Lars-Olov Lundqvist1, Gerd Ahlström. 1. Centre for Rehabilitation Research, S-huset, Orebro University Hospital, SE-70185 Orebro, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to describe coping and evaluate the psychometric properties and the factor structure of the Ways of Coping Questionnaire (WCQ) applied to clinical and nonclinical groups. METHOD: The responses of 510 subjects (chronically disabled patients, their next of kin, and students) who completed the Swedish version of the WCQ were the basis for confirmatory factor analyses of the original eight-factor model as well as of the model consistency across samples. RESULTS: The coping patterns that emerged in the case of the patients were very similar to those of the next of kin. The exceptions were greater use of Distancing by patients and of Positive Reappraisal by next of kin. The results showed support for the original eight-factor model, but deviation from the equality of factor structures among the subsamples indicated a limited use of the WCQ in between-sample comparisons. CONCLUSION: Modifications to the eight-factor model adequately described the subsamples, supporting the use of the WCQ in within-sample settings. This was particularly evident from the evaluation of alternative factor structures based on previously described models derived from clinical samples.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to describe coping and evaluate the psychometric properties and the factor structure of the Ways of Coping Questionnaire (WCQ) applied to clinical and nonclinical groups. METHOD: The responses of 510 subjects (chronically disabled patients, their next of kin, and students) who completed the Swedish version of the WCQ were the basis for confirmatory factor analyses of the original eight-factor model as well as of the model consistency across samples. RESULTS: The coping patterns that emerged in the case of the patients were very similar to those of the next of kin. The exceptions were greater use of Distancing by patients and of Positive Reappraisal by next of kin. The results showed support for the original eight-factor model, but deviation from the equality of factor structures among the subsamples indicated a limited use of the WCQ in between-sample comparisons. CONCLUSION: Modifications to the eight-factor model adequately described the subsamples, supporting the use of the WCQ in within-sample settings. This was particularly evident from the evaluation of alternative factor structures based on previously described models derived from clinical samples.
Authors: Abigail C Demianczyk; Colleen F Bechtel Driscoll; Allison Karpyn; Amanda Shillingford; Anne E Kazak; Erica Sood Journal: Child Care Health Dev Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 2.508
Authors: Robert G Maunder; William J Lancee; Reet Mae; Leslie Vincent; Nathalie Peladeau; Mary Agnes Beduz; Jonathan J Hunter; Molyn Leszcz Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2010-03-22 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Henrietta D L Ockhuijsen; Agnes van den Hoogen; Nickolas S Macklon; Jacky Boivin Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2013-09-03 Impact factor: 2.809