Stress and Health

Stress and Health 25: 31–40 (2009)

Published online 22 September 2008 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/smi.1228
Received 24 November 2006; Accepted 13 December 2007

The Kids Coping Scale

Darryl Maybery, Sharon Steer, Andrea Reupert and Melinda Goodyear

Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW, Australia

Summary
The measurement of stress and coping in adolescents has received some attention; however, the
understanding and development of measures of how children cope has not kept pace. This study
reports the conceptual development and psychometric properties of the Kids Coping Scale (KCS),
a brief self-report measure of problem, emotion and social support coping dimensions. Partici-
pants were 834 children aged 7–13 years of whom 390 were male (48.6 per cent) with a mean
age of 9.88 years and 415 were female (49.6 per cent) with a mean age of 9.87 years. Principal
components analysis did not support a hypothesized three-factor structure; however a clear two-
factor structure (cross-validated) distinguishing problem and emotion-focused coping actions did
emerge. The KCS returned low to moderate levels of internal consistency and low to moderate
correlations with other relevant constructs (e.g. self esteem, parent responded strengths and dif-
ficulties). The findings highlight a clear problem- and emotion-focused structure in a brief measure
considered suitable for children 7 years and above. Weaknesses of the scale are outlined along
with implications for the future developments to the KCS being identified. Copyright © 2008
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Key Words
coping; stress; children; psychometric properties; questionnaire

Introduction brief measure of coping designed for children.

Stress is now recognized as a significant factor in
childhood experience (Compas, Connor-Smith,
Saltzman, Thomsen, & Wadsworth, 2001).
However, it is not stress in itself but the avail-
ability and use of resources to cope with that
stress that appears to matter most for mental
health and well-being (Compas, 1987). While
there is an extensive adult literature regarding
coping in response to stress, relatively few authors
have written about coping in children.
The current study investigated the psychomet-
ric properties of the Kids Coping Scale (KCS), a
* Correspondence to: Darryl Maybery, School of
Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts,
Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2650,
Australia.
†
E-mail: dmaybery@csu.edu.au
While scales such as the Response to Stress Ques-
tionnaire (Connor-Smith, Compas, Wadsworth,
Thomsen, & Saltzman, 2000), the Adolescent
Coping Scale (Frydenberg & Lewis, 1994) and
the HICUP (Ayers, Sandler, West, & Roosa,
1996) have recently been developed, their useful-
ness for children is limited as they are lengthy and
primarily designed for adolescents. The one brief
scale designed specifically for children, the
Kidcope (Donaldson, Prinstein, Danovsky, &
Spirito, 2000), has psychometric inadequacies,
with single items representing constructs, making
it difficult to establish factor structures and inter-
nal reliability (Compas et al., 2001). Unfortu-
nately, progress in the field has also been hampered
by unclear and inconsistent conceptualizations
and measurement of coping (e.g. Compas et al.,
2001; Skinner, Edge, Altman, & Sherwood, 2003;
Steed, 1998).
As with many others who have engaged this
topic (Latack & Havlovic, 1992), the current

Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

 D. Maybery et al.
approach was based on Lazarus and Folkman’s
(1984) cognitive transactional theoretical frame-
work. They proposed that coping is a fundamen-
tal dimension of the secondary appraisal process
(Bakal, 1992) with the central question asked by
an individual, ‘What can I do in relation to this
stressor?’ (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Coping
actions have been defined as ‘. . . constantly
changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to
manage specific external and/or internal demands
that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the
resources of the person’ (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984, p. 141). This definition of coping has been
applied in studies of childhood stress and coping
(e.g. Compas et al., 2001). The KCS is designed
within this framework to measure children’s cog-
nitive and behavioural efforts to cope with situa-
tions they have appraised as stressful.
While there has not been a clear-cut classifica-
tion of types of coping (Trenberth, Dewe, &
Walkey, 1996), the dichotomy of emotion-focused
coping (EFC) and problem-focused coping (PFC;
Folkman et al., 1991) is perhaps the best general
method for classifying strategies (Trenberth et al.,
1996). PFC activities are regarded as efforts to
change the environment or oneself in relation to
it, and EFC involves strategies that better manage
the individual’s emotional response to the stressor
(Folkman et al., 1991). PFC includes both cogni-
tive problem solving and strategies such as con-
flict resolution and goal management (Folkman
et al., 1991). Alternatively, EFC involves cogni-
tive and behavioural strategies to minimize the
personal impact of the stressor (Folkman et al.,
1991) aimed at regulating negative emotions
associated with the problem (e.g. avoiding prob-
lems or issues).
This conceptualization of coping has not been
without detractors. Some contend that a two-
factor model does not capture the diversity of
potential coping strategies (e.g. Carver, Scheier,
& Weintraub, 1989). Others have suggested three
modalities such as problem solving, seeking social
support and avoidance (Amirkhan, 1990) or task-
oriented, emotion-oriented and avoidance coping
(Endler & Parker, 1990a). At the extreme, authors
have differentiated 8 (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985),
13 (Carver et al., 1989) and 18 (Frydenberg &
Lewis, 1994) types of coping. While there has
been considerable diversity in opinion concerning
the number and nature of coping types (Skinner
et al., 2003; Trenberth et al., 1996), Folkman and
Lazarus (1980) view PFC and EFC as higher
order categories useful in the conceptual organi-
32 Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
zation of lower order strategies. The theoretical
importance of this structure has been widely
acknowledged and applied in the literature (Car-
penter, 1992; Dewe & Guest, 1990; Folkman &
Moskowitz, 2004; Latack & Havlovic, 1992) and
has also received theoretical support in regard to
children’s coping (Compas, Malcarne, & Banez,
1992).
Seeking social support (SSS) was added to PFC
and EFC as a third distinct category by adding
items that focused upon help seeking and thoughts
about what others may do in the circumstances.
This grouping of coping types is not uncommon
in the literature. Folkman and Moskowitz (2004)
contend that many empirically derived coping
categories include a social factor. In their review
of coping classification systems, Skinner et al.
(2003) identified SSS as ‘one of the most common
families of coping’ (p. 27) with other factor ana-
lytical studies supporting the inclusion of social
support as a coping mechanism (e.g. Amirkhan,
1990; Carver et al., 1989; Cook & Heppner,
1997; Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Stone & Neale,
1984). Cohen and Wills’ (1985) review also links
social support in regard to stress with positive
psychological and physical health outcomes in
adults, as have others in the child and adolescent
literatures (see Compas, 1987). Consequently,
items on the KCS were selected to represent cog-
nitive and behavioural strategies across PFC, EFC
and SSS concepts.
There have also been measurement issues in the
coping literature with the main concern centring
upon inadequate component structures and low
scale reliabilities. Absent, unclear and non-
replicated structures have plagued previous mea-
sures (Carpenter, 1992; Compas et al., 2001;
Endler & Parker, 1994; Guppy et al., 2004). For
example, in a review of studies employing
Folkman and Lazarus’ (1980) eight-factor Ways
of Coping Checklist, Skinner et al. (2003) high-
lighted that for eight different stressors, studies
highlighted between two- and nine-factor analysis
categories. While these issues forebode caution to
the current research, reviewers in the field (Skinner
et al., 2003; Steed, 1998) have indicated that
PFC, SSS and EFC appear on more than half of
the scales reviewed.
Critiques have also focused on the low to mod-
erate estimates of internal consistency of coping
scales (Compas et al., 2001; Endler & Parker,
1990b, 1994; Latack & Havlovic, 1992; Steed,
1998). Unfortunately, the Kidcope (Donaldson
et al., 2000) instrument for children employs
Stress and Health 25: 31–40 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/smi

