‘positive reframing’’ dimensions of the
28-item Brief COPE that was developed by Carver (1997). The scale contains
14 dimensions, and each dimension includes two items. The endpoints of the
scales in this assessment are 1 (‘‘I do not usually do this’’) and 4 (‘‘I usually do
this’’) and are used to represent the extent to which a respondent employs
various coping strategies when faced with stressful events.
SELF-RATING DEPRESSION SCALE
The English version of the Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) was originally
developed by Zung, Durham, Richards, Gables, and Short (1965). The
Chinese version has been revised and has exhibited sound reliability and validity
(Zhang, 1993). The SDS is a 20-item, self-administered questionnaire
that measures depressive symptomatology. The scale endpoints in this questionnaire
are 1 (never or rarely) and 4 (most of the time). High scores indicate
high levels of depression. The Cronbach alpha for this measure as obtained
in the current study was .83.
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AFFECT SCHEDULE (PANAS)
PANAS is an adjective scale that was developed by Watson, Clark, and
Tellegen (1988). PANAS contains 20 items that measure both positive (e.g.,
interested) and negative (e.g., guilt) emotional states. The endpoints of this
scale are 1 (none or a little) and 5 (very much). The Cronbach alpha for

Meaning-Focused Coping 17
the Chinese version in the current study was .83 for positive affect and .86 for
negative affect.
INDEX OF WELL-BEING AND INDEX OF GENERAL AFFECT
Downloaded by [Peking University], [Yiqun Gan] at 20:16 22 December 2012
This scale was developed by Campbell, Converse, and Rodgers (1976) and
contains two parts: The index of general affect includes eight items and has
a weight of 1, and the index of life satisfaction includes one item and has a
weight of 1.1. This scale is widely used in empirical research. The Cronbach
alpha for the Chinese version of this scale, as obtained in the current study,
was .89.
RESULTS
Exploratory Factor Analysis and Item Analyses
Because our primary aim was to develop a scale, we retained only those
items that best represented meaning-focused coping, creating our measure
for this construct in the most parsimonious way possible. Thus, we conducted
a preliminary principal component analysis with oblique rotation using
the data that we had obtained from Sample 2. The pattern of factor loadings
showed that 17 items had values that were smaller than 0.3. Sixteen other
items had double loadings on two or more factors. These 33 items were
eliminated, yielding a set of 27 items that met our criteria for item retention.
These items were then subjected to principal axis factoring to assess the factor
structure of the meaning-focused coping model (see Table 1).
An eight-factor solution emerged. As shown in Table 2, the eigenvalues
for this solution ranged from 1.69 to 2.64, and the model explained 64.35% of
the total variance. The eight factors were as follows: Changes in Situational
Beliefs, Changes in Global Beliefs, Changes in Goals, Rumination, Long-Term
Prevention Strategies, Rational Use of Resources, Acceptance, and Heuristic
Thinking (see Table 1 for details regarding the factors). The scores for these
factors can also be summed to obtain a total MFC score.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted with the data from Sample 3 to
test the hypothesis that the eight dimensions mentioned above are dimensions
of meaning-focused coping. Several recommended measures of overall
goodness of fit were used, including the comparative fit index (CFI),
non-normed fit index (NNFI), root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA), and v 2 =df (Hu & Bentler, 1999) measures. For the CFI and the
NNFI, values of at least 0.90 are desired; these values are presumed to indicate
that the model fits the data acceptably well. The corresponding cutoff

18 Y. Gan et al.
TABLE 1 Factor Loadings of Meaning-Focused Coping Questionnaire (MFCQ).
Factor Item Loading
Downloaded by [Peking University], [Yiqun Gan] at 20:16 22 December 2012
Factor 1: Changes
in Situational
Beliefs
Factor 2: Meaning
Making
Factor 3: Changes
in Global Beliefs
Factor 4:
Long-Term
Prevention
Strategies
Factor 5: Rational
Use of
Resources
Factor 6:
Acceptance
Factor 7: Heuristic
Thinking
Factor 8: Changes
in Goals
31. I tried to consider the event from a broader standpoint. 0.83
32. I looked at the issue from a broader point of view. 0.81
30. When I handled other problems that arose after this 0.73
event, I could reflect on the matter from more
perspectives.
