A Rasch Validation of the

Coping Scale for Chinese Athletes

YAN Zi

The Hong Kong Institute of Education

27 June 2006 • PROMS HK 2006

PROMS HK 2006 1
 Introduction

Stress in sports and exercise

Negative influence caused by

stress

Coping
 Definition: constantly changing cognitive and behavioral effort
to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are
appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person

PROMS HK 2006 2
 Introduction

Coping
 Definition:
constantly changing cognitive and behavioral effort
to manage specific external and/or internal
demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding
the resources of the person

 Adaptive and Unadapted

consequence

PROMS HK 2006 3
 Introduction : Coping Strategy

Coping strategy
 Lazarus & Folkman

Problem-focused Coping (PC)

Emotion-focused Coping (EC)

 Endler & Parker

Problem-focused Coping (PC)

Emotion-focused Coping (EC)

Avoidance Coping (AC)

 Yoo & Park

Problem-focused Coping (PC)

Emotion-focused Coping (EC)

Avoidance Coping (AC)

Transcendence Coping (TC)

PROMS HK 2006 4
 Introduction : CSCA

Coping Scale for Chinese Athletes

(CSCA) （Si, Chung, Li, & Liu, 2003 ）

 4 subscales: PC, EC, AC, TC

 24 items

 5-point Likert scale

PROMS HK 2006 5
 Introduction : CSCA

Coping Scale for Chinese Athletes

(CSCA) （Si, Chung, Li, & Liu, 2003 ）

 Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients

PC=.72, EC=.77, AC=.76, TC=.74

 Confirmatory factor analysis

CFI = .911，TLI = .895，RMSEA = .046

PROMS HK 2006 6
 Rasch analysis answers …

Items cover enough range of respondents’

trait level?

Which items are the most difficult to

endorse? Which are the least?

Response category functions well?

……

PROMS HK 2006 7
 Method: Participants

367 elite athletes from mainland China

Mean SD Max Min

Age Male 20.6 3.5 37 14

Female 20.2 3.0 30 16

Total 20.5 3.3 37 14

Sports Training
Experience Male 6.3 3.6 22 1

Female 7.2 3.7 17 1

Total 6.6 3.6 22 1

PROMS HK 2006 8
 Method: Procedure

Winsteps （Linacre & Wright, 1998 ）

 Scale construct validity and calibration

 Appropriateness of the scale item

difficulty level

 Function of response categories

PROMS HK 2006 9
 Result : Summary Analysis
Person Measures Item Measures
Valid N 367 24
Mean Measure 0.29 0.00
OUTFIT MNSQ Mean 0.99 0.99
Max 2.82 1.33
Min 0.21 0.74
INFIT MNSQ Mean 1.00 1.00
Max 2.91 1.34
Min 0.20 0.74
Separation 1.60 8.12
Strata 2.47 11.16
Reliability 0.72 0.99