single items to measure constructs and subse-
quently has problems with both component struc-
tures and internal reliabilities (Compas et al.,
2001).
While there have been difficulties with struc-
ture, previous findings lend support to the con-
ceptual organization of coping into PFC, EFC and
SSS. Consequently, it was hypothesized that a
three-factor structure would be found in this
study. The study also examined subscale reliabil-
ities and their relationships with other well-being
constructs, including child responses to measures
of self-esteem and relationships constructs (i.e.
connectedness and problems with others) and for
parent responses on the Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 2001). These
well-being measures were chosen as they were
likely to be related to the coping concepts. For
example, it was expected that PFC would be
positively correlated with self-esteem, as would
SSS to the connectedness measures. The parent
responses were obtained to provide an indepen-
dent validity assessment of the children’s
responses.
Method
Participants were 834 children of whom 18 (2.2
per cent) were 7 years of age, 127 (15.2 per cent)
were 8 years, 175 (21.0 per cent) were 9 years,
194 (23.3 per cent) were 10 years, 177 (21.2 per
cent) were 11 years, 89 (10.7 per cent) were 12
years and 10 (1.2 per cent) were 13 years. There
were 390 boys (48.6 per cent) with a mean age
of 9.88 years and 415 girls (49.6 per cent) with
a mean age of 9.87 years (29 did not indicate
gender). A total of 701 children had matching
parent data. Participating parents were primarily
mothers (92 per cent) and education levels ranged
from some secondary education (10 per cent),
completed secondary (20 per cent), some formal
vocational training (10 per cent), completed
formal vocational training (28 per cent), some
university training (8 per cent) and completed
university (24 per cent).
Participants were recruited voluntarily (21 per
cent response rate) from school locations
across the Australian states of New South
Wales and Queensland and the Australian Capital
Territory. Data were collected during 2005 by a
team of eight researchers (including research
students under the supervision of the first
author). Participating schools were located in the
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
The Kids Coping Scale
metropolitan (56 per cent), rural (41.6 per
cent) and remote (2.4 per cent) districts of eastern
Australia.
Child measures
The KCS requires children to think about . . . a
problem or something which has gone wrong,
what did you do? and to respond to nine items
(e.g. You tried to think of different ways to solve
the problem) on a three-point Likert scale: Never/
Sometimes/A lot.
The Rosenberg–Simmons Self-Esteem Scale
(RSSES; Rosenberg, 1979) is a six-item instru-
ment used as an indicator of global self-esteem.
Rosenberg and Simmons (1975) and Rosenberg
(1979) each reported internal reliability for the
RSSES of 0.90.
Relationship connections and problems
with important others (Maybery, Reupert &
Goodyear, 2005) were measured using two newly
developed measures. The connections measure
asks children to respond on a four-point ‘smiley
faces’ scale from ‘none’ (did not happen) to ‘hap-
pened some’, ‘happened a lot’, to ‘happened all
the time’ format. This is in response to if the
person did make you happy, please put a cross
through one of the smiley faces. Remember, the
bigger the face, the more often you had a good
time. The 10 items are thought to reflect all
possible child connections and include such
things as time spent with your mum and time
spent with your best friend. Items can be totalled
or combined into three subscales corresponding
to connections with family, other adults (e.g.
school teachers) and friends (Maybery et al.,
2005). Similarly, the problems measure requires
children to respond on a four-point ‘sad faces’
scale from ‘no problem’, ‘happened a little’,
‘happened a lot’, to ‘major problem’ during
the last few weeks in relation to relationship
dimensions as per the connections measure. While
reliability and construct validity of the connec-
tions and problems total and subscales have not
been determined at this point, the measures were
developed in line with recent reviews of the
literature suggesting that high levels of con-
nectedness ‘may buffer young people from the
many challenges and risks they face in today’s
world’ (Lezin, Rolleri, Bean, & Taylor, 2004,
p. viii) and is an important contributor to mental
health and well-being.
Stress and Health 25: 31–40 (2009) 33
DOI: 10.1002/smi
 D. Maybery et al.

Parent measures series of PCAs that explore the factor structure of

Parents completed the 25-item SDQ (http://www.
sdqinfo.com; Goodman, 2001) in relation to their
child. The SDQ includes total difficulties, emo-
tional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity,
peer problems and prosocial behaviour subscales
and is completed on a three-point scale of ‘not
true’, ‘somewhat true’ and ‘certainly true’. The
SDQ is a widely used measure (Hawes & Dadds,
2004), and Mellor (2004) recently found internal
reliabilities above 0.70 for all SDQ subscales except
conduct problems (0.67) in an Australian sample.
Procedure
Relevant ethics permission was obtained, and
informed consent and completion of questionnaires
for both children and parent respondents were
undertaken through the school system. Recruitment
was undertaken via notes taken home by children
from school to their parents. Children completed
questionnaires in small groups, and parents com-
pleted SDQ surveys at home and returned them to
the school for collection by researchers. Where pos-
sible, parent and student forms were then matched,
coded and de-identified.
Results
Initially presented are Pearson correlations
between all of the coping items (Table I). Then a
the KCS was outlined. Following this are coeffi-
cients of congruence that show split-sample valid-
ity of the KCS factor structures and, finally,
reliability and validity data highlighting psycho-
metric features of the subscales.
Preliminary analyses were undertaken to iden-
tify and replace a small number of missing values.
Some variable distributions exhibited skewness
and/or kurtosis. However, as the current analyses
were exploratory, the normality assumptions
were not regarded as critical (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 1996). Pearson correlations between the
nine items including hypothesized factors (e.g.
PFC) in parentheses are shown in Table I.
Over half (22 of 36) the inter-item relationships
were significant (p < 0.01), with five correlations
greater than 0.20. Importantly, the stronger cor-
relations were between the variables that would
be expected to be related (i.e. the items contribut-
ing to the respective hypothesized factors).
Exploratory PCAs were then undertaken to sta-
tistically determine the subscale structure of the
KCS. An exploratory approach was undertaken,
as a clear factor structure has not been shown
previously. Oblique rotation was chosen as rela-
tionships between factors were assumed (Tabach-
nick & Fidell, 1996) and is commonly employed
with appraisal model data sets (e.g. Hart, Wearing,
& Heady, 1995; Maybery, 2003). Three ‘rules of
thumb’ were used to derive factors, Eigenvalues
of one (Rummel, 1970; Stevens, 1996), scree tests

Table I. Pearson correlations between KCS items (n = 834).

Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. You tried to think of different — — — — — — — —
ways to solve the problem (PFC).
2. You did not want to think about 0.08* — — — — — — —
it (EFC).
3. You thought about what others 0.10** −0.02 — — — — — —
might do (SSS)
4. You tried your best to make 0.24** 0.00 0.08* — — — — —
things better (PFC).
5. You avoided the problem or 0.03 0.12** 0.10** 0.06 — — — —
where it happened (EFC).
6. You asked someone to help (SSS) 0.15** 0.05 0.11** 0.17** 0.08* — — —
7. You tried hard to fix the problem 0.25** −0.04 0.13** 0.35** 0.02 0.10** — —
(PFC).
8. You did things to stop thinking −0.02 0.13** 0.07* 0.04 0.12** 0.05 0.00 —
about it (EFC).
9. If it were your fault, you would 0.18** 0.02 0.13** 0.29** 0.08* 0.18** 0.23** −0.03
say you were sorry (PFC).
* p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
EFC: emotion-focused coping; KCS: Kids Coping Scale; PFC: problem-focused coping; SSS: seeking social support.

34 Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Stress and Health 25: 31–40 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/smi
 The Kids Coping Scale

and ‘. . . smaller factors are retained only if they
have sufficient substantive meaning to be inter-
pretable’ (Rummel, 1970, p. 362). An initial PCA
that restricted the analysis to the hypothesized
three-factor solution is shown in Table II.
The PFC items (1, 4, 7, 9) and the EFC items
(2, 5, 8) had expected loadings on distinct factors;
however, no clear third SSS factor emerged.
Instead, the third factor had one SSS item (3)
loading with an EFC item (2). The second SSS
item (6) did not load on this factor or to a higher
level on any other factor. In addition, a scree plot
suggested that a two-factor solution would
provide a better fit to the data, and because there
were strong loadings on the PFC and EFC factors,
it was decided to rerun the analysis restricting it
to two factors. This also did not result in a simple
solution and is not reported here. A third PCA
also restricted to two factors, but excluding the
two SSS items, was then undertaken, and this
revealed a simple solution with two clear factors.
The structure is presented in Table III (see total
sample columns) along with further analyses
undertaken to substantiate this structure.

Table II. PCA structure matrix of the KCS showing expected factors,
factor loadings and amount of variance explained by the analysis (n =
834).
KCS items ordered according to Factors
hypothesized factors
1 2 3
Problem-focused coping
1 0.61 0.04 0.16
4 0.71 0.03 −0.03
7 0.67 −0.05 −0.14
9 0.61 0.10 −0.20
Emotion-focused coping
2 0.07 0.50 0.66
5 0.09 0.65 −0.12
8 −0.02 0.63 0.06
Seeking social support
3 0.22 0.40 −0.70
6 0.42 0.31 −0.09
% Variance explained (cumulative) 22.0 14.1 (36.0) 11.0 (47.1)
KCS: Kids Coping Scale; PCA: principal components analysis.

Table III. Two-factor PCA structures for the total sample equally divided
replication subsamples A and B.
Total sample Subsample A Subsample B

(n = 834) (n = 413) (n = 413)

KCS items 1 2 1 2 1 2
PFC
1 0.59 0.08 0.57 0.04 0.61 0.12
4 0.74 0.06 0.74 0.09 0.72 0.04
7 0.70 −0.06 0.66 −0.13 0.73 0.01
9 0.62 0.04 0.63 0.00 0.63 0.10
EFC
2 0.01 0.66 −0.11 0.69 0.12 0.61
5 0.12 0.63 0.07 0.59 0.16 0.66
8 −0.02 0.64 0.04 0.64 −0.07 0.65
Variance explained 25.65 17.79 24.71 18.05 27.04 17.08
Reliability 0.58 0.30 0.56 0.30 0.61 0.30
EFC: emotion-focused coping; KCS: Kids Coping Scale; PCA: principal components
analysis; PFC: problem-focused coping.

Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Stress and Health 25: 31–40 (2009) 35
DOI: 10.1002/smi
 D. Maybery et al.

