Generic Background Image
  1. Rehabilitation Measures Database
  2. Responses to Stress Questionnaire

Responses to Stress Questionnaire

Last Updated

Purpose

The RSQ is designed to capture the ways that individuals cope with and react to specific sources of stress.

Link to Instrument

Instrument Details

Acronym RSQ

Area of Assessment

Stress & Coping

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Free

Actual Cost

$0.00

Diagnosis/Conditions

  • Brain Injury Recovery
  • Cancer Rehabilitation
  • Pediatric + Adolescent Rehabilitation

Populations

Cancer
Non-Specific Patient Population
Pediatric Disorders

Key Descriptions

  • The RSQ is made up of a checklist of stressors often experienced during stressful situations, followed by 57 questions pertaining to how the individual responded to the stressors they endorsed. All questions refer to a stressor that the participant recently experienced.
  • For the checklist, respondents rate how often they have experienced each stressor related to a specific stressful situation on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 “Not at all” to 4 “Very”.
  • For the subsequent 57 questions, respondents rate how often they responded to stress (cope) in a given way on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 “Not at all” to 4 “A lot”. Several items prompt respondents to write additional information to describe how they employed a particular coping strategy.
  • The RSQ items measure three forms of coping strategies (1) Primary Control Engagement Coping, (2) Secondary Control Engagement Coping, and (3) Disengagement Coping; and two types of involuntary stress responses (1) involuntary engagement and (2) involuntary disengagement.
  • To score the RSQ, proportion scores are created for each factor to control for individual differences in rates of endorsing items.
  • The RSQ is intended to be modified based on the specific stressors experienced by the participant. To ensure standardization, the measure authors request that they be contacted prior to any modification to the measure at stressandcopinglab@vanderbilt.edu.
  • Versions of the RSQ have been created for many types of stressors experienced by children and families. Depending on the stressor/version, the RSQ may be completed by children >9 years of age or adults.

Number of Items

57

Equipment Required

  • RSQ Stressor-Specific Questionnaire
  • Pencil/Pen

Time to Administer

20 minutes

15-20 Minutes

Required Training

No Training

Age Ranges

Child

6 - 12

years

Adolescent

13 - 17

years

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly Adult

65 +

years

Instrument Reviewers

Initial review completed by Samantha Lucko, Aleksandra Persowska, and Samantha DeDios-Stern at the Illinois Institute of Technology (2015). Update and re visions completed by Kristian Nitsch, MS (2015).

Measurement Domain

Emotion

Considerations

The RSQ is intended to be modified based on the specific stressors experienced by the participant. To ensure standardization, the measure authors request that they be contacted prior to any modification to the measure at stressandcopinglab@vanderbilt.edu.

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

Cancer

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Women with Breast Cancer (Calculated from Compas, Beckjord, Agocha, Sherman, Langrock, Grossman, Dausch, Glinder, Kaiser, Anderson-Hanley, & Leucken, 2006).

** (n= 119 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer stages 0 through III; administered the RSQ at two time points including baseline and 12 weeks later; all SEM values were calculated using raw score standard deviations)

  • Primary Control Engagement: SEM= .42
  • Secondary Control Engagement: SEM= 29.
  • Disengagement: SEM= .29
  • Involuntary Engagement: SEM= .26
  • Involuntary Disengagement: SEM= .23

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Women with Breast Cancer (Calculated from Compas, Beckjord, Agocha, Sherman, Langrock, Grossman, Dausch, Glinder, Kaiser, Anderson-Hanley, & Leucken, 2006).

