1

Personality & Individual Differences 29, 321-335 (2000)

A Psychometric Re-assessment of the COPE Questionnaire

Kenneth Lyne
Department of Clinical Psychology, York NHS Trust, Monkgate Health Centre,
York YO3 7PB.
and
Derek Roger Department of Psychology, University of York, Heslington,
York YO1 5DD, U.K.

SUMMARY
The present paper offers a re-analysis of the COPE questionnaire (Carver, Scheier & Weintraub, 1989), based
on analyses of the responses of 587 National Health Service employees. The data were analysed both by
items and by sub-scales, and used more appropriate factoring techniques. Results showed a clear three-factor
structure involving rational, emotion-focused and avoidance coping, which was similar to other recent coping
scales such as the Multidimensional Coping Inventory (MCI - Endler & Parker, 1990) and the Coping Styles
Questionnaire (CSQ - Roger, Jarvis & Najarian, 1993). However, the analyses also showed that the apparent
similarities between the COPE, MCI and CSQ may mask significant underlying differences, which have
important implications for the way in which coping is assessed. In a further analysis, radial parcel analysis
(Cattell & Burdsal, 1975) was used in an attempt to force the COPE questions into the original 13 four-item
sub-scales, but this failed. A new scoring key is proposed.

INTRODUCTION
The COPE questionnaire (Carver, Scheier and Weintraub 1989) is a 53-item index of coping comprising 14
discreet scales for active coping, planning, suppressing competing activities, restraint coping, seeking social
support for instrumental reasons, seeking social support for emotional reasons, positive reinterpretation and
growth, acceptance, turning to religion, focusing on and venting emotion, denial, behavioural disengagement,
mental disengagement, and a single item measure of alcohol-drug disengagement. The COPE has been used
extensively in health settings, including coping with drug addiction (Belding, Iguchi, Lamb & Lakin, 1996),
ageing (Boland & Cappeliez 1997), breast cancer (Carver, Pozo, Harris, Noriega, Scheier, Robinson,
Ketcham, Moffat & Clark, 1993), and spinal cord injuries (Kennedy, Lowe, Grey & Short, 1995). However,
questionnaires for assessing coping styles, including the COPE, have been extensively criticised on
psychometric grounds, particularly the extraction of too many factors with poor reliability (Endler & Parker,
1990; Parker & Endler, 1992; Roger, Jarvis & Najarian, 1993). Indeed, the final scale in the COPE is a
single-item measure of 'alcohol-drug disengagement'. In response to these shortcomings, Endler and Parker
(1990) proposed a three-factor structure for their Multidimensional Coping Inventory (MCI), which they
labelled task, emotional and avoidance coping. In a similar vein, Roger, Jarvis and Najarian (1993) extracted
rational, emotional and avoidance coping for their Coping Styles Questionnaire (CSQ), but with an additional
'detachment' scale.
It could be argued that the extraction of higher-order factors such as task, emotional and avoidance coping
might represent an oversimplification of coping behaviour, and testing the COPE model in a factor analysis of
the responses of 978 students, Carver, Scheier, and Weintraub (1989) claimed that the results supported the
hypothesised 13-dimension coping model. However, as Endler and Parker (1990) point out, the use of the
Kaiser-Guttman (Kaiser, 1961) rule for factor extraction by Carver et al. would have led to the extraction of
too many factors. In addition, sub-scales were developed with only four items, increasing the likelihood of
error variance, and results which failed to support the predicted model were ignored (for example, only 11
factors had eigen-values greater than 1.0, but 13 sub-scales were formed). Sub-scale inter-correlations were
low, suggesting that the 13 sub-scales were statistically independent, but half of the scales had alpha
coefficient below 0.70, and test-retest reliabilities were below 0.70 for all but three scales.
Carver et al. themselves reported a second-order factor analysis based on scores for the 13 COPE sub-scales,
which yielded four factors with eigen values greater than 1.0. These were labelled task, emotion, avoidance
and cognitive coping, but unfortunately the authors give little information about the procedures used for this
analysis. Using principal-axis factoring with oblique rotation to a terminal solution, Ingledew, Hardy, Cooper
and Jemal (1996) conducted a second order analysis of the COPE questionnaire and found three factors which
were labelled problem-focused coping, avoidance coping, and lack of emotion-focused coping. This result
was apparently similar to the second order analysis reported by Carver et al. but based on slight differences in
sub-scales, with a new scale for humour and no scale for religion. However, given the psychometric problems
with the first order solution, these second order analyses, which rely on the score key generated in the flawed
first order analysis, must be open to question. To date there has been no published re-analysis of COPE at the
level of individual items.
In view of the equivocal findings reported for the COPE, there are good grounds for subjecting the
questionnaire to a more rigorous re-analysis. The aim of the present study was to attempt a replication of the
original first order analyses reported by Carver et al. using data collected in a survey of staff working in a
National Health Service (NHS) Trust in England, and then to use the data to present a new analysis based on
responses to individual items. Initially, results from the questionnaire were factor analysed using the same
techniques as Carver et al. wherever possible. Since Carver et al. failed to confirm their own model of 13
four-item sub-scales with factor analysis, radial parcel analysis (Cattell & Burdsal, 1975; Barrett & Kline,
1981) was then used with parcel sizes of four items, to force the structure into four-item groups.
Radial parcel analysis is a statistical procedure for grouping questionnaire items on the basis of item
similarity, and in this context offers a method of identifying "facets" of coping without imposing the
constraint that items should be representative of general coping styles. Confirmation by radial parcel analysis
of the 13 sub-groups could then be interpreted as providing some justification for retaining the predicted
model. For example, two of the factors identified by Carver et al. comprised eight items each, but their
decision to split these factors into sub-scales of four items each would be supported if radial parcel analysis
confirmed the sub-sets. Confirmatory factor analysis might perhaps have been used in this context instead of
radial parcel analysis, but in their comparison of the effects of different factor analytic techniques on tests of
the 5-factor model, McCrae, Zonderman, Costa, Bond and Paunonen (1996) have pointed out confirmatory
factor analysis may yield poor fits on structures that are known to be reliable. Radial parcel analysis was
thought to offer the best opportunity for replicating the Carver et al. sub-scales, and was therefore the
technique of choice for these analyses.
Finally, the questionnaire was completely re-analysed using a more appropriate rule for factor extraction than
Kaiser-Guttman (see Method), with the aim of arriving at a new model for the COPE scales. This new
analysis and interpretation was then compared with other similar coping questionnaires. Finally, self-report
data on sickness-absence and psychological distress, which were collected simultaneously with the COPE
responses, were used to assess the construct validity of the new scales.

