Stresli Durumlarla Başa Çıkma Envanteri Kısa Formu’nun (SDBÇE-21) klinik dışı Türk örnekleminde geçerliliği

Amaç: Stresli Durumlarla Başa Çıkma Envanteri, güçlü psikometrik özellikleri nedeniyle umut vaadeden bir ölçme aracı niteliği taşımaktadır. Bu çalışmada, Stresli Durumlarla Başa Çıkma Envanteri-Kısa Formunun psikometrik özelliklerinin, ülkemizde bir üniversitede lisans eğitimi almakta olan Türk öğrenciler üzerinde sınanması amaçlanmıştır. Yöntem: Araştırmaya toplam 978 üniversite öğrencisi katılmıştır. Öğrencilerin yaş ortalaması 20.33’dür (SS±3.17). Çalışmanın örneklemini oluşturan grubun %33.33’ü erkektir (n= 326). Bu çalışmada, Stresli Durumlarla Başa Çıkma Envanteri-Kısa Form (SDBÇE-21), Pozitif ve Negatif Duygulanım Ölçeği (PNDÖ), Yaşam Doyumu Ölçeği (YDÖ) uygulanmıştır. Ölçme aracının geçerlik düzeyine ilişkin doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ve SDBÇE-21 alt ölçeklerinin psikolojik değişkenlerle Pearson korelasyonları hesaplanmıştır. Sonrasında, envanterin güvenilirlik düzeyini belirleyebilmek için ölçeğin iç tutarlılık ve 15 günlük test-tekrar test güvenilirliği değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular: Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi sonucunda, üç faktörlü orijinal yapıya ilişkin Hatanın Ortalama Karesinin Yakınlığı (RMSEA)= 0.07, Karşılaştırmalı Uyum Endeksi (CFI)= 0.91, Artan Uyum İndeksi (IFI)= 0.91, Normlaştırılmamış Uyum Endeksi (NNFI)= 0.90, Standardize Edilmiş Artıkların Ortalamalarının Karesi (SMRS)= 0.08 olarak elde edilmiştir. Bu bulgular, doğrulayıcı faktör analiziyle ölçme aracının üç faktörlü orijinal yapısının Türk örnekleminde geçerliliğini göstermektedir. Alt ölçekler için hesaplanan iç tutarlılık değerleri sırasıyla Çözüme Dönük Başa Çıkma için ?= 0.72, Duygusal Başa Çıkma için ?= 0.77 ve Kaçınmacı Başa Çıkma için ?= 0.74 olarak hesaplanmıştır. 15 günlük test-tekrar test korelasyonları sırasıyla Çözüme Dönük Başa Çıkma için r= 0.79, Duygusal Başa Çıkma için r= 0.75 ve Kaçınmacı Başa Çıkma için r= 0.66 olarak bulunmuştur. Pozitif duygulanımın çözüme dönük başa çıkmayla (r= 0.36), negatif duygulanımın duygusal başa çıkmayla ilişkisinin (r= 0.44) orta düzeyde olduğu görülmüştür. Sonuç: SDBÇE-21’in orijinal üç faktörlü yapısının Türk üniversite öğrencilerinden oluşan örneklemde geçerli olduğu görülmüştür. Söz konusu ölçme aracı araştırmalarda kullanılabilecek yeterli geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik düzeyine sahiptir.

Validity of the Coping Inventory For Stressful Situations - Short Form (CISS-21) in a nonclinical Turkish sample