** (n= 119 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer stages 0 through III; administered the RSQ at two time points including baseline and 12 weeks later; all SEM values were calculated using raw score standard deviations)

  • Primary Control Engagement at 95% CI: MDC= 1.16
  • Secondary Control Engagement at 95% CI: MDC= .82
  • Disengagement at 95% CI: MDC= .79
  • Involuntary Engagement at 95% CI: MDC= .73
  • Involuntary Disengagement: MDC= .62

Normative Data

Children Adjusting to Cancer (Mother’s Report) (Miller et al., 2009)

** (n= 75 mother of children with cancer; Mean Age= 37.48, SD= 7.82)

  • Cancer Related Stress: Mean= 2.42, SD= 0.60
  • Primary Control Coping Proportional Score: Mean= 0.20, SD= 0.03
  • Secondary Control Coping Proportional Score: Mean= 0.27, SD= 0.06
  • Disengagement Coping Proportional Score: Mean= 0.14, SD= 0.02

 

Women with Breast Cancer (RSQ-CV) (Compas, Beckjord, Agocha, Sherman, Langrock, Grossman, Dausch, Glinder, Kaiser, Anderson-Hanley, & Leucken, 2006).

** (n= 232 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer stages 0 through III; Mean Age= 52.3, SD= 9.7)

  • Primary Control Engagement
    • Raw Score: Mean= 2.79, SD= 0.59
    • Proportion Score: Mean= 0.32, SD= 0.10
  • Secondary Control Engagement
    • Raw Score: Mean= 2.88, SD=0.52
    • Proportion Score: Mean= 0.34, SD=0.12
  • Disengagement
    • Raw Score: Mean= 1.86, SD= 0.53
    • Proportion Score: Mean= 0.14, SD= 0.07
  • Involuntary Engagement
    • Raw Score: Mean= 1.76, SD= 0.59
    • Proportion Score: Mean= 0.12, SD= 0.08
  • Involuntary Disengagement
    • Raw Score: Mean= 1.53, SD= 0.48
    • Proportion Score: Mean= 0.08, SD= 0.06

 

Survivors of Childhood Acute Leukemia (Campbell, Scaduto, Van Slyke, Niarhos, Whitlock, & Compas, 2009)

** (n= 30 children and adolescents who completed treatment and 30 healthy controls matched on age and sex; Leukemia Group Mean Age= 14.49, SD= 2.88; Healthy Control Group Mean Age= 14.31, SD= 2.76)

  • Leukemia Group (Patients)
    • Primary Control Engagement Proportional Score: Mean= 0.20, SD= 0.04
    • Secondary Control Engagement Proportional Score: Mean= 0.26, SD= 0.05
    • Disengagement Proportional Score: Mean= 0.14, SD= 0.03
  • Leukemia Group (Parents)
    • Primary Control Engagement Proportional Score: Mean= 0.22, SD= 0.05
    • Secondary Control Engagement Proportional Score: Mean= 0.25, SD= 0.05
    • Disengagement Proportional Score: Mean= 0.15, SD= 0.03
  • Health Control Group
    • Primary Control Engagement Proportional Score: Mean= 0.20, SD= 0.04
    • Secondary Control Engagement Proportional Score: Mean= 0.27, SD= 0.04
    • Disengagement Proportional Score: Mean= 0.15, SD= 0.03
  • Healthy Control Group (Parents)
    • Primary Control Engagement Proportional Score: Mean= 0.23, SD= 0.04
    • Secondary Control Engagement Proportional Score: Mean= 0.26, SD= 0.05
    • Disengagement Proportional Score: Mean= 0.15, SD= 0.03

Test/Retest Reliability

Women with Breast Cancer – Coping with Breast Cancer (Compas et al., 2006)

(n= 33 women with breast cancer retested after a 12 week period, mean age = 52.3 years, SD = 9.7)

  • Primary Control Engagement Coping subscale: Poor (r = .50)
  • Secondary Control Engagement Coping subscale: Poor (r = .68)
  • Disengagement Coping subscale: Adequate (r = .71)
  • Involuntary Engagement subscale: Excellent (r = .80)
  • Involuntary Disengagement subscale: Adequate (r = .78)

Internal Consistency

Survivors of Childhood Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (Campbell et al., 2009)

** (n= 30 children and adolescents between 10-20 years old who completed treatment for ALL with age/sex matched healthy controls (ALL mean age = 14.49 (2.88), control mean age = 14.31 (2.76))

