The pandemic coping scale - validity and reliability of a brief measure of coping during a pandemic

TY - JOUR

T1 - The pandemic coping scale - validity and reliability of a brief measure of coping during a pandemic

AU - Lotzin, Annett

AU - Ketelsen, Ronja

AU - Krause, Linda

AU - Ozga, Ann-Kathrin

AU - Böttche, Maria

AU - Schäfer, Ingo

N1 - © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

PY - 2022/8/18

Y1 - 2022/8/18

N2 - UNLABELLED: This study assessed the validity and reliability of the Pandemic Coping Scale (PCS), a new brief measure of coping with pandemic-related stressors.METHODS: The PCS was administered to N = 2316 German participants during the COVID-19 pandemic. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was applied among random splits of the sample. Global goodness of fit (χ 2, RMSEA, SRMR, CFI, TLI), local goodness of fit (factor loadings, communalities, factor reliability, discriminant validity) and additional test quality criteria (internal consistency, item discrimination and difficulty) were evaluated for a four-factor model vs. a four-factor model combined with a second-order general factor. Convergent and divergent validity were examined by Pearson correlations of the PCS subscales with the Brief-COPE subscales; criterion validity was evaluated by correlations with wellbeing (WHO-5), depressive (PHQ-9) and anxiety symptoms (GAD-2).RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis suggested a four-factor solution ('Healthy Lifestyle', 'Joyful Activities', 'Daily Structure', 'Prevention Adherence'). Confirmatory factor analysis showed a sufficient global fit for both specified models which did not differ in their fit to the data. Local goodness of fit indices showed moderate to large factor loadings and good factor reliabilities except for the subscale 'Prevention Adherence'. Internal consistencies were good for the PCS total scale (α = .83), the 'Healthy Lifestyle' (α = .79) and the 'Daily Structure' (α = .86) subscales, acceptable for 'Joyful Activities' (α = .60), and low for 'Prevention Adherence' (α = .52). The four subscales evidenced convergent and divergent validity with the Brief-COPE subscales. The subscales 'Healthy lifestyle', 'Joyful activities' and 'Daily structure' showed criterion validity with wellbeing, depressive and anxiety symptoms.CONCLUSIONS: The PCS is a reliable and valid measure to assess pandemic-specific coping behavior in the domains of 'Healthy Lifestyle', 'Joyful Activities', and 'Daily Structure'. The PCS subscale 'Prevention Adherence' might be improved by adding items with varying item difficulties.

AB - UNLABELLED: This study assessed the validity and reliability of the Pandemic Coping Scale (PCS), a new brief measure of coping with pandemic-related stressors.METHODS: The PCS was administered to N = 2316 German participants during the COVID-19 pandemic. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was applied among random splits of the sample. Global goodness of fit (χ 2, RMSEA, SRMR, CFI, TLI), local goodness of fit (factor loadings, communalities, factor reliability, discriminant validity) and additional test quality criteria (internal consistency, item discrimination and difficulty) were evaluated for a four-factor model vs. a four-factor model combined with a second-order general factor. Convergent and divergent validity were examined by Pearson correlations of the PCS subscales with the Brief-COPE subscales; criterion validity was evaluated by correlations with wellbeing (WHO-5), depressive (PHQ-9) and anxiety symptoms (GAD-2).RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis suggested a four-factor solution ('Healthy Lifestyle', 'Joyful Activities', 'Daily Structure', 'Prevention Adherence'). Confirmatory factor analysis showed a sufficient global fit for both specified models which did not differ in their fit to the data. Local goodness of fit indices showed moderate to large factor loadings and good factor reliabilities except for the subscale 'Prevention Adherence'. Internal consistencies were good for the PCS total scale (α = .83), the 'Healthy Lifestyle' (α = .79) and the 'Daily Structure' (α = .86) subscales, acceptable for 'Joyful Activities' (α = .60), and low for 'Prevention Adherence' (α = .52). The four subscales evidenced convergent and divergent validity with the Brief-COPE subscales. The subscales 'Healthy lifestyle', 'Joyful activities' and 'Daily structure' showed criterion validity with wellbeing, depressive and anxiety symptoms.CONCLUSIONS: The PCS is a reliable and valid measure to assess pandemic-specific coping behavior in the domains of 'Healthy Lifestyle', 'Joyful Activities', and 'Daily Structure'. The PCS subscale 'Prevention Adherence' might be improved by adding items with varying item difficulties.

U2 - 10.1080/21642850.2022.2112198

DO - 10.1080/21642850.2022.2112198

M3 - SCORING: Journal article

C2 - 36016872

VL - 10

SP - 762

EP - 785

JO - HEALTH PSYCHOL BEHAV

JF - HEALTH PSYCHOL BEHAV

SN - 2164-2850

IS - 1

ER -