MANUAL For COPING STRATEGIES SCALE (CSS) (For Pupil Teachers) Constructed & Standardized by Prof. Vandana Punia Professor in Education, Human Resource Development Center, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science & Technology, Hisar, Haryana and Mrs. Pushpa Devi Research Scholar Department of ‘Education Ch, Devi Lal University, Sirsa, Haryana © APRC : 2019 Published By : Agra Psychological Research Cell Tiwari Kothi, Belanganj, Agra-282004 Email: vivekapre@rediffmail.com, www.apre.co.inMANUAL For COPING STRATEGIES SCALE (CSs) (For Pupil Teachers) Introduction Any individual’s efforts to eliminate, master or manage the stressful situation is called coping. An individual’s attempt at mastering, decreasing or adopting to internal and external demands and conflicts which tend to tax or exceed the person's resources is called coping. Such attempts demonstrate an individual’s struggle for existence in the face of difficulties. In other words, because prolonged stress has the potential to cause physical and psychological damage, coping efforts are directed towards saving oneself from such damages. An individual's coping efforts are so well integrated in to the web of life that people may not be conscious of the fact that their efforts are serving a special function to help them survive. Overcoming obstacles, avoiding unpleasant encounters and dangerous situations or changing the meaning of these situations are some ways of coping with stressful situations. Whatever be the circumstances coping is invariable and an attempt ag manipulating a situation so that it can be managed within ones available resources. Coping is not any specific form of respons® Any effort that makes a situation less demanding and mansst able qualified to be called coping. These efforts may not always in the form of overt behaviour, The solutions of problem situa involve bringing about changes either in one’s own self or i? & external circumstances so that the situation no more ran stressful. A number of studies have been conducted related coping behaviour. Folkman and Lazarus (1980); Folkman 4 Lazarus, Gruen and Delongis, (1986); Lazarus and Folkm bs (1954) reported that coping techniques functions in two "*) either deals actively with problem in order to remove Oe cause of the problems or deals emotionally with the problemcause stress. Hemmings and Hockley (2002); Mapfumo, Chitsiko and Chireshe (2012) and Richards (2012) pointed out the stress and various coping mechanisms adopted by prospective teachers in adverse situations. Lazarus and Folkman (1984); Chapman and Mullis (1999); Compas, B. E. (1987); Matthews (1988); Elgar, Arlett and Groves et al. (2003); Eraslan-Capan (2014); Weinberger (1990) and Carver, Scheier (1989) had supported that stress and coping are arguably the most studied phenomena in psychology today and to explore this attribute of prospective teachers an idea has been conceptualized to explore the coping strategies in the form of problem focused coping strategies and emotion focused coping strategies among prospective teachers. Problem-focused coping strategies : Problem focused: coping strategies involve the ways in which an individual deals with the stressor actively and practically. In other words, its major emphasis is to remove the root cause of the problem. These strategies are the active efforts to alleviate stressful situation For instance, when an individual tackles the problem actively by advanced planning, proper time management, schedule making, he may dealing with stressful situations actively in advance. Problem —focused coping strategies is associated with: e Planning © Active coping e Restraint coping e Positive thinking e Suppression of competing activities gies : Emotion centered tion-focused coping strate; “ages hich an individual deals coping techniques involve the ways in w! 1 with the negative emotions that arises due to acess circumstances. This involves the attempts made by an indivi le. tional results of stressful events, For example, Sesion) c help from friends, family, pray when an individual tries to see’4s) to God, distract intensions away from stressor etc, then i . % © ig using emotion centered coping techniques. Emotion entero techniques for dealing with unpleasant circumstang 8 ig associated with : e Avoidance © Positive reinterpretation e Venting emotions e Emotional social support e Behavioral disengagement e Wishful thinking Purpose of the development of scale The present scale is developed for the prospective teachers of teacher training institutions in Haryana to explore the ‘Coping Strategies’ adopted by prospective teachers during unfavorable conditions during