  • Acute Lymphocytic Patients
    • Primary Control Engagement Coping: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .85)
    • Secondary Control Engagement Coping: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha=.81) 
    • Disengagement Coping: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .74)

 

  • Control Patients
    • Primary Control Engagement Coping: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .82)
    • Secondary Control Engagement Coping: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha=.79)
    • Disengagement Coping: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= .75)

 

Women Coping with Breast Cancer (Compas et al., 2006)

** (n= 33, Mean Age= 52.3 years, SD = 9.7)

    • Primary Control Engagement Coping: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .80)
    • Secondary Control Engagement Coping: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha=.77)
    • Disengagement Coping: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= .76)
    • Involuntary Engagement: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .92)*
    • Involuntary Disengagement: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .87)

 

Mothers of Children with Cancer – Cancer Related Stress (Miller, et al., 2009)

** (75 mothers, Child Mean Age= 10.08, SD= 3.79)

  • Adequate to Excellent internal consistency for the 5 factors (Cronbach’s Alphas= .71 – .82)

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Concurrent validity:

Survivors of Childhood Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (Campbell et al., 2009; 30 children and adolescents between 10-20 years old who completed treatment for ALL with age/sex matched healthy controls (ALL Mean Age= 14.49 (2.88), control mean age= 14.31 (2.76))

  • Executive functioning scores (working memory, behavioral inhibition, cognitive flexibility, and self-monitoring) significantly positively correlated with primary control coping (r ranging from .43 to .52, p < .01)
  • Executive functioning scores (working memory, cognitive flexibility, and self-monitoring) significantly positively correlated with secondary control coping (r ranging from .45 to .52, p < .01)

Construct Validity

Convergent validity:

Women with breast cancer- coping with breast cancer (Compas et al., 2006; n = 33, mean age = 52.3 years (SD = 9.7))

  • Significant positive relationship between the Impact of Events Scale (IES) intrusion scale and the involuntary engagement scale of RSQ (r = 0.81, p < .01)

 

Discriminant validity:

 

Survivors of Childhood Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (Campbell et al., 2009; 30 children and adolescents between 10-20 years old who completed treatment for ALL with age/sex matched healthy controls (ALL mean age = 14.49 (2.88), control mean age = 14.31 (2.76))

  • Executive functioning scores (working memory, behavioral inhibition, and self-monitoring) significantly negatively correlated with secondary control coping (r ranging from -.49 to -.63, p < .01)
  • Total behavior problems significantly negatively correlated with primary control coping (r = -.52) and secondary control coping (r = -.80)

 

Women with breast cancer- coping with breast cancer (Compas et al., 2006; n = 33, mean age = 52.3 years (SD = 9.7))

  • Significant positive relationship between the Impact of Events Scale (IES) intrusion scale and 4 RSQ subscale (primary control engagement, secondary control engagement, disengagement, and involuntary engagement) ranging from r = -0.14 to 0.55, p < .01)

 

Mothers of children with cancer- cancer related stress (Miller, et al., 2009; 75 mothers, 88% White, child mean age of 10.08 years old (SD = 3.79))

  • Significant negative relationship between child depression (as measured by the CBCL-parent report) and primary control coping (r = -0.37, p < .01) and secondary control coping (r = -0.31, p < .01)
  • Significant negative relationship between child anxiety (as measured by the CBCL-parent report) and primary control coping (r = -0.25, p < .05) and secondary control coping (r = -0.32, p < .01)

Non-Specific Patient Population

back to Populations

Normative Data

Adolescents dealing with Family Conflict & Economic Strain Stress(Wadsworth & Compas, 2002)

** (total same n= 364 adolescents between 7th and 12th grades; Mean Age= 14.7, SD= 1.6)

Family Conflict

  • Primary Control Coping Proportional Score : Mean= 0.17, SD= 0.04
  • Secondary Control Coping Proportional Score: Mean= 0.24, SD= 0.05
  • Disengagement Coping Proportional Score: Mean= 0.20, SD= 0.03