The two-factor solution explained a total of 43
per cent of the variance, with the first factor (PFC)
contributing 25.7 per cent and the second (EFC)
contributing 17.8 per cent. In line with Stevens’
(1996) recommendation to only interpret factor
loadings above 0.40, all items loaded above this
on their respective factors, and there were no
cross loadings, also at this level.
A cross-validation of the PCA solution was
then undertaken to examine the consistency of
these PCA loadings (Floyd & Widaman, 1995).
This was undertaken artificially by randomly
dividing the data set into two equal sized sub-
samples and comparing equivalent PCAs to that
outlined above. A coefficient of congruence (rc)
was then employed to compare resultant struc-
tures (Floyd & Widaman, 1995). According to
Jensen (1998), an rc value of 0.90 indicates a high
degree of similarity and a value above 0.95 indi-
cates that the factors are practically identical.
Table III above shows results of these analyses.
The coefficients of congruence were (computed
using REALBasic 5.5; http://www.personal.psu.
edu/mww10/Watkins3.html) rc = 0.98 for Factor
1 and rc = 0.98 for Factor 2 suggesting near iden-
tical PCA structures.
Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients are
also reported at the bottom of Table III and were
0.58 for PFC and 0.30 for EFC. Reliabilities are
also shown for the split samples. Correlations
between the PFC and EFC (SSS is also shown)
constructs are shown in Table IV with self-esteem,
connectedness and problem subscales and matched
parent–child data on the SDQ. Reliabilities of
these scales were as follows (Cronbach’s alpha):
self-esteem (0.65), connections with family (0.57),
connections with other adult (0.41), connections
with friend (0.67), total connections (0.69), prob-
lems with family (0.52), problems with other
adults (0.49), problems with friends (0.69), total
problems (0.72), emotional symptoms (0.73),
conduct problems (0.55), hyperactivity (0.77),
peer problems (0.60) and prosocial behaviour
(0.64).
The PFC scale was significantly correlated with
all variables other than problems with friends.
Positive correlations ranged from 0.11 with
friends to 0.19 with prosocial behaviour. In addi-
tion, PFC was negatively correlated from −0.08
(emotional symptoms) to −0.25 with the hyper-
activity subscales of the SDQ. EFC had only two
significant correlations (negative) with self-esteem
and total connections. SSS had four significant
positive correlations with family, other adults and
total connections, and with the prosocial scale of
the SDQ.
Discussion
This study reports on the conceptual development
and psychometric properties of a coping scale for
children. Structural analyses of the nine items of
the KCS did not support a three-factor structure.

Table IV. Pearson correlations between KCS subscales with self-esteem,

connections, problems and parent SDQ subscale responses.
Related constructs PFC EFC SSS
Self-esteem 0.18** −0.10** 0.03
Connections with family 0.14** −0.06 0.13**
Connections with other adult 0.16** −0.07 0.13**
Connections with friends 0.11** −0.06 0.02
Total connections 0.17** −0.08* 0.12**
Problems with family −0.12** −0.01 −0.02
Problems with other adults −0.20** 0.03 −0.03
Problems with friends −0.05 0.05 0.06
Total problems −0.15** 0.04 0.01
SDQ—emotional symptoms scale −0.08* 0.02 0.00
SDQ—conduct problems scale −0.17** −0.02 −0.06
SDQ—hyperactivity scale −0.25** 0.01 −0.04
SDQ—peer problems scale −0.11** 0.04 0.00
SDQ—prosocial scale 0.19** 0.01 0.07*
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
EFC: emotion-focused coping; KCS: Kids Coping Scale; PFC: problem-focused coping;
SDQ: strengths and difficulties questionnaire; SSS: seeking social support.

36 Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Stress and Health 25: 31–40 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/smi