Objective: The Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS) is a promising psychometric instrument with sound psychometric properties. In this study, we aimed to examine psychometric properties of the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations-Short Form (CISS-21) in a relatively large Turkish college sample. Method: 978 undergraduates participated in the study. Mean age of the sample was 20.33 (SD±3.17). 33.33 percent of the sample were males (n=326). In the study, the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations-Short Form (CISS-21), Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), and Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWSL) were administered. To explore the validity of the psychometric instrument, confirmatory factor analysis and Pearson’s correlations of subscales with psychological variables were computed. Later, internal consistency and test-retest correlations between two applications were obtained 15-day apart to evaluate reliability of the instrument. Results: In the confirmatory factor analysis, three-factor structure model generated root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) value of 0.07, comparative fit index (CFI) value of 0.91, incremental fit index (IFI) value of 0.91, a non-normed fit index (NNFI) value of 0.90, and SMSR value of 0.08. Confirmatory factor analysis provided evidence for the validity of three-factor structure in Turkish sample. Internal consistency estimates for the three dimensions of the scale were as follows: for the Task-oriented coping, α= 0.72; for the Emotionoriented coping, α= 0.77; and for the Avoidance-oriented coping, α= 0.74. 15-day test-retest correlations for the sub-scales were as follows: for the Task-oriented coping, r= 0.79; for the Emotion-oriented coping, r= 0.75; and for the Avoidance-oriented coping, r= 0.66. Positive affect was significantly associated with Task-oriented coping (r= 0.36) and negative affect was significantly associated with Emotion-oriented coping (r= 0.44). Conclusion: Confirmatory factor analysis solution replicated the original three-factor structure of the CISS- 21 in Turkish college sample. The scale is a valid and reliable instrument to be used in research purposes among Turkish sample.