Economic Strain

  • Primary Control Coping Proportional Score: Mean= 0.18, SD= 0.04
  • Secondary Control Coping Proportional Score: Mean= 0.26, SD= 0.05
  • Disengagement Coping Proportional Score: Mean= 0.20, SD= 0.03

Test/Retest Reliability

Older Adolescents – Social Stressors (Connor-Smith, Compas, Wadsworth, Thomsen, & Saltzman, 2000)

** (n=101 first and second year college students retested after 1-2 weeks; ages 16-19, Mean Age= 18.2, SD = 0.6)

  • Primary Control Engagement Coping subscale: Excellent (r = .81)
  • Secondary Control Engagement Coping subscale: Adequate (r = .74)
  • Disengagement Coping subscale: Poor (r = .69)
  • Involuntary Engagement subscale: Excellent (r = .81)
  • Involuntary Disengagement subscale: Adequate (r = .78)

Internal Consistency

Older Adolescents (Connor-Smith, Compas, Wadsworth, Thomsen, & Saltzman, 2000)

  • Social Stressors

** (n=437 first and second year college students; ages 16-19, Mean Age= 18.2, SD = 0.6) 

    • Primary Control Engagement Coping: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .82)
    • Secondary Control Engagement Coping: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha=.80)
    • Disengagement Coping: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= .73)
    • Involuntary Engagement: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .89)
    • Involuntary Disengagement: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .81)

 

  • Family Conflict Stressors

** (n= 364 junior high and senior high school students; ages 12-18, Mean Age= 14.7, SD= 1.7)

    • Primary Control Engagement Coping: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .84)
    • Secondary Control Engagement Coping: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha=.84)
    • Disengagement Coping: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .88)
    • Involuntary Engagement: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .92)*
    • Involuntary Disengagement: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .88)

 

  • Economic Strain Stressors

** (n= 364 junior high and senior high school students; ages 12-18, Mean Age= 14.7, SD= 1.7)

    • Primary Control Engagement Coping: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .80)
    • Secondary Control Engagement Coping: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha=.83)
    • Disengagement Coping: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .85)
    • Involuntary Engagement: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .92)*
    • Involuntary Disengagement: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .86)

 

  • Abdominal Pain Stress

**(n= 82 adolescents coping with recurring abdominal pain with at least 3 pain episodes in the past 3 months, ages 11-17, Mean Age= 13.4, SD = 1.9)

    • Primary Control Engagement Coping: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= .72)
    • Secondary Control Engagement Coping: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha=.79)
    • Disengagement Coping: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .67)
    • Involuntary Engagement: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .88)
    • Involuntary Disengagement: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .85)

 

Parents Coping with their Child’s Abdominal Pain (Connor-Smith, Compas, Wadsworth, Thomsen, & Saltzman, 2000)

(n= 82 parents who had an adolescent aged 11-17 with abdominal pain)

  • Poor to Excellent internal consistency for the 5 factors ranging from alpha =.63 – .85 (mean α= .75)

 

Spanish Caregivers of Individuals with TBI- Stress Related to Cognitive and Physical Problems (Calvete & Lopez De Arroyabe, 2012)

** (Spanish version of RSQ; n= 223, ages 20-77, Mean Age= 49.86, SD = 12.63)

    • Primary Control Engagement Coping: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= .76)
    • Secondary Control Engagement Coping: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha=.76)
    • Disengagement Coping: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= .74)

 

Adolescents with High Functioning Autism and Asperger’s- Social Stressors (Khor, Gray, Reid, & Melvin, 2014)

** (n= 31 adolescents with Autistic disorder or Asperger’s disorder from Australia, Mean Age= 14.46, SD= 1.83; parent reports also collected)

  • Adequate to Excellent internal consistency demonstrated for the Primary and Secondary Engagement Control Coping subscales for adolescent and parent reports (Cronbach’s Alpha= .78-.96)
  • Adequate to excellent internal consistency for the Disengagement Coping subscale for adolescent report (Cronbach’s Alpha= .89) and parent report (Cronbach’s Alpha= .64)