entire teacher training programme. Researches in teacher education reported that negligible work has beet carried out on the coping mechanisms preferred by the prospectiv teachers. Review of related studies revealed that coping strategies of prospective teachers was often measured with different standards and scales. Very few or none of them was found quite suitable for Prospective Teachers in Indian conditions. Hen need of development of tools arises which could measut® precisely coping strategies of Prospective teachers. Planning and Preparation for the Draft ScaleSpecial attention has been given to keep language of the statement clear, simple and direct. Hach statement was made to contain only one complete thought. These statements were again subjected to critical evaluation by the Research Guide of the Investigator and few experts in Psychological Research, Educational measurement and test construction. On the basis of the invaluable suggestions with regard to relevancy, meaningfulness and clarity of the statements, few items were discarded and some were slightly modified. After modifications, 56 items were retained in the Coping Strategies Draft Scale. Care was taken to include items pertaining to all the different dimensions of perceived stress as indicated earlier. The scale was planned with Likert’s five point scale where in the respondent had to read each item carefully and choose one of the five alternatives namely “Strongly Agree”, “Agree”, “Undecided”, “Disagree”, “Strongly Disagree” to express his/her degree of acceptance or rejection of the idea contained in the statement. Population and Sample selected for the study The prospective teachers from various colleges of edueation, affiliated to various universities of Haryana, serve as population for this research. A multi-stage random sampling technique was used by the investigator to select a representative sample. The original sample consisted of 300 prospective teachers. Sub scales ; The coping strategies scale consists of two a ant 53 statements viz. All statements loaded significantly ee loading more than 0.4 viz. Problem Fone), CRE ——<— (27 statements) and Emotion Focused Coping ded significantly with factor statements). All statements loa loading 0.4.Co) Item selection : Item selection is one of the most Importan, aspects of a test construction. Items can be analyzed walitative), in terms of their content and form and quantitatively jn terms of their statistical properties. In this tool, collected data was analyzeq with the statistical techniques in SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) 18.0 by using Factor Analysis for extracting factors after verifying the Kaiser-Meyer Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity value. For extracting factors, ‘Principal Components Analysis’ and ‘Varimax with Kaiser Normalization’ were applied. Table-1.1: Showing KMO and Bartlett’s Test (Problem Focused Coping Strategies) KMO and Bartlett’s Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. Bartlett's Test of Sphericity| Approx. Chi-Square 8665.166 Sig. .000 Table-1.1 states KMO value for problem focused coping strategies to be 0.836 which shows that data is perfectly suitable for Factor Analysis and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity value is 0.000 which is highly significant. It shows that data is multivariate normal and acceptable for data analysis, Table-1.2: Showing KMO and Bartlett’s Test (Emotion Focused Coping Strategies) KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy, Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx, Chi-Square [rssaa.719Table-1.2 states KMO value for emotion focused coping strategies to be 0.659 which shows that data is perfectly suitable for Factor Analysis and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity value is 0,000 which is highly significant. It shows that data is multivariate normal and acceptable for data analysis, Table-1 Strategies. a 6 ye é in 3 “ 37, 39, 41, 42, 51 Restraint coping 27, 43, 53 Positive thinking 28, 35, 46 05, 06, 07 Table-1.4 ; Sub areas of Emotion Focused Coping Strategies. [mensions [Statements Emotion | Positive reinterpretation : Sub areas of Problem Focused Coping Strategies | Suppression of competing activities Focused | Venting emotions 13, 19, 20, 25, 40 con 0.8 Strategies | Behavioral disengagement FraAdministration This tool supposed to administer to the prospective teachers in their natural environment. The researcher will explain the purpose and importance of their participation in their study, In addition, the participants will assure of the confidentiality of their responses which would only be used for the