METHOD

Subjects
The sample for this survey included all of the clinical (nurses, doctors, therapists and dentists) and
administrative (management, clerical, support, estates services and personnel) staff who worked more than
half time for an NHS community Trust. There were 587 returns from 1,395 questionnaires that were sent out,
giving a 42.08% response rate, and after missing data were taken into account there were 539 usable responses
available for the data analysis. Of the total, 89.98% were women and 10.02% were men. Age data were
collected by age band rather than exact age, and 0.35% of the sample were aged under 21 years, 15.08%
between 21 and 30 years, 22.88% between 31 and 40 years, 33.80% between 41 and 50 years, 24.26%
between 51 and 60 years, and 3.64% between 61 and 70 years (1.73% of age data were missing). The number
of men in the sample was slightly low in comparison with other NHS trusts, but despite the relatively low
response rate overall the age distribution was comparable to that found in other NHS surveys (Lyne de Ver,
1998).

Materials and Procedure

Participants completed the COPE questionnaire (Carver, Scheier & Weintraub, 1989), which comprises sub-
scales for 14 discrete coping strategies described earlier. However, one item from the original version, "I pray
more than usual", was omitted in error, reducing the religious coping items from four to three.
Subjects also completed the Psychological Distress Scale (PDS - Lyne de Ver, 1998). The PDS comprises 21
items typical of those used to assess anxiety and depression (for example, 'I don't feel I have much to give
these days' and 'I tend to worry about things') , with a six-point scaled response format ranging from 'very true'
to 'not true at all'. A single general factor has been demonstrated for the scale in five NHS samples, with sub-
scales for anxiety and depression. The questionnaire has good test-retest reliability and high internal
 3

consistency. Concurrent validity has been demonstrated with the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ12 -
Goldberg & Williams, 1988), the neuroticism scale from the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Eysenck &
Eysenck, 1975), the negative affect scale from the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS - Watson,
Clark & Tellegen, 1988), and the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS - Lovibond & Lovibond,
1995). Discriminant validity has been shown with EPQ psychoticism, extraversion and lie scales.
Finally, subjects indicated their number of sickness-absence episodes and total number of days absent for the
six months prior to data collection. The full batch of questionnaires was sent by post, with reminders sent
after three weeks. Questionnaires were returned for processing by optical-mark reader, and strict
confidentiality was maintained throughout.