PROMS HK 2006 10
 Result : Summary Analysis

OUTFIT and INFIT Statistics for Each Item
Item Measure OUTFIT MNSQ INFIT MNSQ

1 -0.33 0.86 0.87

2 -0.12 0.81 0.8

3 -0.49 1.06 1.09

4 -0.64 0.94 0.96

5 -0.66 0.94 0.93

6 0.24 1.06 1.05

7 -0.37 1 0.96

8 0.29 1.05 1.05

9 -0.3 0.9 0.93

10 0.26 1.02 1.03

11 0 0.98 0.98

12 0.21 1.02 1.02

13 0.42 1.16 1.16

14 -0.13 0.74 0.74

15 -0.41 0.78 0.77

16 -0.67 0.87 0.91

17 0.17 1.1 1.13

18 -0.23 0.83 0.84

19 0.54 1.08 1.08

20 0.29 1.28 1.27

21 0.67 1.19 1.18

22 0.82 1.33 1.34

23 -0.07 0.81 0.81

24 0.51 0.99 0.99

PROMS HK 2006 11
 Result : Item-Person Map
INPUT: 367 STUS, 24 items MEASURED: 367 ATHS, 24 items, 5 CATS WINSTEPS 3.52
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Athletes MAP OF items
<more>|<rare>
2 +
|
|
. |
. |
|
# |
|
Item Difficulty
. |
.## T|
1 +
.## |
.##### |T Q22
.## S| Q21
.#### |
.######### | Q19 Q24
.###### |S Q13
.########## M| Q10 Q20 Q8
.########## | Q12 Q17 Q6
########### |
0 .######## +M Q11
### S| Q14 Q2 Q23
.#### | Q18
.### | Q1 Q9
# |S Q15 Q7
.# T| Q3
. | Q4
. | Q16 Q5
. |T
|
-1 +
|
. |
|
|

Person Ability |
|
|
|
|
-2 +
<less>|<frequ>

Note: EACH '#' IS 4.

Figure 1 Item-Person Map of the CSCA

PROMS HK 2006 12
 Result : Category Function

Category Statistics of 5-category Structure

• Category Measure and Step Calibration

Category OUTFIT INFIT Step Category

MNSQ MNSQ Calibration Measure

1 0.97 0.98 None -2.12

2 0.9 0.93 -0.54 -0.88

3 0.95 0.96 -0.64 -0.05

4 0.98 0.96 0.32 0.84

5 1.08 1.1 0.86 2.27

PROMS HK 2006 13
 Result : Category Function
• 5-category structure
CATEGORY PROBABILITIES: MODES - Structure measures at intersections
P ++---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------++
R 1.0 + +
O | |
B |1111 55|
A | 1111 Category 1 555 |
B .8 + 11 555 +
I | 11 55 |
L | 11 55 |
I | 11 55 |
T .6 + 1 55 +
Y | 11 5 |
.5 + 1 55 +
Category
O
F .4
2 |
+
1
1 55
5 |
+
| 11 333333 4444*44444 |
R | 22222*33 44*33 5 4444 |
E | 22222 33 *22 44 5*33 444 |
S .2 + 2222 333 1**22 55 33 444 +
P | 2222 33 44 11 **2 333 4444 |
O |222222 3333 444 5*1 222 333 444|
N | 333333 44444 55555 1111 22222 3333333 |
S .0 +*****************5555555 111111*******************+
E ++---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------++
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
ATH [MINUS] item MEASURE

Figure 2 Category Functions of 5-Category Structure

PROMS HK 2006 14
 Result : Category Function

Category Statistics of 4-category Structure

Category OUTFIT INFIT Step Category

MNSQ MNSQ Calibration Measure

1 0.94 0.95 None -1.96

2 0.97 0.99 -0.54 -0.54

3 1 0.97 -0.03 0.53

4 1.09 1.07 0.57 1.97

PROMS HK 2006 15
 Result : Category Function
• 4-category structure
CATEGORY PROBABILITIES: MODES - Structure measures at intersections
P ++--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------++
R 1.0 + +
O | |
B | |
A | |
B .8 +11 4+
I | 111 4444 |
L | 111 444 |
I | 111 44 |
T .6 + 11 444 +
Y | 11 44 |
.5 + 11 44 +
O | 111 44 |
F .4 + 11 444 +
| 2222222**22222 333333**33333333 |
R | 22222 11 33**222 44 33333 |
E | 22222 333*1 4*22 33333 |
S .2 +22222 333 11*44 2222 3333+
P | 3333 444 111 2222 |
O | 333333 4444 1111 22222 |
N |3333333333 44444444 11111111 2222222222 |
S .0 +444444444444444 11111111111111*+
E ++--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------++
-2 -1 0 1 2
ATH [MINUS] item MEASURE

Figure 3 Category Functions of 4-Category Structure

PROMS HK 2006 16
 Discussion

CSCA has high Rasch Item reliability (0.99)
and acceptable Rasch Person reliability (0.72)

Most items fit Rasch model very well. The only

exception is Item 22

CSCA items cover a full range of psychological

trait expected to be measured

4-category scale functions better than 5-

category scale

PROMS HK 2006 17
PROMS HK 2006 18