See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/5359972

Adolescent coping scales: A critical psychometric review

Article  in  Scandinavian Journal of Psychology · June 2008

DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2008.00669.x · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

33 8,220

2 authors:

Sigrun Sveinbjornsdottir Einar B Thorsteinsson

University of Akureyri University of New England (Australia)
26 PUBLICATIONS   589 CITATIONS    155 PUBLICATIONS   4,159 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mental health literacy View project

Depression and well-being View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Einar B Thorsteinsson on 07 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2008, 49, 533–548 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2008.00669.x

Personality and Social Sciences

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Adolescent coping scales: A critical psychometric review

SIGRUN SVEINBJORNSDOTTIR1 and EINAR BALDVIN THORSTEINSSON2
1
University of Akureyri, Iceland
2
University of New England, Australia

Sveinbjornsdottir, S. & Thorsteinsson, E. B. (2008). Adolescent coping scales: A critical psychometric review. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,
49, 533–548.
Individual coping is identified as an important factor in relation to health and well-being. Although several coping scales have been developed, key
terms of coping such as nature and a number of primary and secondary factors (dimensions) are obscure. Coping scales, such as those that have been
developed through exploratory factor analysis (EFA), have been criticized for poor psychometric properties, yet the critique so far does not evaluate
development of the scales against best test-theoretical practice. The present study reviews six adolescent coping scales against ten detailed psychometric
criteria in relation to statistical choices throughout the process of scale development. All six scales measured poorly on several criteria. Best practice
had not been followed throughout their development and they suffered serious psychometric limitations. These findings indicate that there still is
empirical research to be pursued in search of latent constructs and possible dimensions of coping through the implementation of EFA.
Key words: Adolescence, review, coping scale, validity, reliability, best test-theoretical practice.
Dr Einar B. Thorsteinsson, Psychology School of Behavioural, Cognitive and Social Sciences, University of New England, NSW 2351, Australia.
Tel: + 61 2 6773 2587; fax: + 61 2 6773 3820; e-mail: ethorste@une.edu.au

Diverse psychosocial disorders (e.g., antisocial behavior, drug
use, depression, eating disorders) in the Western world occur
frequently in adolescence (Rutter, 1995; Smith & Rutter, 1995).
The growing concern for adolescents who experience adjustment
problems emphasizes the need for identification of protective
and risk factors, and development of evidence-based preventions.
Different types of individual coping strategies are identified as
either protective or risk factors in relation to health and well-being
(Lazarus, 1993; Masten, Best & Garmezy, 1990; Seiffge-Krenke,
1998). For instance, in adolescence, individual coping strategies
are found to interact with well-being and adjustment (Jorgensen
& Dusek, 1990; Tolor & Fehon, 1987), success at school
(Kristensson & Öhlund, 2005; Rijavec & Brdar, 1997; Whatley,
Foreman & Richards, 1998), and physical and mental health
(Graue, Hanestad, Wentzel-Larsen, Sövik & Bru, 2004; Reid,
Dubow & Carey, 1995; Reid, Dubow, Carey & Dura, 1994;
Seiffge-Krenke & Klessinger, 2000; Smith, Smoll & Ptacek,
1990; Steiner, Erickson, Hernandez & Pavelski, 2002; Zeidner
& Hammer, 1990).
Lazarus’s cognitive transactional theory of coping (Lazarus
& Folkman, 1984) has been a major inspiration for coping
research during the last two decades. Based on that theory, a
number of coping measures for adults (e.g., Billings & Moos,
1984; Carver, Scheier & Weintraub, 1989; Endler & Parker,
1990; Folkman & Lazarus, 1985, 1988; McCrae, 1984; McCrae
& Costa, 1986; Pearlin & Schooler, 1978; Stone & Neale, 1984)
and adolescents (e.g., Brodzinsky, Elias, Steiger, Simon &
Gill, 1992; Dise-Lewis, 1988; Ebata & Moos, 1991; Fanshawe
& Burnett, 1991; Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993; Seiffge-Krenke,
1989) have been developed. Researchers generally agree on the
following issues related to coping: coping strategies (items)
cluster into primary coping factors; coping strategies may be
of either a cognitive or behavioral nature; individuals either
approach a problem or avoid it; and there is an interaction
between coping strategies and situation characteristics. However,
confusion still exists around other key issues within the field,
and consensus on how to define and hence measure coping
has not as yet been reached. For instance, Steger (2006) noted
a different factor structure for each of the numerous post hoc
factor analytical studies conducted between 1987 and 2000 on
the Folkman and Lazarus scale of adult coping. Adolescent
coping scales are also varied. For instance, while one researcher
reports 80 strategies clustering into 18 primary factors
(Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993), another suggests 20 strategies
clustering into three factors (Seiffge-Krenke, 1989). Further-
more, conceptualization of second-order factors of coping is
inconsistent in the literature. Lazarus and Folkman (1984)
suggested that coping (adult) is either problem-focused or
emotion-focused, the former aiming at changing the situation or
managing the problem, and the latter at controlling the emotions
related to the problem. Although Lazarus and Folkman did not
present that dichotomy as statistically derived second-order
factors, some researchers on adult coping have done so, and
have suggested second-order factors relating either to the focus
(e.g., Billings & Moos, 1981; Ebata & Moos, 1991, 1994; Pearlin
& Schooler, 1978) or to the outcome of coping (i.e., positive or
negative) (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1986; Parkes, 1986). However,
distinction between problem- and emotion-focused second-
order factors has not yet been statistically verified for adult or
adolescent coping (Ficková, 1998; Jorgensen & Dusek, 1990;
Tobin, Holroyd, Reynolds & Wigal, 1989; Watson, Willson &
Sinha, 1998).

© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600
Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. ISSN 0036-5564.
534 S. Sveinbjornsdottir and E. B. Thorsteinsson
Researchers who use exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in
psychological research are frequently found to make poor
statistical decisions throughout the process of EFA (Conway &
Huffcutt, 2003; Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum & Strahn, 1999;
Ford, MacCallum & Tait, 1986), leading to spurious outcomes.
Furthermore, psychological measures have been found to be
rationally derived rather than developed through systematic
quantitative content validation (Haynes, Richard & Kubany,
1995). Concerns about the methodological soundness of coping
scales have been raised (Benson & Hagtvet, 1996; Compas,
Connor-Smith, Saltzman, Thomsen & Wadsworth, 1999), and
coping scales of children, adolescents, and adults have been
reviewed (e.g., Compas, Connor-Smith, Saltzman, Thomsen &
Wadsworth, 2001; Schwarzer & Schwarzer, 1996). Despite the
fact that most coping scales are developed according to classical
test-theory and through EFA, review of the development of
coping scales in relation to test-theoretical criteria and the
implementation of EFA has, to our knowledge, not yet been
performed. In a recent exhaustive review of coping assessments
and the search for the structure of coping, it is suggested that
confirmatory rather than exploratory factor analyses be used
for construction of primary coping factors, and confirmatory
hierarchical analyses be used for determination of higher order
factors or dimensions of coping (Skinner, Edge, Altman &
Sherwood, 2003). However, we argue an investigation of the
foundations of the scales is needed, requiring an analysis of the
quality of the EFA procedures throughout scale development.
Our hypothesis is that poor quality EFA procedures, as earlier
detected in psychological research (Conway & Huffcutt, 2003;
Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum & Strahn, 1999; Ford, MacCallum
& Tait, 1986), might similarly be found in the development of
coping scales. The aim of the present review is to critically
examine statistical choices throughout the development of
adolescent coping scales as suggested by classical best test-
theoretical practice. A brief presentation of psychometric issues
and criteria used for the present review is outlined below. See
the summary in Table 1.
Best-practice as suggested by classical test-theory for
development of a psychological test
Item selection is the base of content validity. If a literature
search provides limited knowledge, information from informed
individuals is needed (Haynes et al., 1995; Kline, 1986). Test
items must be clear and easily understood, and must be kept
short, containing only one point or statement (DeVellis, 1991).
For selection of the most salient items, up to twice as many
items as will be included in the final version are needed in the
initial stage as suggested by Kline (1986). To support replicability
of a test, different numbers of items per factor have been
suggested. MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang, and Hong (1999)
have suggested a minimum of three to five items per factor,
Fabrigar et al. (1999) have suggested four, while Gorsuch (1983)
has suggested six items per factor. Four items per factor is the
criterion for the present review.
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.
Scand J Psychol 49 (2008)
Size and representativeness of the construction sample is
vital for construct validity, and gender, age, socioeconomic
background, and ethnicity must be known. The ratio of participants
per test item affects the standard error, yet there is no clear rule
to follow. Ten participants to each item has been considered safe
(Child, 1990), and actually recommended (Nunnally, 1978). Yet
some consider a ratio of five to one sufficient (Gorsuch, 1983;
Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989) or even three to one for each gender
(Kline, 1993). A recent study on best practice using EFA
reported an error rate of 30% at a ratio of 20:1 on a sample size
of 260 (Costello & Osborne, 2005), indicating an even greater
importance of having a high ratio of participants per item than
previously believed. The criteria for the present review of scale
construction are a minimum of 10 participants per item (five or
more per gender) and a minimum of 500 participants.
Choices of EFA procedures concern (a) model of analysis,
(b) factor rotation, and (c) factor extraction method. Model of
analysis is most commonly a choice between common Factor
Analysis (FA) and Principal Components Analysis (PCA), the
default extraction method in SPSS. PCA has proven to obscure
outcomes because of inflation of factor loadings, especially
those of lower or moderate value, where FA has not (Fabrigar
et al., 1999; Gorsuch, 1983; Widaman, 1993). Furthermore,
there is no prior knowledge of unique variance within the
correlation matrix when a test is being developed, and to
uncover latent factors that are as uncontaminated by that kind
of variability as possible, the choice of model of analysis should
be FA rather than PCA (Conway & Huffcutt, 2003). The criterion
for the present review is FA.
Of a number of analytic rotation methods, the most essential
distinction is between orthogonal and oblique rotation. Oblique
rotation allows correlations between factors, and since charac-
teristics of human behavior are believed to be interrelated
(Child, 1990), the oblique factor rotation has been suggested as
a first choice. The combination of oblique rotations and FA
yields the simplest structure when compared with: oblique
rotation and PCA; orthogonal rotation and PCA; and orthogonal
rotation and FA (Fabrigar et al., 1999). This lends further support
for the choice of FA and oblique rotation.
Factor extraction is a challenge: extracting too many factors
(overfactoring) or too few factors (underfactoring) leads to
error. Two commonly cited extraction methods, often used in
combination, are the latent root criterion (eigenvalue greater
than one or Kaiser’s criterion) and Cattell’s scree test (Child,
1990; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). Kaiser’s criterion is generally
not found to be a satisfactory method (Conway & Huffcutt,
2003; Fabrigar et al., 1999; Velicer & Jackson, 1990). Parallel
Analysis (PA) is considered more accurate (Fabrigar et al., 1999;
Hayton, Allen & Scarpello, 2004), especially when used in
combination with a scree test. However, PA is not currently
available in commonly used statistical programs like SPSS,
although it is possible to conduct it stepwise (Hayton et al.,
2004). Therefore, a scree test has been suggested by some as
the best choice for the time being (Costello & Osborne, 2005),
and is the criterion for the present review. For future development
 Table 1. Assessment summary of adolescent coping scales

© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.

Scand J Psychol 49 (2008)

Coping Across Coping Scale Adolescent
Adolescent Life Events and Situations for Children Coping Scale Coping Responses
Coping Orientation Coping Inventory Questionnaire and Youth (ACS) Long Inventory, Youth Form
Criteria (A-COPE) (LECI) (CASQ) (CSC-Y) Form (CRI-Y)a

Criterion 1 Items
1.1 Item selection for the scale representative 0 0 – – √ –
(derived from literature and appropriate “focus” groups)
1.2 Each item one statement √ √ √ √ √ √
1.3 Proportion of items in original pool/final test, √ – √ √ √ NA
if selected through EFA (less than 75%)
1.4 Ratio items to factor (4:1 or higher) 0 √ √ √ 0 √
Criterion 2 Sample
2.1 Size (500+) 0 √ √ √ √ 0
2.2 Representativeness (i.e., age, gender, 0 0 √ 0 √ 0
socio-economic background, ethnicity
2.3 Ratio participants to item (5+ per gender to item) 0 √b √ √ 0 0
Criterion 3 EFA procedure
3.1 Factor model (use FA unless small 0 0 0 0 0 NP
error variance then either FA or PCA)
3.2 Factor rotation (Oblique) 0 √ 0 0 √ NA
3.3 Factor extraction method (scree test, PA or both) 0 – √ √ – NA
Criterion 4 factors
4.1 Cut-off limit for item loadings (0.40 for PCA 0 0 √ √ – NA
and 0.30 for FA if N < 1,000; 0.25 to 0.30 if N > 1,000
and participants to item >10:1)
4.2 Purity of primary factors (Each item to – – √ √ – NA
load above criterion on one factor only)
4.3 Internal consistency (0.70+) 0 0 √ √ 0 0
4.4 Mean inter-item correlation (0.20 to 0.40) NP NP NPc NP NP NP
Criterion 5 Test-retest reliability

Review of adolescent coping scales

5.1 Sample size (100+) – 0 – √ √ √
5.2 Sample representativeness – 0 – 0 – –
5.3 Time interval (4 weeks+) NP √ NP 0 0 √
5.4 Correlation (0.70 if interval is ≤4 weeks, more than 4 NP – NP √ 0d –
weeks and less than 10 week 0.60, 10 weeks or more 0.50)
Criterion 6 Evidence of concurrent validity
6.1 Correlation with test that measures same concept 0 NP NP √ NP NP
(r > 0.70) poor tests (r = 0.30 to 0.50)
6.2 Sample size (100+) 0 – – √ – –
6.3 Sample representativeness – – – – – –
Criterion 7 Evidence of construct validity
7.1 Correlation with unrelated test (≤0.30) NP √ NP √ NP √
7.2 Sample size (100+) – √ – √ – √
7.3 Sample representativeness – – – 0 – –

535
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.

536 S. Sveinbjornsdottir and E. B. Thorsteinsson

Table 1. Continued

Coping Across Coping Scale Adolescent

Adolescent Life Events and Situations for Children Coping Scale Coping Responses
Coping Orientation Coping Inventory Questionnaire and Youth (ACS) Long Inventory, Youth Form
Criteria (A-COPE) (LECI) (CASQ) (CSC-Y) Form (CRI-Y)a

Criterion 8 Cross-validation
8.1 Sample size (500+) √ – √ – √ 0
8.2 Sample representativeness – – – – 0 –
8.3 Ratio participants to item (5+ for gender) √ – √ – √ 0
8.4 At least 90% of items are replicated 0 NP 0 NP 0 0
Criterion 9 Second-order factors in same/construction study
9.1 Factor model (FA used; PCA if error variance low) NP NP NP NP 0 NP
9.2 Factor rotation (Oblique) NP NP NP NP √ NP
9.3 Factor extraction method (scree plot, PA or both) NP NP NP NP √ NP
9.4 Cut-off limit for primary factor loading on secondary NP NP NP NP √ NP
order factors (0.40 for PCA and 0.30 for FA if N < 1,000;
0.25 to 0.30 if N > 1,000 and participants to item >10:1)
9.5 Purity of second-order factors (Primary factor should NP NP NP NP 0 NP
only load above criterion on one second-order factor)
Criterion 10 Test practicality
10.1 Test length (50 items or less) 0 √ √ √ 0 √
10.2 Reading level appropriate √ √ √ √ √ √

Note: ACS-Long Form covers both Specific and General Form. NP = not performed; √ = Criterion met; 0 = Criterion not met; – = Information not sufficient or information totally missing;
NA = Not applicable.
a
Factors constructed based on theory.
b
The exact number of males and females is not known; assumed to be equal.
c
Average item total correlations were reported, which were 0.57 for Factor 1, 0.59 for Factor 2, and 0.53 for Factor 3.
d
Correlation coefficients for the factors, General Form, were below 0.70 for 8 factors and above 0.70 for 10 factors. For the Specific Form, 10 factors had correlation coefficient below 0.70,
and 8 factors had correlation coefficients above 0.70.

Scand J Psychol 49 (2008)