The social support items did not form a factor
independently of the PFC and EFC items.
However, when these support items were removed
from the analysis, a robust two-factor solution
consisting of PFC and EFC strategies emerged.
Both PFC and EFC items loaded on their respec-
tive factors with no cross loadings on the alter-
nate factor, showing conceptual distinctiveness of
these two subscales. Importantly, replication of
this two-component structure was also found in
a cross-validation exercise with two randomly
created subsamples of the current data set. This
approach was undertaken in an effort to partially
address a major criticism in the literature con-
cerning the failure of many studies to replicate the
factor structure of coping measures across samples
(see Compas et al., 2001; Carpenter, 1992; Endler
& Parker, 1990b, 1994; Guppy et al., 2004;
Skinner et al., 2003; Trenberth et al., 1996). In
addition, while not undertaken here in indepen-
dent samples, separate PCAs of the two subsam-
ples did produce factor loadings that were highly
congruent, suggesting the factor structure of the
PFC and EFC dimensions of the KCS to be rela-
tively stable.
The PFC–EFC dichotomy of the KCS is consis-
tent with findings from previous research (see
Compas et al., 1988; Folkman & Lazarus, 1980,
1985; Carver et al., 1989; Trenberth et al., 1996)
and supports empirical work in this area. For
example, Compas et al. (1988) found that chil-
dren used both PFC and EFC strategies in response
to interpersonal and academic stressors, and
contend the PFC–EFC model provides a useful
approach to studying the coping behaviour of
children.
Although the ‘seeking social support’ items did
not form a distinct third factor, this does not
necessarily mean that social support is not rele-
vant for the coping behaviour of children. Others
have shown an overlap of support with EFC and
PFC dimensions (Amirkhan, 1990; Carver et al.,
1989; Connor-Smith et al., 2000; Dumont &
Provost, 1999; Folkman & Lazarus, 1985, 1988;
Stone & Neale, 1984). For example, Dumont and
Provost (1999) report significant correlations
between social support-seeking coping, and both
problem solving and avoidance forms of coping.
Unfortunately, the internal consistency of the
subscales, particularly the EFC scale, was rela-
tively low with the alpha reliabilities of 0.58 for
PFC and 0.30 for EFC. Similar reliabilities were
also found in the split samples and they fall short
of the conventional standard of 0.70. Together,
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
The Kids Coping Scale
these data suggest that the PFC has the most
consistent internal structure, although still below
the 0.70 standard.
Low reliabilities are not uncommon in mea-
sures of coping (see Folkman & Lazarus, 1985,
1988; Connor-Smith et al., 2000). For example,
Billings and Moos (1984) report 0.66 reliabilities
for appraisal-focused coping, 0.66 for PFC and
0.41 for EFC. In addition, the suitability of such
criteria for evaluating coping scales has also been
questioned (Compas et al., 2001; Dewe, 2001,
2003; Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004). Compas
et al. (2001) point out the high specificity of indi-
vidual items on coping scales may produce low
internal reliabilities as do Billings and Moos
(1981), who suggest that ‘the use of one coping
response may be sufficient to reduce stress, and
thus lessen the need to use other responses from
either the same or other categories of coping’
(p. 145). Also relevant is the relationship between
reliability and the number of items included in a
scale (Compas et al., 2001; Pallant, 2001) with
lower alpha coefficients (e.g. 0.50) being regularly
reported for brief scales (less than 10 items;
Pallant, 2001). The use of only three items (to
keep the scale as brief as possible) may not have
been enough to ensure internal reliability of the
subscales. However, while these points are rele-
vant, readers should be guarded in their approach
and use of the measure.
In addition, three items per subscale does not
explain the discrepancy between the PFC and
EFC reliabilities. A further, perhaps more impor-
tant explanation is that EFC items may not be
conceptually and developmentally relevant to
children as young as 8 years old. While there has
been little research into how coping strategies
change during childhood, it has been noted that
EFC skills seem to emerge in later childhood and
early adolescence. Band and Weisz (1988) studied
primary control (coping aimed at modifying the
situation) and secondary control (coping aimed at
adapting to the situation) in children aged 6–12
years. They found that children’s reports of sec-
ondary control (including emotion-focused avoid-
ance) increased with age. Similarly, Compas and
colleagues (1988) found that the use of EFC
increased with age in 10- to 14-year-old children.
In another study of coping in children aged 5–12
years, Altshuler and Ruble (1989) found that
younger children used cognitive distraction strat-
egies less often than older children. These devel-
opmental patterns may be related to a number of
factors: (1) EFC strategies are often more subtle,
Stress and Health 25: 31–40 (2009) 37
DOI: 10.1002/smi
 D. Maybery et al.