Data Analysis
The analysis was completed in two phases. In phase one the published first and second order analyses of the
COPE questionnaire were replicated, using the Kaiser-Guttman rule followed by principal factor analysis
(Carver, Scheier & Weintraub, 1989). This and other methods of analysis failed to yield more than five
factors, although principal components analysis did give 13 factors. Carver et al. used oblique rotation to
simple structure, which was appropriate in view of the anticipated correlations amongst the different coping
strategies. The authors did not give precise details, but in the present study hyperplane maximised direct
oblimin rotation was used (Barrett, 1986), with the delta parameter swept from -10.5 to 0.5 in steps of 0.5.
Salient item loadings were identified from the factor pattern matrix using the 0.30 rule (loading more than
0.30 on the criterion factor and less than 0.30 on all other factors), although as will be pointed out in the
results, the rule had to be modified somewhat in order to ensure a fair test of the original model.
This analysis was followed by radial parcel analysis (Cattell & Burdsal, 1975; Barrett & Kline, 1981) in
which the items were forced into four-item parcels in an attempt to replicate the scoring key for the COPE
questionnaire. Six principal components were extracted from a correlation matrix of the COPE items in order
to derive the item parcels. Finally, since both Carver et al. (1989) and Ingledew et al. (1996) report second
order analyses of the COPE questionnaire, the questionnaire was scored using the original scoring key;
treating the scored sub-scales as variables they were then analysed using principal components factor analysis.
In phase two the questionnaire was re-analysed. Items which had response distributions with high skewness
(approaching 2.0), and kurtosis (greater than 4.0) were eliminated (Kendall and Stuart 1958). The correlation
matrix for all items was inspected and redundant items were also eliminated. A reduced correlation matrix
was then computed followed by principal components analysis. As has been pointed out, Carver et al. used the
Kaiser-Guttman criterion to decide on factor extraction, but this method has been shown to result in over-
extraction of factors (Cliff 1988; Tzeng 1992). Zwick and Velicer (1986) demonstrated that the Velicer MAP
test (Velicer 1976), Armor’s theta, and the scree test (Cattell 1966) were all superior to the Kaiser-Guttman
criterion, and these three techniques were all used in the present study, based on a principal components
analysis (Cattell 1966). In view of the aim of deriving reliable and generalisable scales the lower bound for
the reliability of a component (Armor’s theta; Armor 1974) was set at 0.50 (Barrett and Kline 1982).
Once the number of factors had been determined the most likely solutions were analysed using MINRES
principal factor analysis, and oblique rotation to simple structure. Factor rotation and identification of salient
loadings was as described above. Scales were derived from the analysis and were subject to reliability
analysis. Pair-wise missing data deletion was used to compute correlation matrices prior to factor and
principal components analysis in both phases, in order to maximise the number of cases.

RESULTS

(i) Replication of the COPE Analyses

Responses from the 539 valid cases (from 587 returns) to the 52-item scale were subject to principal
components analysis, using pair-wise missing data deletion, and thirteen factors were found to have eigen
values greater than 1.0. Carver et al. predicted 13 sub-scales, and found that 12 factors had eigen values in
excess of 1.0, in a factor analysis which gave 11 meaningful groupings of items. The data were therefore
rotated to 11, 12 and 13 factor solutions, using direct oblimin rotation. Owing to omission of a religion item,
the 13-factor solution was re-calculated by entering one of the remaining religion items ( I put my trust in God)
twice as a proxy for the missing item. This was done to avoid interfering with the balance of factors that
might be found, and was felt to be justified in view of the very high correlations between items in the religion
factor.
All four solutions were essentially the same. There was a high proportion of double loadings ranging in
frequency from nine to 17 in the different solutions, whereas Carver et al. reported only two double loadings.
To increase the chances of replicating Carver et al’s. results, the effect of double loadings was minimised by
only accepting those were where the primary loading was greater than 0.40 and the secondary loading less
than 0.40. This still resulted in a loss of four to six items across the solutions. Only two items failed to load,
one in the 11-factor solution, and one in the 12-factor solution, and whilst the alcohol item failed to load in
the Carver et al. study it was retained in these analyses. The addition of the proxy religion item in the 13-
factor solution had the effect of changing the order of extraction of the factors, but the salient loadings were
identical for all items.
In every solution there was a social support sub-scale, comprising all or most of the eight seeking social
support items, a six- to eight-item factor comprising personal reintegration and growth, planning and active
coping items, a three-item religion factor (four items when the proxy item was added), a four-item venting
emotions factor, a three- to four-item denial factor; and a three- or four-item behavioural disengagement
factor. The remaining five to seven factors consisted of items from two or more hypothesised sub-scales, and
between two and five two-item factors depending on the particular solution. There are similarities to Carver et
al’s reported solution, but that in itself deviated from their hypothesised questionnaire model and score key
and the findings clearly cannot be regarded as a replication of the model.

(ii) Radial Parcel Analysis

The proxy religion item was included in the radial parcel analysis, since having only three religion items
would have forced one non-religion item into the religion parcel and thus biased the analysis. Carver et al.
argued that the alcohol and drugs item would not contribute to a four-item grouping, so this item was retained
to test the hypothesis that the analysis would result in the 13 four-item sub-scales identified in the original
scoring key, with the alcohol and drugs item comprising a 53rd item not included in any parcel. However, it
was found that the alcohol and drugs item did contribute to a parcel, together with three of the venting
emotion items; a social support item was the 53rd item. There were many inconsistencies within the 13
parcels in comparison to the original scoring key, and since the alcohol item may have disturbed the pattern of
loadings within other parcels, a second analysis was conducted without it.
A summary of the results of the second analysis is shown in Table 1. Whilst the religion, and behavioural
disengagement sub-scales were verified using this procedure, it is clear that many of the items did not fall
neatly into the intended groupings. The congruence coefficients are measures of agreement between the factor
loadings for the four items in each parcel across the six factors used to extract parcels. The coefficient ranges
from 0.0 (no agreement at all) to 1.0, and values were acceptable for all but the 13th parcel. Examination of
the congruence coefficients for two-item parcels showed that the low coefficient for this parcel occurred
because the mental disengagement pair did not belong with the denial pair.

TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE

(iii) Second Order Extraction

An attempt was made to replicate the four-factor second-order analysis reported by Carver, Scheier, and
Weintraub (1989). All of the items were scored into the 13 COPE sub-scales, excluding the alcohol item and
the duplicated proxy religion item. Because there were missing data among the usable returns, when the sub-
scales were scored 511 cases were accepted into the analyses. Using the Kaiser-Guttman rule, only two factors
could be extracted using four different principal-factor methods, and three factors using the Centroid method.
Since it is conceivable that the authors used principal components (the method of factor analysis used in the
second order analysis was not reported in the original publication), this method was also attempted. Only three
components met the extraction criterion, but in order to make a comparison with the earlier work, a four-
component solution was calculated using principal components, with eigen values of 3.94, 1.94, 1.53 and
0.99, accounting for 30.32%, 14.95%, 11.76% and 7.62% of the variance, respectively. Since the authors
reported that they used an oblique rotation for the first order analysis it was assumed that this was repeated for
the second order analysis, and so direct oblimin rotation was used for the present analysis. The factor
structure is shown in table 2 and is close to the original second order analysis reported by Carver, Scheier, and
Weintraub (1989).
TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE
 5

Factors 2 and 3 for both solutions are similar, and could be labelled emotion-focused and avoidance coping.
The Instrumental Support scale turned out to be complex, loading across factors 1 and 2, but owing to
inadequate reporting it is impossible to determine whether this also occurred in the original second order
analysis. Factor 1 combines the first and fourth factors reported in the original analysis, and might be labelled
rational coping. Factor 4 in this analysis is religion, which failed to load in the original analysis, and the
failure to find a fourth factor with an eigen value greater than 1.0 can be attributed to the omission of one of
the four religion items. This solution is also very similar to that of Ingledew et al. (1996), including the
pattern of double loadings. Indeed, if religion had been left out of this analysis, as it was by Ingledew et al.,
the solutions would probably have been identical.
(iv) A new analysis of COPE
Taken together, the results from these three analyses suggest that the original sub-scale analysis of COPE is
highly unstable. This might be expected, given the number of items in each scale, the low scale reliabilities,
and the fact that in the original analysis several factor analytic conventions were ignored. In the second order
analysis, using scores for the original COPE sub-scales, the questionnaire reduces to two or three main factors,
depending on which method of factor analysis is adopted. In view of these findings an unconstrained analysis
of the scale was deemed necessary at the level of the individual items, including item analysis. The item
analysis was intended to check whether there were items with excessively skewed distributions in the data set,
and to check for item redundancy.
To guard against generation of ‘bloated specifics’, in which spurious factors are created by the inclusion of
redundant items, a Pearson’s r correlation matrix of the 52 items was inspected to identify and inspect any
highly correlated items. The three religion items were found to have correlations of between 0.87 and 0.90,
which is reflected in Carver et al.’s finding that the four religion items had loadings, on a religion factor of
between 0.81 and 0.95. The item ‘I seek God’s help’ was retained and the two redundant religion items were
removed. Items concerned with seeking emotional support had correlations ranging from 0.57 to 0.66. Whilst
these coefficients are modest, the items ‘I discuss my feelings with someone’ and ‘I talk to someone about
how I feel’ are very similar, and since the latter had the higher correlations with all of the other items in this
group, it was removed. All other correlations in the matrix were below 0.60. Skewness and kurtosis data are
not shown for the full data set, but the items ‘I drink alcohol or take drugs in order to think about it less’ and
‘I pretend that it hasn’t happened’ had high skewness and kurotosis. These were therefore rejected, since
highly skewed items can significantly bias the results of factor analyses.
The remaining 47 items were subject to principal components analysis using pair-wise missing data deletion,
giving 539 valid cases. The extraction tests gave four factors for MAP, and the scree test suggested a three or
four component solution. Armor’s theta gave three factors, with the fourth factor having a reliability that fell
below criterion. The first four components had eigen values of 8.52, 4.06, 3.09, and 1.85 and accounted for
18.13%, 8.64%, 6.57%, and 3.78% of the variance, respectively. Three factors were extracted using MINRES
factor analysis, with direct oblimin rotation. Items were selected for the three factors using the 0.30 rule for
the most part, but two further complex items were rejected, where the secondary loading was 0.295 and the
primary loadings 0.308 and 0.301. Table 3 shows how the COPE sub-scales were distributed in the three-
factor solution (loadings of less than 0.20 are set at zero).
TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE

Factor 1 can be labelled Rational or Active Coping. The acceptance items which loaded on this factor were
versions of the idea of accepting the fact that a stressful situation has occurred, and are therefore an indication
of realism, without precluding the possibility of action. The other two acceptance items expressed the concept
that nothing could be done to change the situation, suggesting a more passive approach to problems. Some of
the Restraint Coping items which loaded on factor 1, such as "I restrain myself from doing anything too
quickly", represent non-impulsiveness, while others are more suggestive of procrastination. Of the four items
concerned with suppressing competing activities, two which involved suppressing in order to think about the
problem failed to load, whereas the two which involved suppression in order to do something about the
problem were retained.
Factor 2 included the two strategies of expressing feelings and seeking emotional support. The four items
concerned with seeking instrumental support also loaded on Factor 2, although three of them double loaded
with the first factor. Factor 2 can be labelled Emotion Coping. Factor 3 included the behavioural
disengagement (giving up) and denial items, two of the mental disengagement items, an acceptance item and
a restraint coping item. Factor 3 can be labelled Avoidance Coping or Helplessness.
Three scales were constructed from the three-factor solution to the COPE Questionnaire. Reliability analyses
were conducted on the three extracted factors using pair-wise missing data deletion, and the results are shown
in Table 4.
TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE

This three-factor solution was similar to the original second-order analyses, but since it was conducted using
original items rather than scales, the allocation of items differed. The fact that religion did not load in the
analysis does not preclude its importance as a way of coping - as Carver et al. commented, the item pool for
religion-focused coping was very restricted; also, only a relatively small sub-set of UK samples are likely to
use religion as a coping strategy. For completeness, the four-factor solution suggested by the scree test was
examined, and the fourth factor was found to comprise three of the four acceptance coping items. Given that
only three items loaded on the fourth factor, and its reliability was low, this solution was rejected in favour of
the three factor solution.
To assess the construct validity of the new scales, a matrix of correlations was computed between scores on
the scales and scores on measures of psychological distress and self-reported sickness absence. These findings
are reported in table 5, which shows that rational coping was unrelated to sickness absence, psychological
distress, and avoidance, but was positively correlated with emotion coping. Emotion coping and avoidance
were positively correlated, and both measures were correlated with psychological distress. Emotion coping
and avoidance coping were also correlated weakly with number of sickness episodes. The positive correlation
between rational coping and emotion coping is unexpected in view of the fact that in the Coping Styles
Questionnaire (CSQ; Roger, Jarvis, and Najarian 1993) and the Multi- dimensional Coping Inventory (MCI;
Endler and Parker 1990), rational and emotion coping are negatively correlated.
TABLE 5 ABOUT HERE

DISCUSSION
The aims of this study were to test the factor solution suggested by Carver, Scheier, and Weintraub (1989), to
propose an alternative solution, and to compare the new model with others which have appeared since the
initial publication of the COPE questionnaire. The findings failed to replicate the 13 factors proposed by
Carver et al., showing instead that the COPE comprises three factors measuring emotion-focused coping,
rational or active coping, and avoidance. These findings echo the conclusions of Ingledew et al. (1996) based
on an analysis of COPE sub-scales, but the present analysis was derived from individual COPE items rather
than sub-scales. The sample in the present study was predominantly women, but the similarities between the
second order analyses reported here and the results obtained by Ingledew et al. using a gender-balanced
sample are so marked that the gender bias is unlikely to have been significant.
The three-factor result for COPE serves to confirm an emerging pattern in the literature. In the Ways of
Coping Questionnaire (Folkman and Lazarus 1988), coping is seen as comprising problem-focused and
emotion-focused coping strategies. The Multidimensional Coping Inventory (MCI; Endler and Parker 1990)
consists of three factors labelled task, emotion and avoidance coping, a pattern which was closely replicated
by Olff, Brosschot, and Godaert (1993). Similarly, the second-order factor analysis of the COPE
questionnaire by Carver, Scheier, and Weintraub (1989) gave four factors labelled task, emotion, avoidance
and cognitive coping. In the development of the Coping Styles Questionnaire, Roger, Jarvis, and Najarian
(1993) described four strategies labelled rational, emotional, avoidance and detached coping, although in a
later analysis this was reduced to three factors, with the emotional and detached coping scales merged into a
single bi-polar scale (Roger 1996).
All of these structures were based on factor analyses of different sets of items, and the similarity in the
solutions suggests that coping styles can be reduced to three or four replicable constructs. However, the data
are not entirely clear-cut. For example, for the revised COPE scales, rational coping was positively correlated
with emotion coping, and emotion coping positively correlated with avoidance coping, whereas for the CSQ
and the MCI, rational and emotion coping are negatively correlated. In part, this may be because the emotion
factor derived from the COPE describes coping in a social context, whilst the MCI and CSQ emotion coping
scales comprise items that emphasise emotional experience without reference to social context.
 7