 

Parental Depression- Parenting Stressors (Langrock, Compas, Keller, Merchant, & Copeland, 2002)

** (n= 66 depressed parents of children aged 7-17, Mean Age= 42.6, SD = 5.2)

    • Primary Control Engagement Coping: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= .77)
    • Secondary Control Engagement Coping: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha=.75)
    • Disengagement Coping: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .83)
    • Involuntary Engagement: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .89)
    • Involuntary Disengagement: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .84)

 

Mothers of Children with Cancer – Cancer Related Stress (Miller, et al., 2009)

** (75 mothers, Child Mean Age= 10.08, SD= 3.79)

  • Adequate to Excellent internal consistency for the 5 factors (Cronbach’s Alphas= .71 – .82)

 

Adolescents- economic strain and family conflict stressors (Wadsworth & Compas, 2002)

** (n= 364 7th – 12th grade students, Mean Age= 14.7, SD= 1.5)

  • Stressor Scales
    • Family Conflict: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .88)
    • Economic Strain: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alpha= .90)
  • Three Coping Method Subscales
    • Family Conflict: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alphas= .84 – .88)
    • Economic Strain: Excellent (Cronbach’s Alphas= .80 – .85)

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Concurrent validity:

Older adolescents- social stressors (Connor-Smith, Compas, Wadsworth, Thomsen, & Saltzman, 2000; aged 16-19 (Mean Age= 18.2, SD= 0.6), first or second year college students, n= 437)

  • Heart rate reactivity significantly correlated with:
    • Disengagement coping (r= .28, p< .05)
    • Involuntary engagement (r= .33, p< .01)

 

Spanish caregivers of individuals with TBI- stress related to the individual with the TBI’s cognitive and physical problems (Calvete & Lopez De Arroyabe, 2012; Spanish version of RSQ, aged 20-77 years old (mean age = 49.86, SD = 12.63), n = 223)

  • Disengagement coping significantly related to depression (r= 0.44, p< .001) and grief (r= 0.52, p< .001)

 

Adolescents- economic strain and family conflict stressors (Wadsworth & Compas, 2002; n= 364 7th – 12th grade students, rural northeastern New England, Mean Age= 14.7 years (SD = 1.5))

  • Disengagement coping for both economic strain and family conflict stressors significantly related to adolescent anxiety/depression (as measured by the Youth Self Report); economic strain (r = .29, p < .001) and family conflict stress (r = .27, p< .001).
  • Disengagement coping for both economic strain and family conflict stressors significantly related to adolescent aggression (as measured by the Youth Self Report); economic strain (r = .32, p < .001) and family conflict stress (r = .29, p< .001).

Construct Validity

Convergent validity:

Older adolescents- social stressors (Connor-Smith, Compas, Wadsworth, Thomsen, & Saltzman, 2000; aged 16-19 (mean = 18.2, SD = 0.6), first or second year college students, n = 437)

  • Primary control engagement coping subscale significantly correlated with active coping, planful coping, suppression of activities, instrumental support, ventilation of emotions, emotional support, and positive reinterpretation subscales of the COPE (r = .35-.58, p < .01)
  • Secondary control engagement coping subscale significantly correlated with positive reinterpretation and acceptance subscales of the COPE (r = .33-.46, p < .01)
  •  Disengagement coping subscale significantly correlated with restraint coping, denial, behavioral disengagement, and mental disengagement coping subscales of the COPE (r = .36-.52, p < .01)

 

Discriminant validity:

Older adolescents- social stressors (Connor-Smith, Compas, Wadsworth, Thomsen, & Saltzman, 2000; aged 16-19 (mean = 18.2, SD = 0.6), first or second year college students, n = 437)

  • Primary control engagement coping subscale not correlated with COPE subscales measuring acceptance, religion, restraint, denial, behavioral disengagement, and mental disengagement coping (p > .05)

 