less visible and consequently, more difficult to
learn through observation (Band & Weisz, 1988;
Compas, Worsham, & Ey, 1992); (2) younger
children may have limited access to their internal
emotional states (Altschuler & Ruble, 1989;
Compas et al., 1992); and (3) younger children
may not comprehend that emotional states can be
self-regulated (Compas et al., 1992). The connec-
tion between EFC and development warrants
further investigation.
A final important aim was to examine the
validity of the KCS subscales. The PFC subscale
was significantly correlated with almost all child-
and parent-rated constructs. In terms of the
former, there were significant positive correla-
tions with such things as self-esteem and connec-
tions and negative correlations with total
problems. All of the SDQ (parent completed) sub-
scales were significantly correlated with PFC,
positively with the prosocial scale and negatively
with all other subscales. All of these relationships
were in the expected directions and were gener-
ally in agreement with previous research (e.g.
high self-esteem with PFC; Dumont & Provost,
1999). Together, the findings suggest that chil-
dren who undertake greater PFC tend to experi-
ence fewer adjustment problems.
In contrast, the evidence supporting the con-
struct validity of EFC was weak, with low nega-
tive correlations with self-esteem and total
connections. While previous research has also
linked low self-esteem with coping strategies that
are focused on the regulation of emotion (Thoits,
1995) and self-esteem is negatively correlated
with avoidance coping strategies (e.g. trying to
forget; Dumont & Provost, 1999), no other sig-
nificant relationships for EFC were found here.
However, the lack of relationships may be as a
result of the low reliability or the developmental
issue suggested above.
In terms of study weaknesses, the interpreta-
tion of these findings is limited by three main
factors associated with the design of the study.
Firstly, the data is cross-sectional, which provides
only a partial representation of a complex con-
struct. Understanding of coping during childhood
would be enhanced by examining the stress-
coping relationship over time. Secondly, the KCS
uses retrospective self-reports of coping in
response to a stressful situation. Future research
on the KCS using other methods of assessment
(e.g. teacher or peer ratings, observational mea-
sures) would contribute to the preliminary evi-
dence of validity presented here. Thirdly, all
38 Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
participants in the study were volunteers and may
have differed in important and unmeasured ways
from non-participants.
In conclusion, the current findings show a clear
PFC and EFC two-factor coping structure that
appears stable in children as young as 7 years old.
This was illustrated in a strong data set with a
good sample size, a spread of age groups and a
comparative sample of parent data. The current
findings highlight the need for further investiga-
tion of the development of EFC strategies in late
childhood and early adolescence. Overall, the
KCS holds some promise as a tool for studying
the coping efforts of children aged 8–12 years.
References
Altshuler, J.L., & Ruble, D.N. (1989). Developmental changes
in children’s awareness of strategies for coping with uncon-
trollable stress. Child Development, 60, 1337–1349.
Amirkhan, J.H. (1990). A factor analytically derived measure
of coping: The coping strategy indicator. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 1066–1074.
Ayers, T.S., Sandler, I.N., West, S.G., & Roosa, M.W. (1996).
A dispositional and situational assessment of children’s
coping: Testing alternative models of coping. Journal of
Personality, 64(4), 923–932.
Bakal, D.A. (1992). Psychology and health. New York:
Springer.
Band, E.B., & Weisz, J.R. (1988). How to feel better when it
feels bad: Children’s perspectives on coping with everyday
stress. Developmental Psychology, 24(2), 247–253.
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(2), 139–
157.
Billings, A.G., & Moos, R.H. (1984). Coping, stress, and
social resources among adults with unipolar depression.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 877–
891.
Carpenter, B.N. (1992). Issues and advances in coping
research. In B.N. Carpenter (Ed.), Personal coping: Theory,
research and application (pp. 1–13). Westport, CT: Praeger
Publishers.
Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F., & Weintraub, J.K. (1989). Assess-
ing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 267–
283.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T.A. (1985). Stress, social support and
the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2),
310–357.
Compas, B.E. (1987). Coping with stress during childhood
and adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 10(3), 393–403.
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(1), 87–127.
Compas, B.E., Malcarne, V.L., & Banez, G.A. (1992). Coping
with psychosocial stress: A developmental perspective. In
B.N. Carpenter (Ed.), Personal coping: Theory, research
and application (pp. 47–63). Westport, CT: Praeger Pub-
lishers.
Stress and Health 25: 31–40 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/smi