research purpose, Scale will be distributed and participants will be asked to fill in the information needed. Though the time limit stipulated was 20 minutes it was not strictly adhered to. Scoring For interpreting an individual score, subjects scores denoting his level of coping may be interpreted (area wise as well total) in items of four categories provided. Scores for each item is assigned as 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1 ranging from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree” for statements. Psychometric Properties of CSS For this study, prospective teachers from Haryana State were selected. Total sample size consists of 300 respondents. In the beginning a list of 53 items was prepared. The list was presented to a group of 5 judges and only those items were retained about which the judges were unanimous on theif retention, The coping strategies scale consists of two dimensions and 53 statements viz, Problem Focused Coping Strategies (27 statements) and Emotion Focused Coping Strategies (26 statements), All statements loaded significantly with factor loading 0,4, All stateme nts | igni Jy with factor loading 0.4, 8 loaded significantly am tea is] 15. anc Co co]tee ss a) tly it : Descriptive Statistics for Coping Strategies ‘Table-2. among Prospective Teachers (N=300) Descriptive Statistics Coping Strategies eee eee Error Mean 192.47 | .63582 95% Confidence interval for mean [Lower Bound] 190.67 Upper Bound) 194.28 5% Trimmed mean 192.07 Median 192.00 Variance 252.287 Std. Deviation 15.882 Minimum, 166 | Maximum 226 Range 60 Interquartile range 19 Descriptive statistics for coping strategies among prospective ‘1. Mean for coping strategies teachers are shown in the table-2. +e 192.47 (.e. an average level of coping strategies) and S.D. is 15,882. Median for coping strategies is 192, whereas Tange 1360 and interquartile range is 19. Table-2.2 : Descriptive Statistics for Problem Focused ‘Teachers (N= 300) Coping Strategies among Prospective with respect to gender. Descriptive Statistic Prospective N Mean | S-D- Teachers 93 i Problem focused Male 150 : fs coping strategies Female 150 | 9 i E Total 300 92GAC.) owing Classification of Problem erms of Percentiles jn der basis. Table-2.3 : Sh wee: Focused Coping Strategies 1m Different areas according to Gen Percentiles 10 25|50| 75 |90 95 5 83] 93 |102 110 |115 Weighted average (definition) | 78 | 78 male PFCS female 73 | 78 | 83}92|102 105 110 Percentile for problem focused coping strategies among prospective teachers with respect to gender is shown in the table 2.3. High level of problem focused coping strategies for male is above the score 102 on percentile 75, average level for problem focused coping strategies is from 83 to 93 on percentile 50 and low level for problem focused coping strategies is below the score 83 on percentile 25. Further high level score of problem focused coping strategies in female is above 102 on percentile 75, average level is from 83 to 92 on percentile 50 and low level is below the score of 83 on percentile 25. Table-2.4 : Showing Different Levels of Problem Focused Coping Strategies among Prospective Teachers with respect to Gender. Descriptive Statistics Levels of problem focused ime Fem coping strategies Above 102 | Above 102 Below 83 | Below 83 AverageDescriptive statistics for levels of problem focused coping strategies are shown in table-2.4. The table indicates that high, average and low levels of problem focused coping strategies among male prospective teachers are above 102, 83-93 and below 83 respectively. Further the table indicates that high, average and low level of problem focused coping strategies among female prospective teachers is above 102, 83-92 and below 83 respectively. Table-2.5 : Descriptive Statistics for Emotion Focused Coping Strategies among Prospective Teachers (N = 300) with respect to gender. Descriptive Statistic Prospective Ss. D. Teachers Emotion focused 10 coping strategies 9.0 9.9 Table-2.6 : Showing Classification of Emotion Focused Coping Strategies in terms of Percentiles 2 Different Areas According to gender basis. Percentiles Weighted average (definition) male EFCS female strategies amon’ Percentile for emotion focused coping St8tO# ante Prospective teachers with respect to gender is show12>) 2.6. High level of emotion focused coping strategies for male is above the score 110 on percentile 75, average level for emotion focused coping strategies is from 93 to 100 on percentile 50 ang low level for emotion focused coping strategies is below the score 93 on percentile 25. Further high level score of emotion focused coping strategies in female is above 