Vitaliano P P, Maiuro R D, Russo J, Becker J
J Behav Med. 1987 Feb;10(1):1-18. doi: 10.1007/BF00845124.
Raw scores (frequency of efforts) versus relative scores (percentage of efforts) were compared on the five scales of the revised Ways of Coping Checklist. It was hypothesized that, conditional on the source of and appraisal of a stressor, problem-focused coping should be inversely related and Wishful Thinking should be positively related to depression when relative scores were used but that raw problem-focused scores would be less clearly related to depression in such a way. It was further hypothesized that these relationships would hold for very diverse samples: psychiatric outpatients (n = 145), spouses of patients with Alzheimer's disease (n = 66), and medical students (n = 185). Given the maladaptive status of the psychiatric outpatients, it was hypothesized that they would report more emotion-focused strategies and less problem-focused coping than the nonclinical samples and that these differences would be better observed using relative rather than raw scores. The hypotheses were generally supported.
在修订后的应对方式清单的五个量表上,对原始分数(努力频率)与相对分数(努力百分比)进行了比较。研究假设为,在应激源的来源和评估条件下,当使用相对分数时,问题聚焦应对与抑郁应呈负相关,而一厢情愿思维与抑郁应呈正相关,但原始的问题聚焦分数与抑郁的这种关系则不太明显。进一步假设这些关系在非常不同的样本中都成立:精神科门诊患者(n = 145)、阿尔茨海默病患者的配偶(n = 66)和医学生(n = 185)。鉴于精神科门诊患者的适应不良状态,研究假设他们会比非临床样本报告更多的情绪聚焦策略和更少的问题聚焦应对,并且使用相对分数而非原始分数能更好地观察到这些差异。这些假设总体上得到了支持。