Stewart M W, Harvey S T, Evans I M
Health Psychology Research Group, University of Auckland, New Zealand.
J Clin Psychol. 2001 Jan;57(1):131-8. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(200101)57:1<131::aid-jclp13>3.0.co;2-l.
We analyzed and compared the psychometric properties of two measures of strategiesfor coping with pain:The Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ) and the Cognitive Coping Strategies Inventory (CCSI). The CSQ and CCSI were repeatedly administered to 30 chronic pain patients. Several subscales of both measures showed inadequate internal consistency, and test-retest (one week interval) reliability lower than 0.7. For each inventory, moderate to strong intercorrelations between several subscales were observed. The Catastrophizing subscale was the only subscale for which there was clear evidence of construct validity. Results indicated that both measures showed similar psychometric difficulties, and question the construct validity of subscales other than Catastrophizing. Catastrophizing, however, more closely reflects appraisal processes than a coping strategy per se. We suggest that measures that use more parsimonious and empirically derived coping strategy subscales and that also assess appraisal factors would assist in advancing our understanding of coping with chronic pain.
应对策略问卷（CSQ）和认知应对策略量表（CCSI）。对30名慢性疼痛患者反复施测CSQ和CCSI。两种测量方法的几个分量表均显示内部一致性不足，重测（间隔一周）信度低于0.7。对于每个量表，观察到几个分量表之间存在中度到高度的相互关联。灾难化分量表是唯一有明确结构效度证据的分量表。结果表明，两种测量方法都存在类似的心理测量困难，并对除灾难化之外的分量表的结构效度提出质疑。然而，灾难化更密切地反映了评估过程，而不是一种应对策略本身。我们建议，使用更简洁且基于实证得出的应对策略分量表并同时评估评估因素的测量方法，将有助于增进我们对应对慢性疼痛的理解。