This difference may explain the relatively weak relationships between psychological distress and COPE
emotion coping and the positive correlation between COPE rational and emotion coping. Indeed, when
correlations were calculated between individual items on each of the three new COPE scales and
psychological distress in a subsidiary analysis, the only items that correlated above 0.30 were two emotion
coping items describing feeling or expressing emotion. When they were removed, the correlation between the
residual emotion coping scale and psychological distress was zero. This weak correlation between COPE
emotion coping and psychological distress is probably attributable to the small number of items having to do
with feeling or expressing emotions, which is in marked contrast to the MCI and CSQ emotion coping scales
that are largely made up of such items.
The findings also suggest that there are differences between the rational coping scale in COPE on the one
hand and the rational coping scales in the MCI and CSQ on the other. For example, it would appear from an
inspection of the items that the COPE rational scale measures rational intent rather than rational behaviour,
and as such may be a poorly specified measure of rational coping. With regard to avoidance, there are
inconsistencies between the CSQ and MCI as well, with rational coping correlating negatively with avoidance
in the CSQ (Roger, Jarvis, and Najarian 1993) but correlating positively with avoidance in the MCI (Endler
and Parker 1990). Again inspection of items shows that the MCI avoidance items represent attempts at
distraction (such as visiting a friend or seeing a movie), whereas avoidance items in the CSQ are explicitly
about avoiding contact (for example, avoiding family or friends). The COPE avoidance sub-scale includes
items of both kinds.
Clearly, the apparent similarities in the labels used to describe different coping strategies in the three
questionnaires mask significant differences between them. Avoidance is synonymous with denial in two
questionnaires and pleasurable distraction in the other. Emotion coping is based on emotionality in two
questionnaires, and social support in the other. Rational or task oriented coping, is associated with planning
and rational thinking in two measures, and somewhat vague intentions to act in the other.
These differences make comparisons between studies with coping styles questionnaires misleading, and can
hinder the choice of appropriate scales for research. For example, in contrast to the MCI and CSQ emotion
coping scales, the items in the COPE emotion coping scale are concerned with expressing emotions or seeking
emotional support from others. The COPE scale might thus offer a more useful way of measuring attempts to
manage, or palliate emotions. In fact, there is a danger that the MCI emotion coping scale, which has a strong
correlation with Neuroticism (Endler and Parker 1990), is confounded with psychological distress (Deary,
Blenkin, Agius, Endler, Zealley & Wood, 1996; Stone, Greenburg, Kennedy-Moore & Newman, 1991).
Having said this, it remains unclear whether the emotion-focused strategy operationalised by the COPE scale
can actually ameliorate distress.
Avoidance coping is the least clear of the three strategies and two ways of defining avoidance emerge from
the scales: a negative kind of behaviour involving withdrawal and giving up, and a more positive form
involving distraction. The COPE and CSQ are measures of the former, whereas the MCI measures the latter.
The inverse construct, acceptance, represents a special case, which warrants further analysis. For example,
accepting the reality of a medical diagnosis might be helpful, especially if this facilitates active coping or
compliance with essential treatment. On the other hand a tendency to accept that nothing can be done to
change unpleasant circumstances, when there are options for beneficial change, can be a precursor for denial
and helplessness. In the principal components analysis of the COPE the two types of acceptance items loaded
on different factors. The detached emotion scale envisaged by the CSQ may have some bearing on acceptance
since it describes the capacity to see things as they are and not become emotionally over-involved.
In conclusion, the analyses presented here lead to the recommendation that the original COPE questionnaire
be reduced to 37 items, with a new scoring key for three coping styles, labelled active coping, emotion-
focused coping, and avoidance. In using the scale it is important to bear in mind that the bias in the COPE
scales is towards an intention to act (although in relatively unspecified ways); palliation of emotion,
particularly in the context of social support; and avoidance based on denial and giving up.