Parental Depression- parenting stressors (Langrock, Compas, Keller, Merchant, & Copeland, 2002, 66 depressed parents of children aged 7-17, mean age = 42.6 (SD = 5.2), 98% White)

  • Parent depression (as measured by the BDI-II) significantly negatively correlated with primary control coping (r = -0.24, p < .05)

 

Mothers of children with cancer- cancer related stress (Miller, et al., 2009; 75 mothers, 88% White, child mean age of 10.08 years old (SD = 3.79))

  • Significant negative relationship between child depression (as measured by the CBCL-parent report) and primary control coping (r = -0.37, p < .01) and secondary control coping (r = -0.31, p < .01)
  • Significant negative relationship between child anxiety (as measured by the CBCL-parent report) and primary control coping (r = -0.25, p < .05) and secondary control coping (r = -0.32, p < .01)

 

Adolescents- economic strain and family conflict stressors (Wadsworth & Compas, 2002; n = 364 7th – 12th grade students, rural northeastern New England, mean age = 14.7 years (SD = 1.5))

  • Significant negative relationship between adolescent anxiety/depression (as measured by the Youth Self Report) and both primary and secondary control engagement coping for economic strain and family conflict stress:
  • Primary control- economic strain, r = -.18 p < .01
  • Secondary control- economic strain, r = -.28 p < .001
  • Primary control- family conflict, r = -.27 p < .001
  • Secondary control- family conflict, r = -.38 p < .001
  • Significant negative relationship between adolescent aggression (as measured by the Youth Self Report) and both primary and secondary control engagement coping for economic strain and family conflict stress:
  • Primary control- economic strain, r = -.20 p < .001
  • Secondary control- economic strain, r = -.28 p < .001
  • Primary control- family conflict, r = -.32 p < .001
  • Secondary control- family conflict, r = -.41 p < .001

Content Validity

Older adolescents- social stressors (Connor-Smith, Compas, Wadsworth, Thomsen, & Saltzman, 2000; aged 16-19 (Mean Age= 18.2, SD= 0.6), first or second year college students, n= 437)

  • Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated adequate fit for the 3-factor model (primary control engagement coping, secondary control engagement coping, and disengagement coping)

 

Adolescents- economic strain and family conflict stressors (Connor-Smith, Compas, Wadsworth, Thomsen, & Saltzman, 2000; aged 12-18 (Mean Age= 14.7, SD= 1.7), high school students in a rural area, n= 364)

Confirmatory factor analysis cross-validated the 3-factor model (primary control engagement coping, secondary control engagement coping, and disengagement coping) for economic strain and family conflict stressors demonstrating adequate fit

Pediatric Disorders

back to Populations

Normative Data

Adolescents Experiencing Chronic Pain (Compas, Boyer, Stanger, Colletti, Thomsen, Dufton, & Cole, 2006)

** (n= 164 adolescents with recurrent abdominal pain and their parents; Mean Age- 13.7, SD= 2.0)

Adolescents

  • Primary Control Coping Raw Score: Mean= 2.59, SD= 0.60
  • Secondary Control Coping Raw Score: Mean= 2.35, SD= 0.54
  • Disengagement Coping Raw Score: Mean= 2.30, SD= 0.50

Parents

  • Primary Control Coping Raw Score: Mean= 2.76, SD= 0.54
  • Secondary Control Coping Raw Score: Mean= 2.07, SD= 0.49
  • Disengagement Coping Raw Score: Mean= 2.14, SD= 0.49

Internal Consistency

Adolescents Experiencing Recurrent Abdominal Pain (RAP) – Stomach Pain Stressor (Compas et al., 2006)

** (n= 164, Mean Age= 13.7, SD= 2.0; parents reports were also collected)

  • Parents’ Reports
    • Primary Control Engagement Coping: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .65)
    • Secondary Control Engagement Coping: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha=.68)
    • Disengagement Coping: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .58)
  • Adolescents’ Self-reports
    • Primary Control Engagement Coping: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha= .76)
    • Secondary Control Engagement Coping: Adequate (Cronbach’s Alpha=.77)
    • Disengagement Coping: Poor (Cronbach’s Alpha= .62)