Scand J Psychol 49 (2008)
of tests, PA combined with a scree test seems likeliest to be
recommended as best practice.
Item loadings indicate factors, but test developers need to be
cautious. First, different models of analysis may produce loading
results that differ for the same sample and variables. PCA may
produce higher loadings than FA (Gorsuch, 1983), and the
inflation is stronger for lower and moderate loadings, 0.40 or
less, than for loadings of 0.80 or higher (Fabrigar et al., 1999;
Sveinbjornsdottir, 2001; Widaman, 1993). Second, factor loadings
are partly due to sample size, and correlations for larger samples
are usually lower than for smaller samples (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 1989). Therefore, a salient loading for one study may
be inappropriate for another. For the present review, if FA is
employed and the number of participants is at least 500, the
loading criterion is 0.30 and as low as 0.25 if the number of
participants exceed 1,000. If PCA is employed, the criterion for
minimum loading is 0.40 for 500 participants or more.
An item is expected to load saliently on one factor only, and
a minimum internal consistency for a factor is 0.70 (Kline,
1993; Nunnally, 1978). However, since high internal consistency
may carry a risk of items being only slight variations of each
other (Child, 1990; Kline, 1993, 1994; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989),
inter-item correlation for a factor is optimal when ≥ 0.20 and
≤0.40 (Briggs & Cheek, 1986).
Minimum criteria for test-retest analysis are a correlation of
0.70 (Kline, 1986) or even 0.80 (Kline, 1993), 100 participants,
and a three-month interval. However, over a three-month period
a significant change in cognition may occur, affecting the
adolescents’ coping behavior. Therefore, with a minimum
sample of 100 the correlation criterion for the present review is
0.70 for a four-week interval, 0.60 for a four- to ten-week interval,
and 0.50 for an interval longer than ten weeks.
For further evidence of validity, administered simultaneously
to the same minimum sample of 100, the correlation between
an examined scale and another one measuring the same variable
(concurrent), is expected to be at least 0.70 unless one or both
scales are of poor quality then only a moderate correlation of
0.50 is expected (Kline, 1986). Low correlation is expected
(<0.30) between an examined scale and another conceptually
different (construct) scale. Replication, either through EFA
cross-validation or confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on a
representative independent sample of at least 500, and parti-
cipants five or more per gender, is proven if 90% of items and
the factor structure hold as suggested by Kline (1986).
Second-order (or any higher-order) factor analysis is safely con-
ducted if earlier factor analysis used oblique rotation. The criteria
for the present review are FA, oblique rotation, and scree test (or PA).
Scale practicality is of value for a scale-taker as well as the
administrator. Issues of importance are the scale taker’s reading
level, and the level of complexity and length of the scale. No
general recommendations are found in the literature and criterion
for the present review is arbitrary. For the possibility of extracting
factors, a minimum of 20 items is suggested, and so as not to
strain the attention of scale-takers, a maximum of 50 items is
suggested.
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.
Review of adolescent coping scales 537
METHOD
Literature searches
An electronic search was performed for self-rating adolescent coping
scales for general situations in the databases PsycINFO, Eric, PubMed,
and Google Scholar. A large number of key articles on adolescent coping,
limited to years 1980 through 2007 were also cross-referenced. Key-
words for the search included various combinations of the following
concepts: coping scale, adolescence, reliability, validity, psychometric
properties, test construction, scale construction. Six scales were found
that fitted the following inclusion criteria.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Included in the present review are coping scales, where coping strategies
are clustered in factors, and specifically developed for adolescent popu-
lations between 12 and 18 years of age. Therefore, a coping checklist
such as Kidcope, a list of ten items (Spirito, Stark & Williams, 1988),
is excluded. Cognitive skills affect thinking and hence coping, and
because of adolescents’ growing meta-cognitive skills, their coping
strategies may include cognitive coping strategies, whereas children’s
coping tends to be more concrete and related to observable behavior
(for review see Boekaerts, 1996). Therefore, coping scales developed
for younger populations such as the Self-Reported Coping Measure
(Causey & Dubow, 1992), and then tested on adolescents without further
development or refinement (Ayers, Sandler & Twohey, 1998), were
excluded. The same applied for coping scales developed for adults.
Although adolescents and adults have similar cognitive capacities,
adults have more experience and their social and economic circum-
stances are different to those of adolescents. Thus adults belong to a
different population. Scales developed for adults that have subsequently
been tested for use with adolescents with minimal modification were
excluded. Examples of such scales include COPE (Carver et al., 1989)
and the Ways of Coping Checklist (WCC; Folkman & Lazarus, 1980).
The present review focuses on coping with general concerns or daily
hassles. Therefore, measures of situation-specific coping, such as the
School Failure Coping Scale (SFCS; Rijavec & Brdar, 1997) and the
Responses to Stress Questionnaire (Connor-Smith, Compas, Wadsworth,
Thomsen & Saltzman, 2000) were excluded. Scenario-based instru-
ments such as the Cross-Cultural Coping Scale (Kuo, Roysircar &
Newby-Clark, 2006), and population-specific coping scales, such as
the Coping Function Questionnaire for adolescent sport participants
(Kowalsky & Crocker, 2001), were likewise excluded.
Six adolescent coping scales were identified for inclusion, four
developed in the USA, one in Germany, and one in Australia: (1)
Adolescent Coping Orientation, USA (A-COPE; Patterson & McCubbin,
1987), (2) Life Events and Coping Inventory, USA (LECI; Dise-Lewis,
1988), (3) Coping Across Situations Questionnaire, Germany (CASQ;
Seiffge-Krenke, 1989), (4) Coping Scale for Children and Youth, USA
(CSC-Y; Brodzinsky et al., 1992), (5) Adolescent Coping Scale, Australia
(ACS; Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993), and (6), Coping Responses Inventory,
Youth Form, USA (CRI-Y; Moos, 1993). An overview of the scales is
provided in Table 2.
RESULTS
(1) Adolescent Coping Orientation for Problem Experiences
(A-COPE; Patterson & McCubbin, 1987)
The A-COPE is based on the Double ABCX model (McCubbin
& Patterson, 1981, 1982, 1983), an extension of Hill’s theory
on family response to stress (Burr, 1982; McCubbin & Patterson,
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.

538 S. Sveinbjornsdottir and E. B. Thorsteinsson

Table 2. Overview of reviewed adolescent coping scales

Items Factor
Points
Age Sample Initial Final Items on a Loadings Internal
range Mean size males/ Model of number number per Likert allowed below consistency
Scale in years age femalesa EFA/rotation of items of items Factors factor scale .40 (loading) for factors Test-retest

Adolescent Coping Orientation, USAb 11 to 18b 15.6 185/241 PCA/orthogonal 95 54 12 2 to 8 5 4 (0.08 to 0.50 to 0.76 NP
(A COPE; Patterson & McCubbin, 1987) 0.37)
Life Events and Coping Inventory, USA 11 to 14b 12.6b 502 PCA/oblique 90 49 5 7 to 13 9 6 (0.30 to 0.62 to 0.86 NP
(LECI; Dise-Lewis, 1988) 0.38)
Coping Across Situations Questionnaire, 12 to 19 16 479/549 PCA/orthogonal 20 20 3 6 to 7 NAc 0 0.76 to 0.80 NP
Germany (CASQ; Seiffge-Krenke, 1989)
Coping Scale for Children and Youth USAb 10 to 15 13.0b 248/250 PCA/orthogonal 44 29 4 4 to 11 4 0 0.70 to 0.81 0.73 to 0.81
(CSC-Y; Brodzinsky et al., 1992)
Adolescent Coping Scale Long form, 12 to 18 13.9b 245/255 PCA/oblique 156 80 18 3 to 5 5 –d 0.62 to 0.83 0.49 to 0.82e,f
Specific and general concerns, Australia 0.54 to 0.85 0.44 to 0.84e,g
(ACS; Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993)
Coping Responses Inventory, Youth Form, – 15.3 147/168 NAh 72 48 8 6 4 NAh 0.55 to 0.79 0.29 to 0.34i
USA (CRI-Y; Moos, 1993)

Note: NP = not performed; – = information not reported; NA = not applicable.

a
Only total number given if no information about number of males and females.
b
Estimated from information given.
c
Yes or No format.
d
Impossible to estimate since items were factor-analyzed in three separate clusters.
e
General and specific form, for a 14-day test-retest interval eight of 18 factors rated below 0.70 (see Table 7 for further details).
f
For the specific form.
g
For the general form.
h
Factor construction based on theory.
i
Average for males (0.29) and females (0.34) for a 12 to 15 month interval.

Scand J Psychol 49 (2008)

Scand J Psychol 49 (2008) Review of adolescent coping scales 539

Table 3. A-COPE factor structure and internal consistency

Factors Items Example Internal consistency

Ventilating feelings 6 Get angry and yell at people 0.75

Seeking diversions 8 Sleep 0.75
Developing self-reliance and optimism 6 Try on your own to figure out how to deal 0.69
with your problems or tensions
Developing social support 6 Try to help other people solve their problems 0.75
Solving family problems 6 Talk to your father about what bothers you 0.75
Avoiding problems 5 Use drugs (not prescribed by a doctor) 0.71
Seeking spiritual support 3 Go to church 0.72
Investing in close friends 2 Be close to someone you care about 0.76
Seeking professional support salutary effect 2 Get professional counseling 0.50
(not a school teacher or a school counselor)
Engaging in demanding activity 4 Do a strenuous physical activity (jogging, biking etc.) 0.67
Being humorous 2 Joke and keep a sense of humor 0.72
Relaxing 4 Daydream about how you would like things to be 0.60

1983). The Double ABCX model refers to variables believed
to be of importance for the well-being of the family as a unit,
and for each individual family member (McCubbin & Patterson,
1983, 1986; Patterson & McCubbin, 1987).
Items were generated through structured interviews with 30
students of both sexes from a suburban mid-western high school,
grades 10 through 12. A total of 95 coping items were identified
and factor analyzed, using PCA with orthogonal rotation, on
467 junior and senior high school students, 185 males and 241
females (mean age of 15.6 years; gender information missing
for some participants). Participants were from suburban mid-western
schools, mainly of middle to upper-middle socioeconomic status
(no further information). Responses on a five-point Likert scale
with minimal variance were removed from the scale, leaving 68
of 95 items for factor analysis. Twelve factors with eigenvalues
of 1.0 or above were extracted, including 54 items, see Table 3.
Factorial purity is unclear; information was provided on how
each item loaded on one factor only.
A second-order maximum likelihood (ML) analysis with
oblique rotation was conducted on an independent sample of
331 undergraduate volunteers (age 18; 192 females and 139
males, no further information) (Jorgensen & Dusek, 1990). Two
second-order factors with eigenvalues of 1.0 or greater emerged.
Nine factors clustered together in a second-order factor named
Salutary Effort (i.e., Engaging in Demanding Activity, Developing
Self-Reliance and Optimism, Developing Social Support,
Seeking Diversions, Solving Family Problems, Seeking Spiritual
Support, Investing in Close Friendships, Being Humorous,
and Seeking Professional Support effort). The remaining three
factors reflected angry reactions and avoidance, and the second-
order factor was named Stress Palliation (Relaxing, Ventilating
Feelings, and Avoiding Problems). All factors loaded beyond
0.30 on their second-order factor less one (Seeking Professional
help, loading 0.22).
Further information on validity. The A-COPE was examined
through relationships between adolescent substance use and
coping (Patterson & McCubbin, 1987). The number of partic-
ipants and demographic information is confusing (see pp. 171
and 177), and 3 of the 12 A-COPE factors were excluded.
Therefore, the outcome for the full-length scale is blurred. In
another study (Spirito et al., 1988), 49 students (demographic
information unclear) completed A-COPE and Kidcope on the
same occasion. Correlations between A-COPE factors and
Kidcope items were mixed and somewhat difficult to interpret;
they ranged from 0.08 to 0.62, where most of the higher
correlations were between conceptually similar Kidcope items
and A-COPE factors.
Four independent studies failed to replicate the A-COPE factor
structure. Three performed EFA (Fanshawe & Burnett, 1991;
Halvarsson, Lunner & Sjödin, 2001; Plancherel & Bolognini,
1995), and one CFA (ACSS; Burnett & Fanshawe, 1996).
Through a post hoc approach of the 54 A-COPE items, the
researchers created scales on their own data.
Limitations of the A-COPE. First, information was missing
on: (a) demographics for the construction sample, and (b) the
loadings of each item on all factors, informing on the degree
of factorial purity. Secondly, questionable methods were
employed, such as: (a) initial selection of coping items, (b)
PCA for factor analysis, (c) orthogonal rotation of factors,
and (d) factor extraction based on eigenvalues. In addition,
given the length of the scale, a second-order factor analysis
should have been performed on the construction data. Thirdly,
some reported statistical properties of the scale were unsatis-
factory, such as: (a) four factors were comprised of three
items or fewer, (b) three factors had internal reliability below
0.70, (c) four items loaded below 0.40 on their factor, and (d)
one confirmatory factor analysis and three cross-validation
studies on independent samples failed to replicate the factor
structure of A-COPE. Finally, some important analyses were
not performed, such as: (a) inter-item correlations and (b)
test-retest reliability, and (c) correlation with an unrelated
test.

© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.
540 S. Sveinbjornsdottir and E. B. Thorsteinsson
Table 4. LECI-Coping factor structure and internal consistency
Factors Items Example
Aggression 7 Hit someone or hurt someone physically
Stress-recognition 13 Write to someone else about it
Distraction 12 Do a hobby or something I enjoy
Self-destruction 8 Smoke cigarettes
Endurance 9 Just hold it in
(2) Life Events and Coping Inventory (LECI; Dise-Lewis, 1988)
The LECI assesses stressful life events and coping based on the
transactional model of stress and coping (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984) and Holmes and Rahe’s (1967) “social consensus method
of operationalizing stress” (Dise-Lewis, 1988, p. 485), including
minor and major incidents. The scale was developed stepwise:
(a) initial item generation (N = 104), (b) item refinement and
addition (N = 90), (c) data for scale construction (N = 502), (d)
reliability data (N = 85), and (e) validity data (N = 198), with a total
number of 681 participants for all the steps (11 to 14 years of age,
M = 12.6, SD = 0.5). Participants were mainly white, of middle
and upper-middle class background, from Denver, Colorado.
Items were collected through individual and small group
interviews of 104 participants, and were refined in three steps,
using 90 participants. Wording was scrutinized, instructions
finalized and two different types of rating systems compared.
There was no information on number of items in the original
pool. The final scale included 125 life events and 49 coping
items. Here, only the coping part of the LECI is reviewed. PCA
with oblique rotation was conducted with answers rated on a
five-point Likert scale, employing 502 participants. Five factors
were extracted; no information on factor extraction and factorial
purity is provided. Loading of items on factors is reported for
one factor only. The factor Stress Recognition includes items
that mainly refer to seeking social support, yet the two highest
loading items (“Cry” and “Scream”) on that factor do not
have face validity. For factor structure and internal consistency,
see Table 4.
Further information on reliability and validity. A replication
sample of 85 participants completed the LECI twice with an
11-week interval, and the correlation coefficient for individual
items ranged from −0.13 to 0.61 with a mean of 0.32. The
correlation coefficient was reported in this way – “the stability
of the set of coping strategy ratings was .98” (Dise-Lewis, 1988,
p. 493) – which is difficult to interpret with the item correlation
ranging from −0.13 to 0.61, and an interval of 11 weeks for
12-year old participants. A subset of the construction sample,
198 participants, was also administered the State-Trait Anxiety
Inventory for Children and the Children’s Depression Inventory.
Correlation between LECI coping factors and these measures
ranged from 0.00 to 0.30.
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.
Scand J Psychol 49 (2008)
Internal consistency
Construction Replication
sample sample
0.86 0.85
0.79 0.80
0.76 0.83
0.86 0.85
0.62 0.68
Limitations of the LECI. First, information was missing on (a)
demographics for the construction sample, (b) the ratio of
females and males for the total sample of 681 adolescents, (c)
what statistical methods were chosen for factor extraction, and
(d) loadings of each item on all factors, informing on the
degree of factorial purity. Information on test-retest reliability
was unclear. Secondly, information provided for the construction
sample, including initial item generation, indicates homogeneity,
and the choice of PCA for factor analysis is questionable.
Thirdly, there were unsatisfactory statistical properties such as:
(a) the sample did not represent all socio-economic groups,
(b) internal consistency reliability was below 0.70 on one factor,
(c) six items loaded below 0.40 on their factor, (d) two of the
highest loading items on the factor Stress-recognition were
conceptually unrelated to that factor. Finally, analyses concerning
(a) inter-item correlations and (b) correlation with a related test,
and (c) cross-validation of factor structure, were not performed.
(3) Coping Across Situations Questionnaire (CASQ;
Seiffge-Krenke, 1989)
The CASQ was developed within the framework of cognitive-
transactional theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Seiffge-Krenke
& Shulman, 1993). Items were selected and developed in stages.
First, adolescents’ main stressors and coping responses were
assessed from a sample of 107 adolescents, 12 to 18 years (no
further information). The 110 identified coping responses
were categorized according to Westbrook’s coping scale (1979,
as cited in Seiffge-Krenke, 1989, p. 208), and 95% of responses
fell within three of Westbrook’s five factors (i.e., Active Coping,
Withdrawal, and Seeking Help from Others). Where the
meaning of the adolescents’ coping responses corresponded
with the content of items from Westbrook’s scale, the items
from Westbrook’s scale were translated into German and the
wording adapted for adolescents. The final version of the CASQ
included twenty items, each containing only one statement.
PCA (this is assumed based on Kavsek & Seiffge-Krenke,
1996) and orthogonal rotation (Seiffge-Krenke, 1989) were
performed with yes or no ratings from 1,028 students aged 12
through 19 years old (61 were 12, 70 were 13, 94 were 14, 119
were 15, 220 were 16, 210 were 17, 182 were 18, and 72 were
19) by Hessen, Nordrhein-Westfalen and Niedersachsen. Half
Scand J Psychol 49 (2008) Review of adolescent coping scales 541

Table 5. CASQ factor structure, internal consistency, and average corrected item-total correlation

Internal Average corrected

Factors Items Example consistency item-total correlation

Active coping by means of social resources
(Aktive Bewältigung unter Nutzung
sozialer Ressourcen)
Internal coping (Internale
Bewältungsstrategien)
Withdrawal (Problemmeidendes Verhalten)
7 I try to solve the problems with the help of 0.80 0.57
my friends (Ich versuche, mit Freunden meine
Probleme gemeinsam zu lösen)
6 I think about the problem and try to find different 0.77 0.59
solutions (Ich denke über das Problem nach und spiele
verschiedene Lösungsmöglichkeiten in Gedanke durch)
7 I let out my anger or desperation by shouting, crying, 0.76 0.53
banging doors, and so on (Ich mache meinem Ärger
und meiner Ratlosigkeit “Luft” durch Schreien, Heulen,
Türenknallen, etc.)

of the sample was from urban, and half from rural areas and
parental occupation was representative of Western Germany in
1984 when the data was collected. Sixty percent of mothers were
homemakers or working part-time (no further information).
Fathers were white collar workers (54%), blue collar workers
(25%), self-employed (14%), and professionals (7%). A scree
test revealed three factors, with item loadings 0.40 or beyond,
and communality ranging from 0.26 to 0.62, see factor summary
in Table 5.
Further information on validity. The CASQ factor structure
was cross-examined in two independent studies and partly
replicated (Seiffge-Krenke, 1992; Seiffge-Krenke & Shulman,
1990). Ten of the CASQ items (50%) loaded on corresponding
factor for both the Israeli and the Finnish sample; the other ten
items were either mixed or omitted.
Limitations of the CASQ. First, it was unclear how well the
sample represents the population. Secondly, questionable statistical
methods were chosen for both construction and validation studies
such as PCA and orthogonal factor rotation. Second-order factor
analysis was not performed despite the high correlation between
two of the three factors (which indicates that there may be two
distinct second-order coping factors rather than three). Thirdly,
analyses concerning (a) test-retest, and (b) correlation with
scales, related as well as unrelated, were not performed. Finally,
two cross-validation studies with independent samples verified
50% of the factor structure.
(4) Coping Scale for Children and Youth (CSC-Y; Brodzinsky
et al., 1992)
The CSC-Y was developed with theoretical background in
pre-existing coping research on adults, which was mainly based
on the transactional approach (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Literature search on children’s and adults’ coping revealed 44
items. The authors assumed that youth might: (a) approach a
stressor to deal with or confront with it; (b) avoid a stressor
to reduce tension; or (c) become passive and resign. They
furthermore assumed that whether they be approach or
avoidant, coping responses would be either cognitive (affective) or
behavioral. The authors expected final selection of items for
the CSC-Y to fall into these categories: (a) cognitive/affective
engagement; (b) behavioral engagement; (c) cognitive/affective
avoidance; (d) behavioral avoidance; and (e) passive resignation.
PCA with orthogonal rotation was performed on a sample of
498 Grade 6 and Grade 8 students (aged 10 through 15 years)
recruited from a suburban, mostly white, middle-class community
(no information on state or country). There were 224 Grade 6
students (114 females and 110 males, M = 11.6 years), and 274
Grade 8 students (136 females and 138 males, M = 13.7 years).
Responses were rated on a four-point Likert scale. A scree test
suggested four factors and not five as originally assumed. A
second PCA analysis with orthogonal rotation analysis calling
for four factors revealed 29 items of 44 (66%) with loading of
0.40 or beyond on one factor only. Test-retest results (one-week
interval) were based on 145 participants randomly chosen from
the construction sample (i.e., 61 females and 84 males; 55 from
grade 6 and 90 from grade 8), see Table 6.
Further evidence of validity. First, the authors (Brodzinsky et al.,
1992) reported low to moderate correlation between the four
factors of the CSC-Y and seven out of ten of Kidcope’s coping
strategies (Spirito et al., 1988), with coefficients ranging from
0.30 to 0.62. Participants in that study were 60 boys and 60
girls, with a mean age of 11.2 years, from a suburban com-
munity. They were mostly white and middle class. Secondly, the
authors administered the four-factor CSC-Y and the six-factor
Self-Perception Profile for Children (SPPC) to 190 participants,
12- or 13-year-old Grade 7 students, mostly white and from
a middle-class suburban community. Correlations were low to
moderate (r ≤ 0.30) for 23 out of 24 relationships between the
two tests (the correlation between SPPC/Global Self-Worth and
CSC-Y/Cognitive –Behavioral Problem Solving was r = 0.35;
p < 0.001). Furthermore, the CSC-Y and the Kidcope were
simultaneously administered in Slovenia to 166 high school
students, 51 females and 36 males from a freshman class (mean
age 14.9 years), and 54 females and 25 males from junior class

© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.
542 S. Sveinbjornsdottir and E. B. Thorsteinsson Scand J Psychol 49 (2008)

Table 6. CSC-Y factor structure, internal consistency, test-retest, and inter factor correlations

Inter factor correlation

Internal
Factors Items Example consistency Test-retest 2 3 4

1. Assistance seeking (Assist) 4 I asked someone in my family 0.72 0.80 0.44* −0.32* –
for help with the problem
2. Cognitive-behavioral problem 8 I thought about the problem and tried 0.81 0.80 −0.24* –
solving (Probsol) to figure out what I could do about it
3. Cognitive avoidance (Cavoid) 11 I tried not thinking about the problem 0.80 0.81 0.37*
4. Behavioral avoidance (Bavoid) 6 I stayed away from things that 0.70 0.73
reminded me about the problem

Note: – = information not available.

* p < 0.001.

(mean age 16.9 years) (Ficková, 1998). Factor analysis was
performed on the CSC-Y’s factors in combination with the
strategies of Kidcope using orthogonal rotation, and two factors
were extracted. However, much information is missing, such as
translation of the scales, the factor model, method of factor
extraction, loadings of items on each of the factors, internal
consistency, and the correlation between factors – therefore
interpretation of the results is difficult.
Limitations of the CSC-Y. First, PCA and orthogonal rotation
of factors is questionable. The construction sample was
homogeneous, predominantly white, and middle class. Items
were derived from the literature only, to fit a priori iden-
tified categories of coping. There were no items included in
the scale that addressed acting out or risky behavior, such
as fighting, hitting, and substance use. These usually are
included in adolescent coping questionnaires. The interval for
test-retest was one week only. Secondly, inter-item correlation,
cross-validation of factor structure, and confirmatory factor
analysis on an independent representative sample were not
performed.
(5) Adolescent Coping Scale (ACS; Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993)
The ACS was developed in stages (Frydenberg, 1989, 1991,
1997; Frydenberg & Lewis, 1991; Frydenberg & Lewis, 1993),
based on the transactional model of stress and coping (Lazarus
& Folkman, 1984). The ACS consists of 79 coping items (plus
one open-ended item) in 18 factors, measuring coping in relation
to either specific (Specific Form) or general concerns (General
Form), see Table 7. Three second-order factors were identified:
Solving the Problem, Reference to Others, and Non-Productive
Coping, see Table 8. A short form of the scale including 18
items was created out of the full scale (ACS Short Form). Items
were derived from the literature, mainly from the Ways of
Coping Checklist (WOCC), developed by Folkman and Lazarus
(Frydenberg, 1989), and also generated by 643 Year 11 (58.1%)
and Year 12 (41.9%) students, 15 to 18 years old (Frydenberg
& Lewis, 1993). Students surveyed for generation of coping
responses were derived from five co-educational, and two
single-sex schools, one for each of the sexes, in metropolitan
Melbourne, Australia (44.4% females, 55.6% males). Socio-
economic background was distributed through four groups of
fathers’ occupation: professional/administrative, white collar,
blue collar, and unemployed (43.0% professional, 40.9% blue
collar). The majority of the students were born in Australia
(72.8%). However, 31.3% of fathers were born in Australia and
25% in Greece. The students responded to an open-ended question
on how they coped with a self-nominated major concern, and
a total of 2,041 descriptions were generated. The number of
coping responses was reduced to 156 distinct items, which were
tested on 30 students, aged 12 to 15 years old, for comprehension
of content and language, and found satisfactory. The response
format was a five-point Likert scale.
The 156 refined items were administered to 500 Year 7
through Year 11 students in Melbourne, Australia; there was no
further information on participants, factor model and rotation.
A scree test indicated 9 factors including 96 items. The remaining
60 items that failed to load on any factor were, nevertheless,
factor analyzed separately, and five factors with eigenvalues
above one were extracted, comprising 32 of those 60 items. The
authors then scrutinized and refined the two lots of items, in
total 128 items (96 plus 32), which resulted in a 50-item ques-
tionnaire. That questionnaire was then administered to 712 Year
7 to Year 12 students from 44 secondary schools, and factor
analyzed, using orthogonal rotation; no further information on
participants and factor model was provided. A scree plot revealed
13 factors for those 50 items with internal consistency ranging
from 0.34 to 0.80 when identified for specific concerns, and
ranging from 0.35 to 0.78 when identified for general concerns.
For the Specific Form, 4 of the 13 factors had alpha values
below 0.70; 2 had alpha values below 0.50. For the General
Form, 10 of 13 factors had alpha values below 0.70, and 4 factors
had alpha values below 0.50.
The final version of the ACS consists of 18 factors including
all the 50 items as explained above and an additional 29 items
derived from the original pool of 156 items. How these factors
were derived is not known. No information was provided for
factor extraction methods, factor model, and methods for
further refinement.

© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.
Scand J Psychol 49 (2008) Review of adolescent coping scales 543

Table 7. ACS long form factor structure, internal consistency, and 14-day test-retest interval

Specific form General form

Internal Internal
Factor Items Example consistency Test-retest consistency Test-retest

Social support 5 Talk to other people to see what 0.79 0.77 0.80 0.81
they would do if they had the problem
Focus on solving the problem 5 Work at solving what’s causing the problem 0.77 0.64 0.72 0.71
Work hard and achieve 5 Keep up with work as required 0.77 0.64 0.68 0.66
Worry 5 Worry about my future 0.76 0.77 0.73 0.77
Invest in close friends 5 Meet with friends 0.78 0.82 0.77 0.84
Seek to belong 5 Make a good impression on others 0.71 0.76 0.67 0.75
who matter to me
Wishful thinking 5 Hope for the best 0.70 0.72 0.67 0.74
Not coping 5 I just give up 0.68 0.62 0.58 0.69
Tension reduction 5 Cry or scream 0.71 0.74 0.69 0.75
Social action 4 Organize an action or a petition 0.76 0.57 0.70 0.50
regarding my concern
Ignore the problem 4 Consciously “block out” the problem 0.71 0.66 0.68 0.57
Self-blame 4 Criticize myself 0.81 0.73 0.76 0.74
Keep to self 4 Keep my feelings to myself 0.72 0.53 0.70 0.49
Seek spiritual support 4 Let God take care of my worries 0.87 0.80 0.85 0.81
Focus on the positive 4 Remember those who are worse off so 0.70 0.55 0.68 0.58
my troubles don’t seem so bad
Seek professional help 4 Ask a professional person for help 0.83 0.72 0.84 0.72
Seek relaxing diversions 3 Find a way to relax; for example, listen to music, 0.62 0.49 0.54 0.44
read a book, play a musical instrument, watch television
Physical recreation 3 Play sport 0.64 0.58 0.64 0.60

Table 8. ACS specific form second-order factor structure

Number first
Second-order factors order factors First order factor

Solving the Problem 8 Seek Social Support, Focus on Solving the Problem, Physical
Recreation, Seek Relaxing Diversions, Invest in Close Friends,
Seek to Belong, Work Hard and Achieve, Focus on the Positive
Non-productive Coping 8 Worry, Seek to Belong, Wishful Thinking, Not Coping,
Ignore the Problem, Tension Reduction, Keep to Self, Self-Blame
Reference to Others 4 Seek Social Support, Seek Spiritual Support, Seek Professional Help,
Social Action

Note: SocSup and Belong, loaded beyond 0.40 on two-second-order factors. Thus SocSup loaded 0.48 and 0.45 on Solving the Problem and Reference
to Others respectively, and Belong loaded 0.41 and 0.55 on Non-Productive Coping and Solving the Problem respectively.