Compas, B.E., Malcarne, V.L., & Fondacaro, K.M. (1988).
Coping with stressful events on older children and young
adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
56(3), 405–411.
Compas, B.E., Worsham, N.L., & Ey, S. (1992). Conceptual
and developmental issues in children’s coping with
stress. In C. Eugene, A.M. La Greca, L.J. Siegel, & J.L.
Wallander (Eds), Stress and coping in child health: Advances
in pediatric psychology (pp. 7–24). New York: Guildford
Press.
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 response. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 68(6), 976–992.
Cook, S.W., & Heppner, P.P. (1997). A psychometric study
of three coping measures. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 57(6), 906–923.
Dewe, P. (2001). Determinants of coping: Some alternative
explanations and measurement issues. Psychological
Reports, 88, 832–834.
Dewe, P. (2003). A closer examination of the patterns when
coping with work-related stress: Implications for measure-
ment. Journal of Organizational and Occupational Psy-
chology, 76, 517–525.
Dewe, P., & Guest, D.E. (1990). Methods of coping with
stress at work: A conceptual analysis and empirical study
of measurement issues. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
11, 135–150.
Donaldson, D., Prinstein, M.J., Danovsky, M., & Spirito, A.
(2000). Patterns of children’s coping with life stress: Impli-
cations for clinicians. American Journal of Orthopsychia-
try, 70(3), 351–359.
Dumont, M., & Provost, M.A. (1999). Resilience in adoles-
cence: Protective role of social support, coping strategies,
self-esteem and social activities on experience of stress and
depression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28(3), 343–
363.
Endler, N.S., & Parker, J.D.A. (1990a). Coping inventory for
stressful situations (CISS) manual. New York: Multi-Health
Systems.
Endler, N.S., & Parker, J.D.A. (1990b). Multidimensional
assessment of coping: A critical evaluation. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 58, 844–854.
Endler, N.S., & Parker, J.D.A. (1994). Assessment of multi-
dimensional coping: Task, emotion and avoidance strate-
gies. Psychological Assessment, 6(1), 50–60.
Floyd, F.J., & Widaman, K.F. (1995). Factor analysis in the
development and refinement of clinical assessment instru-
ments. Psychological assessment, 7(3), 286–299.
Folkman, S. (1984). Personal control and stress and coping
processes: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 46(4), 839–852.
Folkman, S., Chesney, M., Mckusick, L., Ironson, G., Johnson,
D.S., & Coates, T.J. (1991). Translating coping theory into
an intervention. In J. Eckenrode (Ed.), The social context
of coping (pp. 196–221). New York: Plenum Press.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1980). An analysis of coping
in a middle-aged community sample. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 21(1), 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(1), 150–170.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1988). Manual for the Ways
of Coping Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psy-
chologists Press.
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
The Kids Coping Scale
Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls
and promise. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 745–
774.
Frydenberg, E., & Lewis, R. (1994). Coping with different
concerns: Consistency and variation in coping strategies
used by adolescents. Australian Psychologist, 29(1), 45–
48.
Goodman, R. (2001). Psychometric properties of the Strengths
and Difficulties Questionnaire. Child and Adolescent Psy-
chiatry, 40(11), 1337–1345.
Guppy, A., Edwards, J.A., Brough, P., Peters-Bean, K.M.,
Sale, C., & Short, E. (2004). The psychometric properties
of the short version of the Cybernetic Coping Scale: A
multigroup confirmatory factor analysis across four samples.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
77, 39–62.
Hart, P.M., Wearing, A.J., & Heady, B. (1995). Police stress
and well-being: Integrating personality, coping and daily
work experiences. Journal of Occupational and Organiza-
tional Psychology, 68, 133–156.
Hawes, D.J., & Dadds, M.R. (2004). Australian data and
psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties
Questionnaire. Australian and New Zealand Journal of
Psychiatry, 38(8), 644–651.
Jensen, A.A. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental
ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Latack, J.C., & Havlovic, S.J. (1992). Coping with job stress:
A conceptual evaluation framework for coping measures.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 479–508.
Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and
coping. New York: Springer Publishing.
Lezin, N., Rolleri, L.A., Bean, S., & Taylor, J. (2004). Parent–
child connectedness: Implications for research, interven-
tions, and positive impacts on adolescent health. Retrieved
December 6, 2006, from http://www.etr.org/recapp/
research/litreview.pdf
Maybery, D.J. (2003). Incorporating interpersonal events
within hassle measurement. Stress and Health, 19, 97–
110.
Maybery, D.J., Reupert, A.E. & Goodyear, M.E. (2005).
Measuring connections, problems and coping in 8–12 year
old children whose parents have a mental illness. ‘Parents
to Children: The Impact of Parental Mental Illness on Chil-
dren’ Conference, Athens, Greece. October, 21–23.
Mellor, D. (2004). Furthering the use of the Strengths
and Difficulties Questionnaire: Reliability with younger
child respondents. Psychological Assessment, 16(4), 396–
401.
Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide
to data analysis using SPSS. Crows Nest, NSW, Australia:
Allen & Unwin.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic
Books.
Rosenberg, M., & Simmons, R.G. (1975). Sex differences
in the self-concept in adolescence. Sex Roles, 1(2), 147–
159.
Rummel, R.J. (1970). Applied factor analysis. Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University Press.
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. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 129(2), 216–269.
Steed, L.G. (1998). A critique of coping scales. Australian
Psychologist, 33(3), 193–2002.
Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the
social sciences (3rd ed.). New York, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Stress and Health 25: 31–40 (2009) 39
DOI: 10.1002/smi
 D. Maybery et al.
Stone, A.A., & Neale, J.M. (1984). New measure of
daily coping: Development and preliminary results.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 892–
906.
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1996). Using multivariate
statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
40 Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Thoits, P.A. (1995). Stress, coping and social support pro-
cesses: Where are we? What next? Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 35, 53–79.
Trenberth, L.D., Dewe, P.J., & Walkey, F.H. (1996). A factor
replication approach to the measurement of coping. Stress
Medicine, 12, 71–79.
Stress and Health 25: 31–40 (2009)
DOI: 10.1002/smi