Coyne J C, Gottlieb B H
University of Michigan Medical Center, Department of Family Practice, Ann Arbor 48109-0708, USA.
J Pers. 1996 Dec;64(4):959-91. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00950.x.
Hundreds of studies have now used standardized checklists to assess respondents' self-reports of coping with naturally occurring stress. This article presents a critical review of the conceptual and methodological issues involved in the use of these checklists. As they are currently employed, conventional checklists render an incomplete and distorted portrait of coping. Specifically, these checklists are grounded in too narrow a conception of coping; the application and interpretation of checklists in the typical study are not faithful to a transactional model of stress and coping; statistical controls cannot eliminate the effects of key person and situation variables on coping; and no consistent interpretation can be assigned to coping scale scores. Researchers are encouraged to consider a broader range of methods for assessing coping, including semistructured interviews, customized checklists tailored to their specific hypotheses and objectives, daily diaries, and traditional trait measures.
目前已有数百项研究使用标准化清单来评估受访者应对自然产生的压力的自我报告。本文对使用这些清单所涉及的概念和方法问题进行了批判性综述。就目前的使用情况而言，传统清单对应对方式的描绘是不完整且有扭曲的。具体而言，这些清单所基于的应对概念过于狭隘；在典型研究中清单的应用和解释并不符合压力与应对的交互模型；统计控制无法消除关键人物和情境变量对应对方式的影响；而且应对量表分数没有一致的解释。我们鼓励研究人员考虑采用更广泛的方法来评估应对方式，包括半结构化访谈、根据其特定假设和目标定制的清单、日常日记以及传统的特质测量方法。