48. I forced myself to do something constructive. 0.51
10. I considered why the traumatic event happened at that 0.88
moment.
11. I considered why a traumatic event happened to me. 0.79
9. I considered the reasons that a traumatic event happens. 0.75
13. I wondered whether there is some special meaning in 0.61
the occurrence of this event.
5. I sought help from my faith and beliefs. 0.85
4. I believed in my faith and beliefs. 0.74
6. I tried to seek consolation from both my faith and beliefs. 0.74
3. I tried to seek consolation from my beliefs. 0.69
17. I adjusted my view on this matter continuously over 0.75
time.
19. Some time after the occurrence of the event, I
0.75
reconsidered my coping style.
18. I believed, due to the enrichment of my experience, I 0.72
could handle a traumatic event better.
57. I accepted love and understanding from others. 0.76
55. I gained strength from the help of others. 0.74
56. I tried to seize opportunities that could get me out of the 0.72
bad situation.
24. I have accepted the fact that something had happened 0.83
and that it could not be changed.
27. I learned to accept the event, and it has become a part 0.81
of my life.
26. I have accepted the fact that things have happened. 0.62
43. I changed some of my views. 0.68
34. I sought the opinions of others on this matter. 0.68
35. The words of my classmates or others gave me the 0.66
inspiration for a new idea.
2. I readjusted my goal(s) in life. 0.76
8. I sought a new outlook on life and reassessed my values. 0.67
1. During the course of events, I tried to establish new 0.60
values.
value for RMSEA is approximately 0.06. For the v 2 =df ratio, values that are
less than 3 indicate adequate model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The various
goodness of fit values for the questionnaire in this study were as follows:
v 2 =df ¼ 2.05, RMSEA ¼ 0.06, CFI ¼ 0.94, and NNFI ¼ 0.93.
Item Response Analysis
Test difficulty and differentiation were examined in the total sample of
653 participants (Sample 2 and Sample 3) using item response theory. The

Meaning-Focused Coping 19
TABLE 2 Eigenvalue and Percentage of Variance Explained by MFC Factors.
Rotated percentage of variance explained
Factor
Eigenvalue
Percentage of
variance explained
Cumulative percentage
of variance explained
Downloaded by [Peking University], [Yiqun Gan] at 20:16 22 December 2012
1 2.64 9.79 9.79
2 2.65 9.79 19.59
3 2.60 9.64 29.23
4 2.08 7.70 36.93
5 1.97 7.31 44.24
6 1.97 7.29 51.53
7 1.77 6.56 58.10
8 1.69 6.26 64.35
expectation-maximization algorithm method was used when data were missing.
M-plus 5.0 software was used to estimate and evaluate the model. The
model parameters were then converted to item response parameters. Finally,
S language (R software) was used to render the item characteristic curves and
the information function curves.
As shown in Table 3, the degrees of differentiation of the various items
ranged from 0.584 to 1.918 with the exception of that of item 43, which was
0.439. In total, the degrees of differentiation of 96% of the items examined
were larger than 0.5, which was reasonably consistent with the requirements.
In addition, project locations b1 tob4 were beyond the standard range ( 4,
4) for all of the items. Two specific examples are items 11 and 27. The item
information functions for these two items can be observed in the two topmost
right panels of Figure 1, which implies that these project locations have
TABLE 3 MFCQ Item Response Analysis.