REFERENCES
Armor, D.J. (1974). Theta reliability and factor scaling. In H.L. Costner (Ed.), Sociological Methodology
1973-1974 (Chapter 2). New York: Jossey Bass.
Barrett, P. (1986). Factor comparison: An examination of three methods. Personality and Individual
Differences, 7, 327-340.
Barrett, P. & Kline, P. (1982). An item and radial parcel factor analysis of the 16PF questionnaire.
Personality and Individual Differences, 3, 259-270.
Barrett, P.T. & Kline, P. (1981). Radial parcel factor analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 311-
318.
Belding, M.A., Iguchi, M.Y., Lamb, R.J. & Lakin, M. (1996). Coping strategies and continued drug use
among methadone maintenance patients. Addictive Behaviours, 21, 389-401.
Boland, A. & Cappeliez, P. (1997). Optimism and neuroticism as predictors of coping and adaptation in older
women. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 909-919.
Carver, C.S., Pozo, C., Harris, S.D., Noriega, V., Scheier, M.T., Robinson, D.S., Ketcham, A.S., Moffat, F.L.
& Clark, K.C. (1993). How coping mediates the effect of optimism on distress: A study of women with early
stage breast cancer. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 375-390.
Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F. & Weintraub, J.J. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based
approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267-283.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioural Research, 1, 245-
276.
Cattell, R. B. & Burdsal, C.A. (1975). The radial parcel double factoring design: A solution to the item-vs.-
parcel controversy. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 10, 165-191.
Cliff, N. (1988). The eigen values greater than one rule and the reliability of components. Psychological
Bulletin, 103, 276-279.
Deary, I.J., Blenkin, H., Agius, R.M., Endler, N.S., Zealley, H. & Wood, R. (1996). Models of job-related
stress and personal achievement among consultant doctors. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 3-29.
Endler, N.S. & Parker, D.A. (1990). Multidimensional assessment of coping: A critical evaluation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 844-854.
Eysenck, H.J. & Eysenck, S.B.G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. London:
Hodder and Stoughton.
Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R.S. (1988). Manual for the Ways of Coping Questionnaire. Palo Alto, California:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Goldberg, D. & Williams, P. (1988) A User's Guide to the General Health Questionnaire. Windsor: NFER-
Nelson.
Ingledew, D.K., Hardy, L., Cooper, C.L. & Jemal, H. (1996). Health behaviours reported as coping strategies:
A factor analytical study. British Journal of Health Psychology, 1, 263-281.
Kaiser, H.F. (1961). A note on Guttman's lower bound for the number of common factors. British Journal of
Statistical Psychology, 14, 1-2.
Kendall, M.G. & Stuart, A. (1958). The advanced theory of statistics. New York: Hafner.
Kennedy, P., Lowe, R., Grey, N. and Short, F. (1995). Traumatic spinal cord injury and psychological
impact: A cross sectional analysis of coping strategies. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 34, 627-639.
Lyne de Ver, K.D. (1998). Measurement of Occupational Stress With Particular Reference to the National
Health Service. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of York, England.
Lovibond, P.F. & Lovibond, S.H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the
Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 33, 335-343.
McCrae, R.R., Zonderman, A.B., Costa, P.T., Bond, M.H. and Paunonen, S.V. (1996). Evaluating
replicability of factors in the revised NEO inventory: Confirmatory factor analysis versus procrustes rotation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 552-566.
Olff, M., Brosschot, J.F. & Godaert, G. (1993). Coping styles and health. Personality and Individual
Differences, 15, 81-90.
Parker, J.D.A. & Endler, N.S. (1992). Coping with coping assessment: A critical review. European Journal of
Personality, 6, 321-344.
Roger, D. (1996). The role of cognitive rumination, coping styles and self-esteem in moderating adaptational
responses to stress. Paper presented at the 8th European Conference on Personality, University of Ghent,
July.
Roger, D., Jarvis, G. & Najarian, B. (1993). Detachment and coping: The construction and validation of a
new scale for measuring coping strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 619-626.
Stone, A.A., Greenburg, M.A., Kennedy-Moors, E. & Newman, M.G. (1991). Self-report, situation specific
coping questionnaires: What are they measuring? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 648-658.
Tzeng, O.C.S. (1992). On reliability and number of principal components. Perceptual Motor Skills, 75, 929-
930.
Velicer, W.F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations.
Psychometrika, 41, 321-327.
Watson, D., Clark, L.A. & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and
negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
Zwick, W.R. & Velicer, W.F. (1986). Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to
retain. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 432-442.
 9

TABLE1
Parcel Congruence Item Groupings
Number Coefficient

1 0.997 R, R, R, R
2 0.987 SSER, SSER, SSIR, VE
3 0.981 P, AC, P, P
4 0.972 BD, BD, BD, BD
5 0.956 P, AC, PRG, PRG
6 0.939 D, D, RC, MD
7 0.922 SSIR, SSIR, AC, SSIR
8 0.911 A, A, SCA, A
9 0.861 SCA, SCA, AC, SCA
10 0.821 VE, VE, SSER, SSER
11 0.802 MD, RC, VE, A
12 0.799 RC, RC, PRG, PRG
13 0.524 D, D, MD, MD

Not included: Alcohol item Key: R = religion; SSER = social support for emotional reasons; SSIR = social support for
instrumental reasons; VE = venting emotions; P = planning; AC = active coping; BD = behavioural disengagement; PRG
= positive reinterpretation and growth; ACC = acceptance; SCA = suppressing competing activities; MD = mental
disengagement; RC = restraint coping; D = denial.

