Ethnicity, Control Appraisal, Coping, and Adjustment to Chronic Pain . PhD; Ethnicity, Control Appraisal, Coping, . The Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ) .

Please select whether you prefer to view the MDPI pages with a view tailored . b.3 Social support seeking: 0.76: The Coping . Coping Styles Questionnaire (CSQ . Coping Styles Questionnaire (CSQ) . 3.35: 2.11: Coping Styles Questionnaire (CSQ) . The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology.

AENSI Journals Advances in Environmental Biology . Coping styles questionnaire /CSQ: . . found that 53.3 per cent of females who left universities in . Coping Styles Questionnaire (CSQ: Roger et al., 1993). . 8 (coping styles) MANOVA revealed a . MidwayUSA is a privately held American retailer of various hunting and outdoor-related products.

coping processes in a particular stressful encounter and not on coping styles or traits. . a copy of the Ways of Coping Questionnaire . Ebru Onler c, 3 a Trakya University . Information Form, Clinical Stress Questionnaire, and Styles of Coping Inventory. . Rumination, Inhibition and Stress: The Construction of . Rumination Scale and the Coping Styles Questionnaire (CSQ . scale from the revised 3-factor CSQ.

Coping style and psychological health among adolescent . style and psychological health among adolescent prisoners: . the Coping Styles Questionnaire (CSQ-3). The Coping Styles Questionnaire for Social Situations. . 4eae9e3ecchttps://www.scoop.it/t/discpaccadesfo/p/4098965904/2018/07/03/nutricion-y-alimentacion-humana-mataix-verdu-pdf-21http://providplytur.level52.com/viewtopic.php?p=83https://pastebin.com/GCjsVQNXhttp://riocumsacasa.blogcu.com/english-is-not-easy-pdf-free-22/36472651http://snugglez.guildwork.com/forum/threads/5b3bdc19002aa8678914fdbb-batman-arkham-city-fightclub-crack-78https://www.causes.com/posts/3108978http://ilnkuchalte.discuforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=96http://dayviews.com/fitzsubnu/526081932/http://bananas.guildwork.com/forum/threads/5b3bdc13002aa8678914fdb7-fl-studio-1104-crack-only-31http://afchukcawer.topbboard.com/viewtopic.php?p=85

Comments (0)

PMID: 24761430

Language: English French

Author informationCopyright and License informationDisclaimer
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Increasing attention is being devoted to cognitive-behavioural measures to improve interventions for chronic pain.

OBJECTIVE:

To develop an Italian version of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire – Revised (CSQ-R), and to validate it in a study involving 345 Italian subjects with chronic pain.

METHODS:

The questionnaire was developed following international recommendations. The psychometric analyses included confirmatory factor analysis; reliability, assessed by internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients); and construct validity, assessed by calculating the correlations between the subscales of the CSQ-R and measures of pain (numerical rating scale), disability (Sickness Impact Profile – Roland Scale), depression (Center for Epidemiological Studies – Depression Scale) and coping (Chronic Pain Coping Inventory) (Pearson’s correlation).

RESULTS:

Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the CSQ-R model had an acceptable rules='groups'>Characteristicn (%)Marital status Unmarried156 (45.2) Married189 (54.8)Occupation Employee120 (34.8) Self-employed88 (25.5) Housewife47 (13.6) Pensioner90 (26.1)Education Primary school46 (13.3) Middle school102 (29.6) High school138 (40.0) University59 (17.1)Smoking Yes112 (32.5) No233 (67.5)Pain sites (principal) Cervical67 (19.4) Lumbar135 (39.1) Shoulder34 (9.9) Hip28 (8.1) Knee56 (16.2) Other25 (7.2)Drug use Antidepressants59 (17.1) Analgesics152 (44.1) Muscle relaxants37 (10.7) Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs97 (28.1)Comorbidities (principal) Hypertension111 (32.2) Non-insulin-dependant diabetes mellitus44 (12.8) Heart disease49 (14.2) Enteric disease38 (11.0) Liver disease33 (9.6) None70 (20.3)

The clinical and sociodemographic findings are largely consistent with those found by the original developers of the CSQ-Revised, being representative of subjects with chronic pain (6,7).

Translation and cross-cultural adaptation

The questionnaire was translated into Italian using a process of forward-backward translation involving four translators. It took two months to reach a culturally adapted version; all of the items were easily translated except two questions (“I try to feel distant from the pain almost as if the pain was in somebody else’s body” and “I try not to think of it as my body, but rather as something separate from me”), but these difficulties were overcome by means of careful wording. A further review by experts and the testing of the penultimate version confirmed the correctness of the process of translation/back-translation and the content of the items.

The adapted questionnaire is reproduced in Appendix 1.

Analytical scale properties

Acceptability:

All of the questions were well accepted. The CSQ-Revised was completed in 11.1±1.5 min, and there were no missing or multiple answers. There were no problems with regard to comprehension.

Factor analysis:

CFA met all of the fit criteria confirming the model on the present sample (Table 2) (7). The item-scale correlations were satisfactory (Distraction, 0.751 to 0.913; Catastrophizing, 0.849 to 0.891; Ignoring pain sensations, 0.821 to 0.957; Distancing from pain, 0.925 to 0.932; Coping self-statements, 0.829 to 0.926; and Praying, 0.781 to 0.982).