Item a b1 b2 b3 b4 Item a b1 b2 b3 b4
30 1.12 2.71 1.40 0.35 1.02 55 1.00 2.78 1.16 0.17 1.51
31 1.92 1.73 0.79 0.07 0.98 56 0.76 3.22 1.62 0.16 1.39
32 1.46 2.19 1.02 0.06 1.20 57 0.75 3.62 1.83 0.56 1.14
48 0.56 3.50 1.74 0.13 2.04 24 0.66 2.29 0.74 0.26 1.49
9 1.10 1.92 0.89 0.09 1.11 26 1.64 1.94 1.01 0.19 0.65
10 1.91 1.23 0.34 0.27 1.09 27 0.68 2.92 1.30 0.07 1.72
11 1.11 1.79 0.64 0.13 1.33 34 0.71 2.28 0.94 0.28 2.16
13 0.58 2.88 1.29 0.26 2.06 35 1.40 2.13 0.89 0.19 1.62
3 0.87 1.78 0.56 0.45 2.09 43 0.44 4.66 1.29 0.90 3.53
4 1.04 1.81 0.78 0.12 0.95 1 0.98 2.35 0.19 0.82 2.14
5 1.98 1.26 0.32 0.36 1.40 2 0.93 1.51 0.26 1.20 2.26
6 1.15 1.63 0.43 0.42 1.72 8 0.64 2.67 0.32 0.80 2.35
17 1.03 2.01 0.97 0.13 1.19
18 1.08 2.55 1.65 0.73 0.46
19 0.93 2.43 1.35 0.24 1.06

20 Y. Gan et al.
Downloaded by [Peking University], [Yiqun Gan] at 20:16 22 December 2012
FIGURE 1 Test information for each dimension and the whole test.
approximately equal numbers of positive and negative values. This result, in
turn, means that these items are suitable for the average participant; they are
not skewed toward participants with high or low capabilities. However, b1of
item 43 was 4.657I; that is, it is beyond the standard range ( 4, 4). The item
information function for this item can be observed in the bottom right panel
of Figure 1. This was an extreme value, and thus we removed this item from
the scale.
Figure 1 shows each dimension and the test information function for the
distribution. As can be observed from the figure, dimensions 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and
8 and the test in its entirety follow a normal distribution; none of these
dimensions were skewed toward either the high-trait-level test of the distribution
or toward low-trait-level participants. However, dimension 1 appears
to follow a bimodal distribution, and dimension 3 appears to be abnormally
distributed. In addition, the test information function value was moderate
at 15.

TABLE 4 Convergent Validity of the MFCQ.
Meaning-Focused Coping 21
Factor
1
Factor
2
Factor
3
Factor
4
Factor
5
Factor
6
Factor
7
Factor
8
Total
score
Acceptance 0.20 0.06 0.03 0.20 0.24 0.53 0.12 0.09 0.28
Positive 0.35 0.20 0.27 0.23 0.29 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.39
reframing
Criterion item a 0.43 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.28 0.06 0.37 0.24 0.45
Note. The meaning-focused coping scored was the total score for acceptance and positive reframing.
Subjects came from earthquake-stricken areas (N ¼ 339).
a ‘‘To what extent do you attempt to create or find meaning from the significant loss?’’
p < .01.
Downloaded by [Peking University], [Yiqun Gan] at 20:16 22 December 2012
Convergent and Discriminant Validity
Following Affleck, the Acceptance and Positive Reframing dimensions from
the Brief COPE scales were used as criteria for establishing concurrent validity
(Affleck, Tennen, Croog, & Levine, 1987). The results showed that most
dimensions were significantly correlated with both Acceptance and Positive
Reframing and that most dimensions were also significantly correlated with
the item ‘‘To what extent did you attempt to create or find meaning from your
loss?’’ (data shown in Table 4). In addition, changes in situational meaning
were found to be more significantly related to positive psychological
outcomes than were changes in global meaning.
The overall scale reliability was 0.859, and the subscale reliability levels
were 0.801, 0.789, 0.804, 0.707, 0.627, 0.664, 0.603, and 0.616 for factors 1 to
8, respectively.
Criterion Validity of the MFCQ
The participants were divided into two groups, a high-stress-exposure group
(n ¼ 91) and a low-stress-exposure group (n ¼ 245), based on the number of
casualties among their family and friends and the severity of the damage to
TABLE 5 Means, Standard Deviations, and Pearson Correlations for Study Variables
(N ¼ 339).
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Meaning-focused coping 57.09 13.50 1.00
2. Posttraumatic growth 13.95 3.81 .51 1.00
3. Well-being 5.98 2.34 .33 .40 1.00
4. Positive affect 32.86 6.40 .47 .53 .54 1.00
5. Negative affect 22.95 6.11 .02 .09 .38 .21 1.00
6. Depression 54.47 5.22 .31 .27 .09 .34 .20 1.00
p < .05; p < .01.