TABLE 2
SUB-SCALE FACTOR FACTOR FACTOR FACTOR
1 2 3 4

Reintegration & growth 0.74

Active coping 0.74
Restraint 0.69
Acceptance 0.68 -0.32
Suppressing activities 0.59
Planning 0.74 -0.33
Mental disengagement -0.37 0.63
Behavioural disengagement 0.77
Denial 0.70 0.32
Venting emotion
Emotional support -0.82 -0.85
Instrumental support 0.44 -0.64
Religion 0.88
TABLE 3

COPE item Factor Factor Factor

1 2 3

I try to come up with a strategy about what to do Planning .697 .000 .276

I do what has to be done, one step at a time Active .674 .000 .000

I think hard about what steps to take Planning .669 .000 .000

I think about how I might best handle the problem Planning .666 .000 .000

I learn something from the experience PRIG .646 .000 .000

I take direct action to get around the problem Active .633 .000 .000

I look for something good in what is happening PRIG .620 .000 .000

I make a plan of action Planning .597 .000 .000

I try to see it in a different light, to make it seem more positive PRIG .566 .000 .000

I make sure not to make matters worse by acting too soon Restraint .540 .000 .000

I concentrate my efforts on doing something about it Active .533 .000 .000

I try hard to prevent other things from interfering SCA .519 .000 .000

I accept the reality of the fact that it happened Acceptance .513 .000 .000

I try to grow as a person as a result of the experience PRIG .495 .000 .000

I take additional action to try to get rid of the problem Active .451 .000 .000

I restrain myself from doing anything too quickly Restraint .398 .000 .000

I focus on dealing with this problem, and if necessary let other SCA .366 .000 .000
things slide for a while

I get used to the idea that it happened Acceptance .329 .000 -.214

I try to get emotional support from friends and relatives SSER .000 -.674 .000

I feel emotional distress and express those feelings Venting .000 -.665 .000

I discuss my feelings with someone SSER .000 -.657 .000

I let my feelings out Venting .000 -.630 .000

I get upset and let my emotions out Venting .000 -.596 .000

I get sympathy and understanding from someone SSER .000 -.560 .000

I try to get advice from someone about what to do SSIR .233 -.487 .000

I get upset, and am really aware of it Venting .000 -.460 -.240

I act as though it hasn't even happened Denial .000 .000 -.547

I give up the attempt to get what I want Beh. Dis. .000 .000 -.526
 11

I just give up trying to reach my goal Beh. Dis. .000 .000 -.470

I reduce the amount of effort I'm putting into solving Beh. Dis. .000 .000 -.438

I admit to myself that I can't deal with it and stop trying Beh. Dis. .000 .000 -.430

I daydream about things other than this Ment. Dis. .000 .000 -.379

I refuse to believe that it has happened Denial .000 .000 -.368

I say to myself "this isn't real" Denial .000 .000 -.364

I sleep more than usual Ment. Dis. .000 .000 -.362

I learn to live with it Acceptance .217 .000 -.354

I put off doing anything until the situation permits Restraint .000 .000 -.326

I talk to someone to find out more about the situation SSIR .437 -.443 .000

I talk to someone who could do something concrete SSIR .511 -.344 .000

I ask people who have had similar experiences SSIR .423 -.428 .000

I go to the cinema or watch TV, to think about it less Ment. Dis. .000 -.295 -.308

I force myself to wait for the right time to do something Restraint .295 .000 -.301

I turn to work or other activities to take my mind off Ment. Dis. .000 .000 .000

I keep myself from getting distracted SCA .235 .000 .000

I seek God's help Religion .204 .000 -.206

I accept that it has happened and that it can't be changed Acceptance .227 .000 -.277

I put aside other activities in order to concentrate on this SCA .272 .000 .000

VARIANCE 6.988 3.964 2.697

TABLE 4
SCALE No. of Cronbach's Mean No. of Mean
items Alpha inter-item subjects
(S.D.)
correlations

Rational 18 0.89 0.31 479 38.29 (8.74)

Coping
Emotion 8 0.83 0.38 527 19.97 (5.28)
Coping
Avoidance 11 0.69 0.18 513 33.70 (4.74)
TABLE 5

COPING MEASURE
VARIABLE Rational Emotion Avoidance
Coping Coping Coping

Sickness Days -0.02 0.04 -0.06

Sickness Episodes -0.03 0.10* -0.10*

Psychological Distress -0.09 0.13** 0.35***

Rational Coping 1.00 0.21*** 0.00

Emotional Coping 0.21*** 1.00 0.17***

Avoidance Coping 0.00 0.17*** 1.00

* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001

Note: Ns vary from 401 to 513.

TABLE CAPTIONS

Table 1. Radial parcel analysis of cope items

Table 2. Salient loadings from the second order analysis of COPE

Table 3. Distribution of COPE sub-scales and items in the three factor solution.

Table 4. Item analysis of revised COPE scales

Table 5. Correlations between coping measures, distress and sickness absence