(PS3-A7) Validation of a Stressor-aligned Coping Instrument

The literature examining the effects of coping strategies on psychological wellbeing has produced heterogeneous findings, as existing validated measures are burdensome to complete and do not tap ecologically valid coping methods. Brief self-report measures of real-world coping strategies are needed to accurately assess the effects of coping and the interactive effects between coping strategy and type of stress. The purpose of the present study is to validate a new coping instrument, the Stony Brook Coping Inventory (SBCI), designed to assess stress coping styles in response to discrete stressors. 

The SBCI is comprised of 28 items, with items 1 through 10 assessing common stressors (e.g., financial situation, relationships, etc.) and items 11 through 28 assessing coping strategies used: (1) prayer, (2) social support-seeking, (3) problem-focused coping, (4) reappraisal, and (5) avoidance. College students enrolled in a psychology course were offered course credit for completion of an online Qualtrics survey assessing symptoms of depression, anxiety, OCD, stress, and coping. To evaluate the factor structure of the SBCI, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) via SPSS using principal axis factoring and varimax rotation followed by a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). We also examined convergent validity using the existing validated coping measure, Brief COPE. 

Participants (n = 488; Mage = 19.86 ± 2.18) were primarily White (n = 171; 37.6%) and Asian (n = 171; 37.6%), and just over half of the sample identified as female (n = 277; 56.8%). We excluded participants who completed the survey in under five minutes (n = 54). 

The factors derived from the EFA aligned with reappraisal, social support, avoidance, and prayer from our a priori model, but not problem-focused coping. Items 13 and 18 had high secondary loadings so we conducted a CFA, separating these items into their own factor (problem-solving). These findings aligned with our hypothesized factors except for item 22, which was removed due to low factor loading (.457), negligible influence on Cronbach’s alpha, and ambiguous theoretical relationship to the 5 factors. All 5 factors demonstrated strong reliability (αs >.7). 

Lastly, the SBCI subscales were highly correlated with corresponding Brief COPE subscales (rs ranged from .44-.63). 

The SBCI aligned with our predicted factor structure, demonstrating strong construct validity. Individual subscales demonstrated strong reliability and convergent validity. Unlike other coping measures, the SBCI captures the relationship between individual stressors and coping strategies utilized, which is essential to better understand how stressors mediate one's ability to cope. Future studies should examine fit between types of stress and the strategies people use to cope with them.