22 Y. Gan et al.
their homes and belongings. An independent t test indicated that the mean
MFCQ score in the high-stress-exposure group (M ¼ 59.55, SD ¼ 13.59) was
higher than that of the low-stress-exposure group (M ¼ 56.09, SD ¼ 13.43),
t(334) ¼ 2.09, p < .05.
The means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlation coefficients for
the meaning-focused coping scores, posttraumatic growth scores, well-being
scores, depression subscale scores, and positive and negative affect scores
are shown in Table 5. The meaning-focused coping scores were positively
related to the posttraumatic growth, well-being, and positive affect scores,
whereas they were negatively related to the depression scores.
Downloaded by [Peking University], [Yiqun Gan] at 20:16 22 December 2012
DISCUSSION
A 26-item instrument was developed, and it was verified that the MFCQ
exhibited adequate psychometric properties, as evidenced by the results
across the two samples that were included in the present study. The underlying
eight dimensions of the MFCQ were identified in Sample 2 and validated
based on the acceptable fit statistics derived using Sample 3. The
traumatic events that were experienced by the participants in Sample 2 were
unique to each individual, whereas all of the participants in Sample 3 had
experienced the same earthquake. This difference between the types of participants
in the different samples allowed us to cross-validate the reliability of
the questionnaire.
Although the eight dimensions of our MFCQ can be summed to derive a
total MFCQ score, the correlation results suggested that each dimension had
a different function. For example, factor analyses generated factors that
included ‘‘changes in situational meaning’’ and ‘‘changes in global meaning,’’
as we expected. Moreover, changes in situational meaning were found to be
better predictors of psychological adjustment than were changes in global
meaning, which is also consistent with our initial hypothesis. This result
has important implications for clinical practice. Intervention programs should
facilitate changes in situational meanings to encourage better personal
adjustment.
The correlations among the MFCQ dimensions were low in magnitude,
as expected. The eight dimensions of the MFCQ were essentially the same as
the seven dimensions that we expected would be included prior to composing
the questionnaire. In addition to the predicted seven dimensions, values
and outlook on life emerged as an eighth dimension.
The differences among the MFCQ scores in the high-stress-exposure
group further strengthen the validity of the criteria used and indicate the
sensitivity of the new instrument. The more stress an individual has to
face, the more effort she or he will invest in developing and employing

Meaning-Focused Coping 23
Downloaded by [Peking University], [Yiqun Gan] at 20:16 22 December 2012
meaning-focused coping strategies. This result also validated a previous
suggestion that the positive function of MFC only manifests after traumatic
and uncontrollable events (Moskowitz et al., 1996).
This study used IRT to evaluate the project features, information functions,
and item difficulty and discrimination. On one level, the IRT analysis
confirmed the results of the CTT-based analysis; however, it also revealed
some limitations of our questionnaire.
The participants in all three of the samples were adolescents who were
between 14 and 20 years old. Based on the definition of MFC, it is clear that
two processes were involved in their coping strategies: the process of changing
the global meaning associated with the world and that of changing the
situational meaning associated with a specific set of events. These two processes
can be referred to as assimilation and adaptation. According to Piaget
(1972), in completing their cognitive development and developing their
logical thinking skills, adolescents enter a formal operational period that is
critical to assimilation and adaptation. The adolescent earthquake survivors
were in the midst of their cognitive development and resource accumulation
processes. Given the focus on cognitive adaptation in this study and that
meaning-focused coping skills (e.g., positive reappraisal and acceptance of
responsibility) develop in tandem with the cognitive development of adolescents,
these skills should be more salient and differentiated as individuals
grow older (Folkman, Lazarus, Pimley, & Novacek, 1987). However, this supposition
also implies that our findings could to some extent be generalized to
older, more experienced, and more mature populations. Thus, developing an
MFC questionnaire for adolescents who are facing traumatic events has
significant research and clinical implications.