107 on percentile 75, average level is from 93 to 96 on percentile 50 and low level is below the score of 93 on percentile 25. Table-2.7 : Showing Different Levels of Emotion Focused Coping Strategies among Prospective Teachers with Respect to Gender. Descriptive Statistics Levels of problem focused Male Female coping strategies High Above 110 | Above 107 Average 93-100 93-96 | Low Below 93 Below 93 Descriptive statistics for levels of perceived stress are shown in table 2.7. The table indicates that high, average and low levels of emotion focused coping strategies among male prospective teachers are above 110, 93-100 and below 93 respectively. Furthe? the table indicates that high, average and low level of emotion focused coping strategies among female prospective teachers above 107, 93-96 and below 93 respectively, ;( 13 ) 9,8: Latent Factor Determination for Problem and Showing its Total gable = is ‘ mused Coping Strategies pocu variance: _— Initial Bigen values Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Votal % of Cumulative Variance % Total % of | Cumulative Variance % iT \6.674 94720 | 24.720 _+ 6.674 | 24.720 24.720 Ms eb 3.853 14.271 38,991 rss Ja.271 | 38.991 al ty)2767 | 10.212 75303 | 2767 | 10.212 | 49.203 2 5958 | 54H | 2.494 | 9.238 58441 | Le re T 103 | o75e4 | 1929 | 9.143 | 67.564 5660 | 71.253 | sais ote T2177 | 4728 | 75.981 7020 | 80.001 3.556 | 83.557 3.241 : 86.198 ae 1 | 2680 | 89.478 1 z128 | 91.606 | T {8B |. 1805 | 93.411 [mw [s0 | 1261 | 94671 L \5__[30r =F 4 1.124 95.795, [16 feats [a | er Extracy "action Method ; Principal 05 [| 99961 | _—'| 009 | 032 | 99.993 [doz {~~ 007 [100,000 | Component Analysis.C14) Table-2,9 : Latent Factor Determination for Problem Focused Coping Strategies (Planning). and Showing its Factor Loading. Factor-1 Statement Factor Loading E ha 01 A419 |}. Planning 26 586 37 39 AL 726 eo 51 728 Table-2.10 : Latent Factor Determination for Problem Focused Coping Strategies (Active Coping) and its Factor Loading. Statement Factor Loading 08 588 15 589 16 522 Active Coping 18 701 38 es! 49 A738 Fe Fa Foe Fac Foe Acti S Cc ACis) 2.11: Latent Factor Determination for Problem ned Coping Strategies (Restraint Coping) and its Foe actor Loading. Statement Factor Loading er } Table-2.12; Latent Factor Determination for Problem ‘Table: KR Restraint Coping Focused Coping Strategies (Positive Thinking) and its Factor Loading. | Factor-4 Statement Factor Loading Positive Sia Thinking } ‘i Table-2.13 : Latent Factor Determination for Problem 8 - 3 c ver Coping Strategies (Suppression of Competing Wities) and its Factor Loading. Factor tang(16 ) Table-2.14 : Latent Factor Determination for Emotion Focused Coping Strategies and its Total Variance. [Factor] Tnitial Bigen values Extraction Sums of |___ Squared Loadings Total | %of |Cumulative | Total | %of [Cumulative Variance % Variance] % 1__|6.233| 21.493 | 21.493 [6.233] 21.493] 21.493 {2 [5.415] 18.672 | 40.165 [5.415 | 18.672 | 40,165 33.837] 13.230] 53.395 [3.837] 13.230| 53.395 4 [2.040] 7.034 | 60.429 [2.040| 7.034 | 60.429 5 [1.793] 6.183 | 66.613 [1.793] 6.183 | 66.613 6 [1.559[ 5.377 [ 71.990 [1.559] 5.377 | 71.990 7 |1.348[ 4.650 | 76.639 | 8 4.259 | 80.898 9 3.319 | 84.217 5 10 2.995 | 87.212 = Ti 2.346 | 89.558 12 2.001 | 91.558 13 1.797 | 93.356 | 14 1.351 | 94.707 | 15 Ti2i | 95.828 ! 16 843 96.671 17 729 97.400 18 “710 | 98.109 19 590 | 98.700 20 424 | 99.124 21 |.094 +326 | 99.450 22 |.055 | .191 | 99.641 El 23 [.039 135 | 99.776 24 |.032 | .110 | 99.886 25 |.018 | .061 | 99.947 36 |.010 | .033 | 99.980 Total Variance Explained j Extraction Method : Principal Component Analysis.Glies) tio nN Table-2.15 : Latent Factor Determination for Emotion Focused Coping Strategies (Avoidance) and its Factor Loading. Factor-1 Statement Factor Loading 12 155 605 Avoidance 24 597 36 822 44 52 Table-2.16: Latent Factor Determination for Emotion Focused Coping Strategies (Positive Re-interpretation) and its Factor Loading. 791 642 Factor-2 Positive Re-interpretation Table-2.17 : Latent Factor Determination for Emotion Focused Coping Strategies (Ventin Factor Loading. Factor-3 Venting Emotions Statement Factor Loading 528 553 791 Statement 826 g Emotions) and its Factor Loading | ee eet 685 etree oes 13 19 518 768(18) Table-2.18;: Latent Factor Determination for Emotion Me Focused Coping Strategies (Emotional Social Support) : A gait and its Factor Loading. " oli ap Factor-4 Statement Factor Loading jae ite® 29 901 sal Emotional peo Sia PFO jocial Support. foc Table-2.19 : Latent Factor Determination for Emotion Focused Coping Strategies (Behavioral Disengagement) factors and its Factor Loading. eee factors Factor-5 