___

  • 1. Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Stress, Appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer, 1984; 141.
  • 2. Skinner EA, Edge K, Altman J, Sherwood H. Searching for the structure of coping: a review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping. Psychol Bull 2003; 129:216-269.
  • 3. Folkman S, Moskowitz JT. Coping: pitfalls and promise. Annu Rev Psychol 2004; 55: 745-774.
  • 4. Somerfield MR, McCrae RR. Stress and coping research: methodological challenges, theoretical advances, and clinical applications. Am Psychol 2000; 55:620-625.
  • 5. Skinner EA, Zimmer-Gembeck MJ. The development of coping. Annu Rev Psychol 2006; 58:119-144.
  • 6. Parker JDA, Endler NS. Coping with coping assessment: a critical review. Eur J Pers 1992; 6:321-344.
  • 7. Lazarus RS. Toward better research on stress and coping. Am Psychol 2000; 55:665-673.
  • 8. Folkman S, Lazarus RS. An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample. J Health Soc Behav 1980; 21:219-239.
  • 9. Folkman S, Lazarus RS. Manual for the Ways of Coping Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1988.
  • 10. Carver CS, Scheier MF, Weintraub JK. Assessing coping strategies: a theoretically based approach. J Pers Soc Psychol 1989; 56:267-283.
  • 11. Moos RH. Coping Responses Inventory: CRI-Adult form professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resource Inc., 1993.
  • 12. Endler NS, Parker JDA. Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS): Manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems, 1990.
  • 13. Endler NS, Parker JDA. Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS): Manual. Second ed., Toronto: Multi-Health Systems, 1999.
  • 14. Amirkhan JH. A factor analytically derived measure of coping: the Coping Strategy Indicator. J Pers Soc Psychol 1990; 59:1066-1074.
  • 15. Billings AG, Moss RH. The role of coping responses and social resources in attenuating the impact of stressful life events. J Behav Med 1981; 4:139-157.
  • 16. Pearlin LI, Schooler C. The structure of coping. J Healt Soc Beh 1978; 19:2-21.
  • 17. Endler NS, Parker JDA. The multidimensional assessment of coping: a critical evaluation. J Pers Soc Psychol 1990; 58:844-854.
  • 18. Endler NS, Parker JDA. Assessment of multidimensional coping: task, emotional, and avoidance strategies. Psychol Assess 1994; 6:50-60.
  • 19. Cosway R, Endler NS, Sadler AJ, Deary IJ. The coping inventory for stressful situations: factorial structure and associations with personality traits and psychological health. J Appl Biobehav Res 2001; 5:121-143.
  • 20. Endler NS, Parker JD, Butcher JN. A factor analytic study of coping styles and the MMPI-2 content scales. J Clin Psychol 1993; 49:523-527.
  • 21. McWilliams LA, Cox BJ, Enns MW. Use of the coping inventory for stressful situations in a clinically depressed sample: factor structure, personality correlates, and prediction of distress. J Clin Psychol 2003; 59:423-437.
  • 22. Rafnsson FD, Smari J, Windle M, Mears SA, Endler NS. Factor structure and psychometric characteristics of the Icelandic version of the coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS). Pers Individ Dif 2006; 40:1247–1258.
  • 23. Uehara T, Sakado K, Sakado M, Sato T, Someya T. Relationship between stress coping and personality in patients with major depressive disorder. Psychother Psychosom 1999; 68:26-30.
  • 24. Uehara T, Sakado K, Sato T, Takizawa R. Coping measurement and the state effect of depression and anxiety in psychiatric outpatients. Psychopathology 2002; 35:48-51.
  • 25. Nagata T, Matsuyama M, Kiriike N, Iketani T, Oshima J. Stress coping strategy in Japanese patients with eating disorders: relationship with bulimic and impulsive behaviors. J Nerv Ment Dis 2000; 188:280-286.
  • 26. Smith GT, McCarthy DM, Anderson KG. On the sins of short-form development. Psychol Assess 2000; 12:102-111.
  • 27. Calsbeek H, Rijken M, Henegouwen GPB, Dekker J. Factor structure of the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS-21) in adolescents and young adults with chronic digestive disorders: In Calsbeek H (editor). The Social Position of Adolescents and Young Adults with Chronic Digestive Disorders. Utrecht: Nivel, 2003, 83-103.
  • 28. Cohan SL, Jang KL, Stein MB. Confirmatory factor analysis of a Short Form of the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations. J Clin Psychol 2006; 62:273-283.
  • 29. Eaton RJ, Bradley G. The role of gender and negative affectivity in stressor appraisal and coping selection. Int J Stress Manag 2008; 15:94-115.
  • 30. Lue B, Chen H, Wang C. Stress, personal characteristics and burnout among first postgraduate year residents: a nationwide study in Taiwan. Med Teach 2010; 32: 400-407.
  • 31. Austin E J, Saklofske D H, Mastora S M. Emotional intelligence, coping and exam-related stress in Canadian undergraduate students. Aust J Psychol 2010; 62:42-50.
  • 32. Folkman S, Lazarus RS. Coping as a mediator of emotion. J Pers Soc Psychol 1988; 54: 466-475.
  • 33. Lazarus RS. Emotion and Adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
  • 34. Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS Scales. J Pers Soc Psychol 1988; 47:1063–1070.
  • 35. Gençöz T. Positive and negative affect schedule: A study of validity and reliability. Turkish Journal of Psychology 2000; 15:27–28.
  • 36. Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The satisfaction with life scale. J Pers Assess 1985; 49:71-75.
  • 37. Durak M, Senol-Durak E, Gençöz T. Psychometric properties of the Satisfaction with Life Scale among Turkish university students, correctional officers, and elderly adults. Soc Indic Res 2010; 99:413-429.
  • 38. Satorra A. Goodness of fit testing of structural equation models with multiple group data and nonnormality: In Cudeck R, Du Toit S, Sörbom D (editors). Structural Equation Modeling: Present and Future. Lincolnwood: SSI Scientific Software International, 2001, 231-256.
  • 39. Kline, R. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Second ed. New York: Guildford Press, 2005.
  • 40. Endler NS, Parker JDA. State and trait anxiety, depression and coping styles. Aus J Psychol 1990; 42:207-220.
  • 41. Endler NS, Speer RL, Johnson JM, Flett GL. Controllability, coping, efficacy, and distress. Eur J Pers 2000; 14:245-264.
Düşünen Adam - Psikiyatri ve Nörolojik Bilimler Dergisi-Cover
  • ISSN: 1018-8681
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 4 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 1984
  • Yayıncı: Kare Yayıncılık