Final factor analysis. The 79 (and one open-ended) item and
18 factor ACS were consequently administered in five schools
to 673 students with varied socio-economic and cultural
background. The sample included students from Year 7 (23%),
Year 8 (16%), Year 9 (22%), Year 10 (25%), and Year 11 (13%)
(1% missing assumed due to rounding). PCA and oblique
rotation were then performed on responses from those who had
complete data (500 of the 673 students). However, factor
analysis was not performed on the full scale, as the ratio of
participants per item was found to be insufficient. The authors,
therefore, randomly split the 18 factors into three clusters,
each including six of the factors. PCA was then performed
separately on each cluster of factors for all 500 participants,
see Table 7.
PCA and oblique rotation were performed on the 18 factors
for the Specific Form. A scree test indicated three second-
order factors with eigenvalues beyond one and loading 0.40 or
beyond. No information was provided on internal consistency.
Further information on reliability and validity. Test-retest analyses
(14 days interval) were computed for each item for both the
General and the Specific Form of ACS. Participants were 101
Year 7 students (a subsample of the construction sample). Items
with correlation coefficients of 0.32 or more, p < 0.001, were

© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.
544 S. Sveinbjornsdottir and E. B. Thorsteinsson
considered reliable. For the General Form, eleven items failed
to meet the criterion and the correlation ranged from 0.20 to 0.86
(M = 0.48). For the Specific Form, seven items failed, and
the correlation ranged from 0.21 to 0.79 (M = 0.49). Test-retest
coefficients, as calculated for each factor, ranged from 0.44 to
0.84 for the General Form (M = 0.68), and 8 of the 18 factors
had correlation coefficients below 0.70. For the Specific Form
the correlation ranged from 0.49 to 0.82 (M = 0.64), and 9 of
the 18 factors had correlation coefficients below 0.70.
A Spanish version of ACS Long Form, where 800 13–15 year
old secondary school students from middle-class families in
Bueno Aires, Argentina, participated, did not replicate 18 ACS
factors successfully (Richaud de Minzi, 2003). Instead, through
several analyses, using FA and oblique rotation, 11 factors
emerged, including 47 of the 79 items from the ACS, dropping
almost half of the original coping items and fusing some of the
original coping factors.
Limitations of the ACS, Specific Form, and General Form. First,
information regarding the scale’s development is insufficient for
some of the studies reported, such as on (a) participants’ back-
ground, (b) choices of statistical methods (e.g., the rationale for
18 primary factors), and (c) outcome (e.g., internal consistency of
second-order factors). Furthermore, reports on procedures are
frequently unclear, such as on how the number of factors was
derived and why information that could have led to further
refinement of the scale sometimes was ignored, as for instance
when clearly imperfect items and factors of low internal relia-
bility were included without further item refinement. Secondly,
some questionable methods were chosen, such as: (a) PCA and
(b) dividing items into three clusters and then factor analyzing
each cluster separately. Thus, two-thirds of the items were
excluded when factors were explored, and consequently there is
no information on how the excluded items may have affected
the outcome for each cluster. Particularly, since coping factors
are believed to be interrelated, this method is unsatisfactory.
Thirdly, some reported properties of the scale are poor. For
instance: (a) two factors had fewer than four items each; (b)
internal consistency was below 0.70 for 9 of 18 factors, General
Form, and the same applied for three of the factors for the
Specific Form; (c) test-retest reliability for a number of factors
on both the Specific and the General Form was below 0.70; and
(d) the ACS factor structure failed to replicate. Finally, some
important analyses were not performed: (a) factor analysis
including all items; (b) inter-item correlation, and (c) correlation
with related and unrelated scales. Psychometric limitations of
the ACS are major and the scale is long (80 items).
(6) Coping Responses Inventory, Youth Form (CRI-Y;
Moos, 1993)
The CRI-Y (Ebata & Moos, 1991) is based on the theory of
transactional model of stress and coping (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984), and two second-order factors of coping are included into
the theoretical framework: (a) the focus such as problem-focused
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.
Scand J Psychol 49 (2008)
versus emotion-focus, or approach versus avoidance, and, (b)
the method – that is behavioral or cognitive (Compas, 1987;
Compas, Malcarne & Fondacaro, 1988; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).
Domains were identified through literature on coping, and
items developed to fit both focus and method. Items were
derived in numerous ways: (a) reviewing descriptions of adoles-
cents coping with life crisis and transitions; (b) looking into
how adolescents cope with serious illness and hospitalization;
(c) interviewing adolescents; (d) examining concepts of
adolescent coping in the literature; and (d) adapting items from
the CRI-adult scale. Next, 40 pilot interviews were conducted
with young people using about 100 coping items in ten potential
coping factors. The group that was interviewed included both
sexes and healthy youth and youth with problems (no further
information). This pilot study resulted in a 72 refined items
questionnaire, adapted to the reading level of Grade 6 students.
Factor analysis to identify underlying constructs or factors
was not conducted. The 72 items were administered to a
construction sample of 315 adolescents, 168 females (mean
age 15.3), and 147 males (mean age 15.2). Of these, 163 were
healthy (91 females and 72 males), 49 were depressed (30
females and 19 males), 58 had conduct disorder (21 females
and 37 males), and 45 had rheumatic disease (26 females and
19 males). Part of the healthy group of the sample (n = 78) were
siblings of those included in the sample that had depression,
conduct disorder, or rheumatic disease. Participants were mostly
Caucasians (70%). Parents were reported as “moderately”
educated, and of various socio-economic backgrounds. The
answering format was a four-point Likert scale. A revised form
of the CRI-Y was administered in a 12 to 15 month follow-up,
including 254 of the original 315 participants. In addition, 51
youths with rheumatic disease and 34 of their siblings par-
ticipated in this follow-up; hence the second construction
sample included 400 participants (221 females, 179 males).
Criteria for revision of the CRI-Y were: (a) good content and
face validity for each item on the factor to which it belonged;
(b) varied response distribution for each item; (c) at least a
moderate level of internal consistency for each factor; and (d)
minimized overlap between factors and combining of highly
inter-correlated factors. These criteria led to an eight factor
solution instead of the original ten factor solution, each factor
including six items. Internal consistency ranged from 0.55–0.72
for males and 0.59–0.72 for females, see Table 9.
Further information on reliability and validity. Test-retest correla-
tions (12 to 15 months interval) were calculated for 254 adolescents,
as the scale was implemented for the second time for the
construction sample. The average correlation between occasions
for the eight factors was r = 0.34 for females and r = 0.29 for
males. Correlations between factors of r = ≥ 0.40 were numerous
for both sexes, the highest between “Logical Analysis” and
“Problem Solving”, r = 0.61.
Correlations between the CRI-Y and depression, anxiety,
alcohol and drug use, behavior problems, and self-confidence
were calculated using the same sample. Information on measures
Scand J Psychol 49 (2008) Review of adolescent coping scales 545

Table 9. CRI-Y factor structure and internal consistency

Internal consistency

Higher and first order factors Items Example Females (n = 221) Males (n = 179)

Approach coping responses

Logical Analysis 6 Did you think of different ways 0.68 0.69
to deal with the problem?
Positive Reappraisal 6 Did you tell yourself things 0.79 0.69
to make yourself feel better?
Seeking Guidance and Support 6 Did you talk with a parent or 0.69 0.72
other family member about the problem?
Problem Solving 6 Did you decide on one way to 0.71 0.68
deal with the problem and do it?

Avoidance responses
Cognitive Avoidance 6 Did you try to forget the whole thing? 0.72 0.71
Acceptance or Resignation 6 Did you feel that time would make a 0.59 0.55
difference – that the only thing to do was wait?
Seeking Alternative Rewards 6 Did you get involved in new activities? 0.69 0.71
Emotional Discharge 6 Did you take it out on other people 0.61 0.72
when you felt angry or sad?

is limited – some are based on existing scales, others are
self-rating questions prepared for the occasion. However, 45
of a total of 48 correlations were low to moderate (r ≤ 0.30),
indicating conceptual differences of measurements. The remaining
correlations which indicated conceptual relationships were between
Depression and Cognitive Avoidance (r = 0.36), Depression and
Emotional Discharge (r = −0.34), and Alcohol and Drug Use
and Emotional Discharge (r = 0.34).
Three independent cross-validation studies on the CRI-Y
failed to replicate the factor structure. Forns, Amador, Kirchner,
Gómez and Muro (2005) tested the 8 factors on 1,401 adoles-
cents (12–16 years) in Barcelona (FA, oblique rotation). Internal
consistency for all factors was below 0.70 (ranging between
0.40 and 0.63, six of eight factors below 0.60). When testing
for higher dimensions, the distinction between cognitive and
behavioral coping was not supported. A distinction between
approach and avoidance coping was partially supported. In
the other two validation studies the researchers, through a post
hoc approach, created different scales on their own data based
on the original 48 CRI-Y items (Eyles & Bates, 2005; Griffith,
Dubow & Ippolito, 2000).
Limitations of the CRI-Y. First, the criteria for selection of the
construction sample is unclear and consequently, which popu-
lation it is meant to represent. Information is missing on item
selection and on participants used in the development of the
CRI-Y. Secondly, questionable methods were employed. The
factor structure was theoretically derived, hypothetical, and not
tested statistically. Furthermore, high correlations between
several factors indicate a different factor structure and that some
factors should possibly be combined. Thirdly, some reported
psychometric properties of the scale are not acceptable: (a)
internal consistency of one factor was below 0.60; (b) low
test-retest reliability (around 0.30), but not easily interpreted
since the interval between tests was far beyond upper limits
(roughly one year); and (c) the eight coping factors of CRI-Y
failed to replicate across samples. Finally, analyses such as (a)
inter-item correlation, and (b) correlation with a related test
were not performed.
DISCUSSION
The aim of this study was to examine the design and construction
of adolescent coping scales and their psychometric properties
in relation to best classical test-theoretical practice. Lack of
report of important information as well as reporting of poor
EFA choices, and therefore obscured outcomes, have frequently
been registered in psychological research (Conway & Huffcutt,
2003; Fabrigar et al., 1999; Ford et al., 1986), and we presumed
a similar outcome in the present review of adolescent coping
scales. That, we assumed, might to some extent explain semantic
inconsistencies and confusion within the research field of
coping. We argued that meager psychometric quality of existing
coping scales developed through classical test-theory and EFA
and imprecise statistical choices throughout the development of
the scales are intertwined.
Six self-rating adolescent coping scales for general stressors
and daily hassles where coping strategies were clustered in factors
were reviewed. The scales were examined in relation to ten
detailed test-theoretical criteria concerning reliability and evidence
of validity and the step-wise selection of statistical choices
when implementing factor analysis during scale development.
Similar to earlier reports on EFA practices in psychological
research, we observed omission of information for all the
reviewed scales which limited our review. Furthermore, similar
to previous findings on EFA practices, the information provided

© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.
546 S. Sveinbjornsdottir and E. B. Thorsteinsson
by developers of the reviewed adolescent coping scales revealed
poor psychometric properties for each scale on numerous criteria
throughout their development. The shortcomings concerned
several issues of psychometric importance and included: (a)
poor choices of statistical (EFA) procedures (e.g., initial item
selection, model of factor analysis, and factor rotation); (b)
insufficient statistical properties or values as compared with
accepted criteria (e.g., item loadings and internal reliability of
factors, representativeness of samples); and (c) lack of important
reliability and or validity analyses (e.g., inter-item correlation,
test-retest, cross-validation or confirmatory analysis).
None of the six scales was developed through the preferable
FA. Rather, five were developed through PCA, and one scale
was hypothetical, based on a priori theory. Oblique rotation was
used for two of the five scales developed through EFA as per
suggested best-practice allowing statistical analysis of second-
order factors or dimensions and orthogonal rotation for the
remaining three. None of the six scales was replicated across
samples. Instead, as with Steger’s (2006) notification of post
hoc studies and diverse outcomes of the Ways of Coping Scale
across samples, the outcomes for all replication studies of the
reviewed adolescent coping scales revealed different numbers
of coping items (strategies), factor structure, and dimensions of
coping as compared with the original scales. These combined
shortcomings cast doubt on content and construct validity of the
reviewed scales and leave both researchers and clinicians unable
to interpret and rely on scale-scores and to compare research
outcomes.
Imprecise psychometric procedures that are employed during
scale development are likely to obscure the outcome. Therefore,
awareness of adverse consequences for reliability and validity
of any construct, caused by poor test-theoretical practices, is
needed, and only through detailed information and explanation
of the rationale for statistical choices is it possible (a) to examine
how closely a researcher follows best practice for test develop-
ment, and (b) to repeat or replicate a study. The reason is not
obvious why none of the reviewed adolescent coping scales was
developed according to best-practice. Ford et al. (1986), Fabrigar
et al. (1999), and Conway and Huffcutt (2003) have offered
some possible explanations as to why researchers do not employ
high quality EFA procedures. One is that education and training
in EFA procedures might be insufficient; another that tradition
prefers PCA with orthogonal rotation; and finally that default
options in statistical software lead researchers to use PCA and
orthogonal rotation without questioning their choice. These
explanations, one or all, may well be true for the development
of the reviewed adolescent coping scales. The EFA procedure
is complex and requires that rationale for each decision must
be understood and explained and that each step is carefully
and deliberately chosen to secure an outcome as best possible.
Omission of crucial information, as observed in the present
review, supports the presumption that researchers do not seem
to find detailed information and careful choice of each statistical
step in the procedure of scale development, including the EFA,
all that important.
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.
Scand J Psychol 49 (2008)
Although an agreement on the importance of individual coping
for well-being and health is reached, and research, including
development of coping scales, constantly adds information to
the area, there is still empirical research to be pursued. The present
review of development of adolescent coping scales supports our
hypothesis that semantic confusion within the research field
of coping and poor psychometric properties of scales are inter-
twined. Given the importance of individual coping as either
protective or risk factors in relation to health and well-being, we
suggest that further research on adolescent coping with general
concerns, in search for both latent primary factors as well as
dimensions of coping, rely on precise methodology, including
high quality EFA procedures.
This project was supported by Rannís, http://www.rannis.is/
REFERENCES
Ayers, T. S., Sandler, I. N. & Twohey, J. L. (1998). Conceptualization
and measurement of coping in children and adolescents. In T. H.
Ollendick & R. J. Prinz (Eds.), Advances in clinical child psychology
(Vol. 20, pp. 243–301). New York: Plenum Press.
Benson, J. & Hagtvet, K. A. (1996). The interplay among design, data
analysis, and theory in the measurement of coping. In M. Zeidner
& N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory, research,
applications (pp. 83–106). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Billings, A. G. & Moos, R. H. (1981). The role of coping responses and
social resources in attenuating the stress of life events. Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 4, 139–157.
Billings, A. G. & Moos, R. H. (1984). Coping, stress, and social
resources among adults with unipolar depression. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 46, 877–891.
Boekaerts, M. (1996). Coping with stress in childhood and adolescence.
In M. Zeidner & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory,
research, applications (pp. 452–484). New York: John Wiley and
Sons.
Briggs, S. & Cheek, J. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the develop-
ment and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality,
54, 106–148.
Brodzinsky, D., Elias, M., Steiger, C., Simon, J. & Gill, M. (1992).
Coping Scale for Children and Youth: Scale development and
validation. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 13, 195–
214.
Burnett, P. C. & Fanshawe, J. P. (1996). Measuring adolescent coping
strategies: Revalidation of the adolescent coping orientation for
problem experiences. The Australian Educational and Developmental
Psychologist, 13, 40–53.
Burr, W. (1982). Families under stress. In H. I. McCubbin, A. E. Cauble
& J. M. Patterson (Eds.), Family stress, coping, and social support
(pp. 5–25). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F. & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing
coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267–283.
Causey, D. & Dubow, E. (1992). Development of a self-report coping
measure for elementary school children. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology, 21, 47–59.
Child, D. (1990). The essentials of factor analysis (2nd edn). London:
Cassell Educational Ltd.
Compas, B. E. (1987). Coping with stress during childhood and adoles-
cence. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 393–403.
Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H., Thomsen, A. H. &
Wadsworth, M. (1999). Getting specific about coping: Effortful and
Scand J Psychol 49 (2008)
involuntary responses to stress in development. In M. Lewis & D.
Ramsey (Eds.), Soothing and stress (pp. 229–256). Mahawah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H., Thomsen, A. H. &
Wadsworth, M. E. (2001). Coping with stress during childhood and
adolescence: Problems, progress, and potential in theory and
research. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 87–127.
Compas, B. E., Malcarne, V. & Fondacaro, K. (1988). Coping with
stressful events in older children and young adolescents. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 405–411.
Connor-Smith, J. K., Compas, B. E., Wadsworth, M. E., Thomsen, A.
H. & Saltzman, H. (2000). Responses to stress in adolescence:
Measurement of coping and involuntary stress responses. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 976–992.
Conway, J. M. & Huffcutt, A. I. (2003). A review and evaluation of
exploratory factor analysis practices in organizational research.
Organizational Research Methods, 6, 147–168.
Costello, A. B. & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory
factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most
from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation,
10, 1–9.
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dise-Lewis, J. E. (1988). The life events and coping inventory: An
assessment of stress in children. Psychosomatic Medicine, 50,
484–499.
Ebata, A. T. & Moos, R. H. (1991). Coping and adjustment in distressed
and healthy adolescents. Journal of Applied Developmental Psy-
chology, 12, 33–54.
Ebata, A. T. & Moos, R. H. (1994). Personal, situational, and contextual
correlates of coping in adolescence. Journal of Research on Adoles-
cence, 4, 99–125.
Endler, N. S. & Parker, J. D. A. (1990). Multidimensional assessment
of coping: A critical evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 58, 844–854.
Eyles, D. J. & Bates, G. W. (2005). Development of a shortened form
of the Coping Responses Inventory-Youth with an Australian
sample. North American Journal of Psychology, 7, 161–170.
Fabrigar, L., Wegener, D., MacCallum, R. & Strahn, E. (1999). Evalu-
ating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological
research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299.
Fanshawe, J. P. & Burnett, P. C. (1991). Assessing school related
stressors and coping mechanisms in adolescents. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 61, 92–98.
Ficková, E. (1998). Coping scales for children and adolescents: Psycho-
metric relationships. Studia Psychologica, 40, 291–296.
Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a
middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 21, 219–239.
Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process:
Study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college
examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48,
150–170.
Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Manual for the ways of coping
questionnaire (Research edition). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C. & Tait, M. (1986). The application of
exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: A critical review
and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 291–314.
Forns, M., Amador, J. A., Kirchner, T., Gómez, J. & Muro, P. (2005).
Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Moos
Coping Response Inventory for Youth. Psychological Reports, 97,
777–789.
Frydenberg, E. (1989). The concerns and coping strategies of youth: A
study of Australian adolescents. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation,
La Trobe University, Melbourne.
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.
Review of adolescent coping scales 547
Frydenberg, E. (1991). Adolescent coping styles and strategies: Is there
functional and dysfunctional coping. Australian Guidance and
Counselling Association, 1, 1–8.
Frydenberg, E. (1997). Adolescent coping: Theoretical and research