Previous research has shown that MFC is a long-term process, which
makes it different from other types of coping. First, as Folkman (2007) noted,
we need to understand the coping process of reevaluating stress, especially
insofar as it results in the assignment of positive value to a situation. Second,
we need to understand how MFC functions in different stages of the coping
process. Third, the questionnaire should reflect the need to assess the effects
of clinical interventions. We developed this questionnaire with these aims in
mind.
IRT has contributed significantly to the development of our questionnaire.
First, we found that the degree of differentiation of all of the included
items was large; in addition, except in the case of item 43, the project location
b1 tob4 values for each item were beyond the standard range. Second, the
test information function value was only a low-to-moderate 15. According to
Qi, Dai, and Ding (2009), the test standard deviation should be less than or
equal to 0.20. The test standard deviation is exactly equal to the inverse
square of the test information function (SE(h) ¼ [I (h)] 1=2 ), which indicates
that the value of the test information function should be at least 25. However,
the relatively small number of test items in the present study made the

24 Y. Gan et al.
Downloaded by [Peking University], [Yiqun Gan] at 20:16 22 December 2012
requirements for each information item quite demanding. The information
function value for each item was required to be at least 0.96, which is a difficult
value to attain. Therefore, in follow-up studies, we should increase the
number of items to improve the quality of this questionnaire.
Finally, most of the subscale values and test information functions across
the distribution did not appear to be skewed toward either the high-capacity
test subjects or the low-ability participants, which indicates that the test is
suitable for the general population. Compared with classical test theory,
IRT better helps us to understand whether a project exhibits the appropriate
psychometric properties and is suitable to the capability requirements of the
participants.
The present study is a preliminary attempt to develop an instrument for
measuring meaning-focused coping skills and distinguishing between the
different adjustment outcomes that result from changes in situational beliefs
and changes in global beliefs. In composing the questionnaire, we combined
the methodologies of classical test theory with those of modern test theory.
This is a unique factor that contributes to the value of the present work.
Further research that examines the way in which meaning-focused coping
mechanisms protected the mental health of individuals who experienced
trauma over a long-term adaptation period could also provide evidence of
the validity of the MFCQ.
The present study has several limitations that should be noted. First,
because all of the included variables were assessed using self-reported data,
common method variance may explain some of the observed relationships
between the meaning-focused coping and other constructs, making our findings
misleading. Following the recommendations of Podsakoff, MacKenzie,
Lee, and Podsakoff (2003) regarding the control and assessment of common
method variance, we used different scale endpoints and formats for the
predictor and criterion measures to address this issue. In Study 2, Harman
one-factor tests were also conducted as a statistical remedy. The results
showed that the first factor in our factor analysis only accounted for
15.61% of the total variance, which suggests that common method variance
was not a significant problem in our study.
Second, we used a cross-sectional design to test convergent validity, as
is appropriate in psychometric studies. However, it would be useful to
include external criteria in the longitudinal data in future studies to
examine whether the MFCS could predict the degree to which an individual
will be able to adjust after a traumatic event or prevent the reoccurrence
of such events. Future research that uses a longitudinal design should
also further examine the three major coping styles and their mechanisms
during long-term adaptation and during different stages. The effects of
these coping styles on positive and negative mental health outcomes,
along with the effects of different types of stressors, should be further
examined.

Meaning-Focused Coping 25
REFERENCES
Downloaded by [Peking University], [Yiqun Gan] at 20:16 22 December 2012
Affleck, G., Tennen, H., Croog, S., & Levine, S. (1987). Causal attribution, perceived
benefits, and morbidity following a heart attack: An 8-year study. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 29–35.
Andrew, C., & Petrides, K. V. (2010). A psychometric analysis of the Trait Emotional
Intelligence Questionnaire-Short Form (TEIQue-SF) using item response theory.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 92, 449–457.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life:
Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage.
Carver, C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long:
Consider the Brief COPE. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 100.
Collins, R. L., Taylor, S. E., & Skokan, L. A. (1990). A better world or a shattered
vision? Changes in life perspectives following victimization. Social Cognition,
8, 263–285.
Dollinger, S. J. (1986). The need for meaning following disaster: Attributions and
emotional upset. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 300–310.