Statement Factor Loading we 09 741 | si Behavioral 10 817 | State Di nt u 547 | 22 isengageme: Ae | Eigen : Table-2.20 : Latent Factor Determination for Emotion | Fe cey Focused Coping Strategies (Wishful Thinking) and its tal yg Factor Loading. Atotay Factor-6 Statement Factor Loading "entig : itor, 17 819 ai Wishful 31 508 "orp Thinking 32 812 Sati, Validity the hy, Y In order to validate the coping strategies scale, the Cong investigator had followed the construct validity method of fa, ‘confirmatory’ factor analysis technique, The collected data Was tea,GS) analysed with atatiat ical Lechniques in SPSS (Statistic al package {or Social Sciences) version 14,0, First of all KMO Measures of Sampling Adequacy and Bartlett's Tout, of Sphericity had heen applied to ensure the suitability of factor analysis and sample After this, communalitios values are determined, The adequacy vd for items having scale and rest w below 0.5, The five fa (PECS) had been extracted out of factor loading near or more than 0.5 which explains Kigen Value more than 1,0 and cumulative variance of 67,584 per cent, This seems to be good bargain, because from the total variables five factors are extracted in an economized fashion. A total of 67. 5BA ion is retained by the above mentioned five of information is lost out of communalities value above 0.5 were se) discarded as their communalities values were ctors of Problem Focused Coping Strategies with aforementioned variable per cent of informat factors extracted and only 30 percent total variables. ; the six factors of Emotion Focused Coping | Strategies (EN'CS) had been extracted out of afore mentioned ‘Variables with factor loading near or more than 0.5 which explains "Bigen Value more than 1.0 and cumulative variance of 71.990 ¢ent, This also seems to be good bargain, because from the variables six factors are extracted in an economize fashion. of 71.990 tof information is retained by the above xtracted and only 28 per cent of factors had been of variables Similarly, lentioned wix factors ¢ mation is lost out of total variables, All the ccording to the nature jen appropriate names a porated in them, ity order to calculate the reliability of Coping Strategies Seale h's Alpha method of pvestigator had followed the Cronbae! ory Factor Analysis (CFA) technique to validate the re, The collected data was analysed with statistical in SPSS (Btatistical package for Social Sciences)( 20.) ity Co-efficient (‘r’) of Component, Table-2.21; Reliabili of Coping Strategies, Coping Strategies Reliability Co-efficient (Y) Cronbach's Cronbach’ Alpha 6 Alpha Based on Problem Focused 767 Coping Strategies Bee Emotion Focused Coping Strategies Table-2.22 : Correlation between Coping Strategies and it’s Different Dimensions (Problem Focused Coping Strategies and Emotion Focused Coping Strategies) of Prospective Teachers. Coping problem | emotion strategies| focused | focused | Variables coping. | Cee strategies | strategies ~] Pearson Coping 1 vmea** | .701** strategies correlation N problem Pearson focused coping correlation strategies tion Pearson emo’ focused coping correlation oe level (2-tailed) orrelal n is significant ¢ 0.0) #4C tion is sig! ificant at the(zi ) Table-2.22 indicates the relationship betwe i strategies and its different dimensions (p: bl ee ae ee ee onsions (problem focused copi strategies and emotion focused coping strategies) hmoniel aachers. There was fi iti ; i teachers. There was found positive correlation between the perceived stress and its dimensions as for emotion focused coping strategies 7 = 0.701 and for problem focus i used coping strategies r= 0.782. ee Similarly a positive relationship exists between emotion focused coping strategies and problem focused coping strategies r= 0.404. References 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. Mullis, R. L. (1999) Adolescent coping strategies m. Child Study Journal, 29, 69-69. Chapman, P. L. & and self-estee! Compas, B. E. (1987) Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 393. Elgar, F. J., Arlett, C. & Groves, R. (2003) Stress, coping, and behavioural problems among rural and urban adolescents. Journal of adolescence, 26, 574-585. Eraslan-Qapan, B. (2014) Prospective with possible future violence. Psychology, 28, 41-63. Eschenbeck, H., KohImann, Cc. W. & Lohaus 001) ae differences in coping strategies in chile adolescents. Journal of Individual Differences» 28, M sis of coping in & | of Health and s’ strategies to cope teacher: ences & Education Sci «, A. (2007) Gender Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. 8. (1980) An analy’ middle-aged community sample. Journa Social Behavior, 28, 219-289.