perspectives. London: Routledge.
Frydenberg, E. & Lewis, R. (1991). Adolescent coping in the Australian
context. Australian Educational Researcher, 18, 65–82.
Frydenberg, E. & Lewis, R. (1993). Adolescent Coping Scale: Admin-
istrator’s manual. Melbourne, Australia: ACER (The Australian
Council for Educational Research Ltd).
Gorsuch, R. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd edn). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Graue, M., Hanestad, B. R., Wentzel-Larsen, T., Sövik, O. & Bru, E.
(2004). The coping styles of adolescents with Type 1 diabetes are
associated with degree of metabolic control. Diabetes Care, 27,
1313–1317.
Griffith, A. G., Dubow, E. F. & Ippolito, M. F. (2000). Developmental
and cross-situational differences in adolescents’ coping strategies
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 183–204.
Halvarsson, K., Lunner, K. & Sjödin, P. (2001). Development of a
Swedish version of the Adolescent Coping Orientation for Problem
Experiences (A-Cope). Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 42,
383–388.
Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C. S. & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content
validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to
concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7, 238–247.
Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G. & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention
decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel
analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 191–205.
Holmes, D. & Rahe, R. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale.
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213–218.
Jorgensen, S. R. & Dusek, J. B. (1990). Adolescent adjustment and
coping strategies. Journal of Personality, 58, 503–513.
Kavsek, M. & Seiffge-Krenke, I. (1996). The differentiation of coping
traits in adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
19, 651–668.
Kline, P. (1986). A handbook of test construction: Introduction to
psychometric design. London: Methuen.
Kline, P. (1993). The handbook of psychological testing. London:
Routledge.
Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. London: Routledge.
Kowalsky, K. C. & Crocker, P. R. E. (2001). Development and validation
of the Coping Function Questionnaire for adolescents in sport.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 23, 136–155.
Kristensson, P. & Öhlund, L. S. (2005). Swedish upper secondary
school pupils’ sense of coherence, coping resources and aggressive-
ness in relation to educational track and performance. Scandinavian
Journal of Caring Sciences, 19, 77–84.
Kuo, B. C. H., Roysircar, G. & Newby-Clark, I. R. (2006). Development
of the Cross-Cultural Coping Scale: Collective, avoidance, and
engagement coping. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling
and Development, 39, 161–181.
Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Coping theory and research: Past, present, and
future. Psychosomatic Medicine, 55, 234–247.
Lazarus, R. S. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New
York: Springer.
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S. & Hong, S. (1999).
Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84–
99.
Masten, A. S., Best, K. M. & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and
development: Contributions from the study of children who
overcame adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 425–
444.
McCrae, R. R. (1984). Situational determinants of coping responses:
Loss, threat, and challenge. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 46, 919–928.
 548 S. Sveinbjornsdottir and E. B. Thorsteinsson
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. J. (1986). Personality, coping, and coping
effectiveness in adult sample. Journal of Personality, 52, 385–405.
McCubbin, H. I. & Patterson, J. M. (1981). Family stress and adaptation
to crisis. A double ABCX model of family behavior. In D. Olson &
B. Miller (Eds.), Family studies review yearbook (pp. 87–106). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
McCubbin, H. I. & Patterson, J. M. (1982). Family adaptation to crisis.
In H. I. McCubbin, A. E. Cauble & J. M. Patterson (Eds.), Family
stress, coping, and social support (pp. 26–47). Springfield, IL:
Charles Thomas Publisher.
McCubbin, H. I. & Patterson, J. M. (1983). The family stress process:
The Double ABCX Model of Adjustment and Adaptation. In H. I.
McCubbin, M. Sussman & J. M. Patterson (Eds.), Social stress and
the family: Advances and development in family (pp. 7–37). New
York: Haworth Press.
McCubbin, H. I. & Patterson, J. M. (1986). Adolescent stress, coping
and adaptation: A normative family perspective. In G. Leigh & G.
Peterson (Eds.), Adolescents in a family context (pp. 256–276).
Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing Co.
Moos, R. M. (1993). Coping response inventory: Youth form: Profes-
sional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
Parkes, K. R. (1986). Coping in stressful episodes: The role of individual
differences, environmental factors, and situational characteristics.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1277–1292.
Patterson, J. M. & McCubbin, H. I. (1987). Adolescent coping style
and behaviors: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of
Adolescence, 10, 163–186.
Pearlin, L. I. & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal
of Health and Social Behavior, 19, 2–21.
Plancherel, B. & Bolognini, M. (1995). Coping and mental health in
early adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 459–474.
Reid, G. J., Dubow, E. F. & Carey, T. (1995). Developmental and
situational differences in coping among children and adolescents
with diabetes. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 16,
529–554.
Reid, G. J., Dubow, E. F., Carey, T. C. & Dura, J. R. (1994). Contribution
of coping to medical adjustment and treatment responsibility among
children and adolescents with diabetes. Journal of Developmental
and Behavioral Pediatrics, 15, 327–335.
Richaud de Minzi, M. C. (2003). Coping assessment in adolescents.
Adolescence, 38, 321–330.
Rijavec, M. & Brdar, I. (1997). Coping with school failure: Development
of the school failure coping scale. European Journal of Psychology
of Education, XII, 37–49.
Rutter, M. (Ed.) (1995). Psychosocial disturbances in young people:
Challenges for prevention. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schwarzer, R. & Schwarzer, C. (1996). A critical survey of coping
instruments. In M. Zeidner & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of
coping: Theory, research, applications (pp. 107–132). New York:
John Wiley and Sons.
Seiffge-Krenke, I. (1989). Bewältigung alltäglicher Problemsituationen:
Ein Coping Fragebogen für Jugendliche. Zeitschrift für Differentielle
und Diagnostische Psychologie, 4, 201–220.
Seiffge-Krenke, I. (1992). Coping behavior of Finnish adolescents:
Remarks on a cross-cultural comparison. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology, 33, 301–314.
Seiffge-Krenke, I. (1998). Adolescents’ health: A developmental
perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Seiffge-Krenke, I. & Klessinger, N. (2000). Long-term effects of avoidant
© 2008 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations.
View publication stats
Scand J Psychol 49 (2008)
coping on adolescents’ depressive symptoms. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 29, 617–630.
Seiffge-Krenke, I. & Shulman, S. (1990). Coping style in adolescence:
A cross-cultural study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21,
351–377.
Seiffge-Krenke, I. & Shulman, S. (1993). Stress, coping and relation-
ships in adolescence. In S. Jackson & Rodriguez-Tomé (Eds.),
Adolescence and its social world (pp. 169–196). East Sussex:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Skinner, E. A., Edge, K., Altman, J. & Sherwood, H. (2003). Searching
for the structure of coping: A review and critique of category
systems for classifying ways of coping. Psychological Bulletin, 129,
216–269.
Smith, D. J. & Rutter, M. (1995). Introduction. In M. Rutter & D. J.
Smith (Eds.), Psychosocial disorders in young people: Time trends
and their causes (pp. 1–6). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L. & Ptacek, J. T. (1990). Conjunctive moderator
variables in vulnerability and resiliency research: Life stress, social
support and coping skills, and adolescent sport injuries. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 360–370.
Spirito, A., Stark, L. J. & Williams, C. (1988). Development of a brief
coping checklist for use with pediatric populations. Journal of
Pediatric Psychology, 13, 555–574.
Steger, M. F. (2006). An illustration of issues in factor extraction and
identification of dimensionality in psychological assessment data.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 86, 263–272.
Steiner, H., Erickson, S. J., Hernandez, N. L. & Pavelski, R. (2002).
Coping styles as correlates of health in high school students.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 30, 326–335.
Stone, A. A. & Neale, J. M. (1984). New measure of daily coping:
Development and preliminary results. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 46, 892–906.
Sveinbjornsdottir, S. (2001). The assessment of adolescent coping:
Development of a new measure. Unpublished Ph.D., La Trobe
University, Melbourne.
Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics
(2nd edn). New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Tobin, D. L., Holroyd, K. A., Reynolds, R. V. & Wigal, J. K. (1989).
The hierarchical factor structure of the coping strategies inventory.
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 13, 343–361.
Tolor, A. & Fehon, D. (1987). Coping with stress: A study of male
adolescents’ coping strategies as related to adjustment. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 2, 33–42.
Velicer, W. F. & Jackson, D. N. (1990). Component analysis versus
common factor analysis: Some issues in selecting an appropriate
procedure. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 1–28.
Watson, D. C., Willson, L. R. & Sinha, B. K. (1998). Assessing the
dimensional structure of coping: A cross-cultural comparison.
International Journal of Stress Management, 5, 77–81.
Whatley, S. L., Foreman, A. C. & Richards, S. (1998). The relationship
of coping style to dysphoria, anxiety, and anger. Psychological
Reports, 83, 783–791.
Widaman, K. F. (1993). Common factor analysis versus principal
component analysis: Differential bias in representing model
parameters? Multivariate Behavioural Research, 28, 263–311.
Zeidner, M. & Hammer, A. L. (1990). Life events and coping resources
as predictors of stress symptoms in adolescents. Personality and
Individual Differences, 11, 693–703.
Received 3 October 2007, accepted 3 March 2008