Evers, A., Kraaimaat, F., van Lankveld, W., Jongen, P., Jacobs, J., & Bijlsma, J. (2001).
Beyond unfavorable thinking: The Illness Cognition Questionnaire for chronic
diseases. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 1026–1036.
Folkman, S. (2007). Positive affect and meaning-focused coping during significant
psychological stress. In M. Hewstone, H. Schut, J. de Wit, K. van den Bos, &
M. Stroebe (Eds.), The scope of social psychology: Theory and application
(pp. 193–208). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Folkman, S. (2009). Questions, answers, issues, and next steps in stress and coping
research. European Psychologist, 14, 72–77.
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Pimley, S., & Novacek, J. (1987). Age differences in stress
and coping processes. Psychology and Aging, 2, 171–184.
Frazier, P. A., & Schauben, L. J. (1994). Causal attributions and recovery from rape
and other stressful life events. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13,
1–14.
Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and credibility in qualitative
research. Qualitative Report, 8, 597–607.
Holahan, C. J., Moos, R. H., Holahan, C. K., & Brennan, P. L. (1995). Social support,
coping, and depressive symptoms in a late-middle-aged sample of patients
reporting cardiac illness. Health Psychology, 14, 152–163.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Practice, 3,
522–525.
Moskowitz, J. T., Folkman, S., Collette, L., & Vittinghoff, E. (1996). Coping and mood
during AIDS-related caregiving and bereavement. Annals of Behavioral
Medicine, 18, 49–57.
Park, C. L., & Folkman, S. (1997). Meaning in the context of stress and coping.
General Review of Psychology, 1, 115–144.

26 Y. Gan et al.
Downloaded by [Peking University], [Yiqun Gan] at 20:16 22 December 2012
Pearlin, L. I. (1991). The study of coping: An overview of problems and directions. In
J. Eckenrode (Ed.), The social context of coping (pp. 261–276). New York, NY:
Plenum.
Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human
Development, 15, 1–12.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common
method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Qi, S., Dai, H., & Ding, S. (2009). Handbook of modern principles of educational and
psychological measurement. Beijing, China: High Education Press.
Roberts, K. J., Lepore, S. J., & Helgeson, V. S. (2006). Social-cognitive correlates of
adjustment to prostate cancer. Psycho-Oncology, 15, 183–192.
Schwarzer, R., & Knoll, N. (2003). Positive coping: Mastering demands and searching
for meaning. In S. J. Lopez, & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment:
A handbook of models and measures (pp. 393–409). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Stanton, A., Danoff-Burg, S., & Huggins, M. (2002). The first year after breast cancer
diagnosis: Hope and coping strategies as predictors of adjustment. Psycho-
Oncology, 11, 93–102.
Thissen, D., & Steinberg, L. (2009). Item response theory. In R. Millsap, & A.
Maydeu-Olivares (Eds.), The Sage handbook of quantitative methods in
psychology (pp. 148–177). London, England: Sage.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
Xie, X., Liu, H., & Gan, Y. (2011). Belief in a just world when encountering the 5=12
Wenchuan earthquake. Environment and Behavior, 43, 566–586.
Zhang, B., Wang, X., & Sun, H. (2001). A study on the prevalence of neurosis and its
cause over 20 years after the violent earthquake in Tangshan. Nervous Disease
and Mental Health, 1, 6–10.
Zhang, M. Y. (1993). Ranking scales for mental health. New York, NY: Human
Science Press.
Zung, W. W. K., Durham, N. C, Richards, C. B., Gables, C, & Short, M. J. (1965). A
self-rating depression scale. Archives of General Psychiatry, 12, 63–70.
Yiqun Gan is a professor at the Department of Psychology, Peking University, China.
She received her PhD from the Chinese University of Hong Kong in 1998. She has published
over 60 research papers, 16 in internationally refereed journals (indexed by SSCI)
as the first or corresponding author. Her research areas focus on coping, mental health,
and job burnout.
Mingzhu Guo is a master’s student in the Department of Psychology, Peking
University.
Jing Tong is a master’s student in the Department of Psychology, Peking University.