Construct Validity

Convergent validity:

Adolescents experiencing recurrent abdominal pain (RAP)- stomach pain stressor (Compas et al., 2006; n = 164, adolescents mean age = 13.7 years (SD = 2.0), parents reports were also collected)

  • Parents’ reports: Parental somatic complaints (as measured by Child Behavior checklist) significantly positively correlated with disengagement coping (r = 0.44, p < .001)
  • Adolescents’ self-reports: Adolescent anxiety/depression (as measured by Youth Self-Report) significantly positively correlated with disengagement coping (r = -0.18, p < .05)

 

Discriminant validity:

Adolescents experiencing recurrent abdominal pain (RAP)- stomach pain stressor (Compas et al., 2006; n = 164, adolescents mean age = 13.7 years (SD = 2.0), parents reports were also collected)

  • Parents’ reports: Parental anxiety/depression (as measured by Child Behavior checklist) significantly negatively correlated with primary control engagement coping (r = -0.33, p < .001), secondary control engagement coping (r = -0.39, p < .001)
  • Adolescents’ self-reports: Adolescent anxiety/depression (as measured by Youth Self-Report) significantly negatively correlated with primary control engagement coping (r = -0.19, p < .001), secondary control engagement coping (r = -0.33, p < .001)

Bibliography

Calvete, E., & Lopez De Arroyabe, E. L. (2012). Depression and grief in Spanish family caregivers of people with traumatic brain injury: The roles of social support and coping. Brain Injury, 26(6), 834-843.

Campbell, L., Scaduto, M., Van Slyke, D., Niarhos, F., Whitlock, J., & Compas, B. (2009). Executive Function, Coping, and Behavior in Survivors of Childhood Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia. Journal Pediatric Psychology, 34(3): 317-327.

Compas, B. (n.d.). Responses to stress questionnaire (RSQ). Retrieved from http://vkc.mc.vanderbilt.edu/stressandcoping/rsq/

Compas, B.E., Beckjord, E., Agocha, B., Sherman, M.L., Langrock, A., Grossman, C., Dausch, B., Glinder, J., Kaiser, C., Anderson-Hanley, C., & Luecken, L. (2006). Measurement of coping and stress responses in women with breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology, 15, 1038-1054.

Compas, B.E., Boyer, M.C., Stanger, C., Colletti, R.B., Thomsen, A.H., Dufton, L.M., & Cole, D.A. (2006). Latent variable analysis of coping, anxiety/depression, and somatic symptoms in adolescents with chronic pain. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74, 1132-1142.

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 responses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 976-992.

Dufton, L., Dunn, M., Slosky, L., & Compas, B. (2011). Self-Reported and Laboratory-Based Responses to Stress in Children with Recurrent Pain and Anxiety. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 36(1): 95-105.

Khor, A., Gray, K., Reid, S., & Melvin, G. (2014). Feasibility and validity of ecological momentary assessment in adolescents with high-functioning autism and Asperger's disorder. Journal of Adolescence, 37, 37-46.

Langrock, A.M., Compas, B.E., Keller, G., Merchant, M.J., & Copeland, M. E. (2002). Coping with the Stress of Parental Depression: Parents’ Reports of Children’s Coping and Emotional/Behavioral Problems. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 31, 312-324.

Miller, K., Vannatta, K., Compas, B., Vasey, M., McGoron, K., Salley, C., & Gerhardt, C. (2009). The Role of Coping and Temperament in the Adjustment of Children with Cancer. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34 (10): 1135-1143.

Wadsworth, M.E., & Compas, B.E. (2002). Coping with family conflict and economic strain: The adolescent perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12, 243-274.

rehabilitation measures

More Instruments Like This

We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.

updated Nov 5, 2024

Leicester Cough Questionna...

read more

updated Oct 15, 2024

Buss-Durkee Hostility Inve...

read more

updated Sep 11, 2024

Structured Clinical Interv...

read more