TABLE 2

Results of confirmatory factor analysis of the factorial validity of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire – Revised

Modelχ2/dfCFINFIRMSEA90% CI of RMSEA
Robinson et al (7)2.970.9360.9080.0780.072–0.083

χ2/df Ratio between χ2 and df; CFI Comparative fit index; NFI Normed-fit index; RMSEA Root-mean square error of approximation

Floor/ceiling effects:

No significant effects were found for any of the subscales (Table 3).

TABLE 3

Floor/ceiling effects and reliability of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire – Revised subscales

Variables and subscalesMean ± SDFloor/ceiling effects, %/%Internal consistency, αTest-retest, ICC (95% CI)
Distraction (5 items)16.29±7.223.8/3.20.9340.904 (0.853–0.939)
Catastrophizing (6 items)16.85±9.787.8/0.90.9460.918 (0.873–0.947)
Ignoring pain sensations (5 items)14.21±8.376.7/5.80.9570.899 (0.853–0.931)
Distancing from pain (4 items)9.38±6.367.0/2.60.9610.911 (0.863–0.943)
Coping self-statements (4 items)16.22±5.513.2/11.00.9280.850 (0.785–0.897)
Praying (3 items)11.78±4.896.4/12.80.9140.851 (0.768–0.906)

Reliability:

Cronbach’s alpha was acceptable for all of the subscales (α=0.914 to 0.961). Test-retest reliability was measured in all of the subjects, and the domains showed good/excellent intraclass correlation coefficients (0.850 to 0.918) (Table 3).

Content validity:

Return to nuke em volume 2 high torrent. The percentage of affirmative answers was >90% and, thus, the content of the items was considered to be adequate, appropriate for the target population, comprehensive and relevant for investigating coping strategies in this population.

Construct validity:

Most of the a priori hypotheses were confirmed. As expected, Catastrophizing (from r=0.27 to r=0.49) and Praying (from r=0.14 to r=0.23) were statistically significantly and positively related to other similar constructs. Catastrophizing was moderately correlated with Depression (r=0.49; P<0.01) (Table 4).

TABLE 4

Correlations between the Coping Strategies Questionnaire – Revised (CSQ-R) subscales and pain, disability and depression

Variables and subscalesPain (NRS)Disability (SIP-Roland)Depression (CES-D)
CSQ-R
Distraction (5 items)−0.060.08−0.18*
Catastrophising (6 items)0.27**0.36**0.49**
Ignoring pain sensations (5 items)0.07−0.12−0.19**
Distancing from pain (4 items)0.110.11−0.18**
Coping self-statements (4 items)0.01−0.08−0.33**
Praying (3 items)0.14*0.23**0.15*
**P<0.01.

CES-D Center for Epidemiological Studies – Depression Scale; NRS Numerical rating scale; SIP-Roland Sickness Impact Profile –Roland Scale

When the coping questionnaires were compared, Catastrophizing and Praying were statistically significantly and positively related to CPCI maladaptive strategies (from r=0.11 to r=0.26, and from r=0.17 to r=0.29); weaker correlations were found in the case of adaptive strategies, except when CPCI Seeking social support was compared with Catastrophizing (r=0.14) and Praying (r=0.26). Likewise, Distraction, Distancing from pain and Coping self-statements were statistically significantly and positively related to CPCI adaptive strategies (from r=0.25 to r=0.50, from r=0.23 to r=0.43, and from r=0.13 to r=0.54) (Table 5).

TABLE 5

Correlations between the Coping Strategies Questionnaire – Revised and Chronic Pain Coping Inventory (CPCI) subscales

CPCI subscalesCoping Strategies Questionnaire – Revised subscales
DistractionCatastrophizingIgnoring pain sensationsDistancing from painCoping self-statementsPraying
Guarding0.21**0.18**−0.22**0.02−0.050.29**
Resting0.110.11−0.14*−0.09−0.040.17**
Asking for assistance0.090.26**−0.21**−0.06−0.090.28**
Relaxation0.50**0.030.060.43**0.35**0.05
Task persistence0.26**−0.20**0.55**0.43**0.46**−0.25**
Exercise/stretch0.25**0.010.090.23**0.13*0.05
Seeking social support0.35**0.14*0.060.23**0.30**0.26**
Coping self-statements0.48**−0.100.23**0.33**0.54**0.07
**P<0.01.

DISCUSSION

The present study reports the adaptation of the CSQ-Revised and its validation in a sample of previously uninvestigated Italian patients with chronic pain. Analyzing the psychometric properties of an outcome measure is a continuous process that is strongly recommended to strengthen its properties and expand its applicability to specific populations and contexts (24). Our findings provide further evidence regarding the relationships between CSQ-Revised and CPCI, two widely used questionnaires that assess coping strategies in individuals with chronic pain.

Download running man episode 171 sub indo. The meaning of the original items was adequately captured by the idiomatic translation of the CSQ-Revised. The difficulties encountered by the translators were overcome by means of careful wording. The questionnaire was acceptable and easily understood, and could be self-administered in approximately 10 min. It responded satisfactorily to the requirements of relevance and completeness, and appeared to be fully applicable to everyday clinical practice. No significant floor/ ceiling effects were found, which suggests the scale correctly assesses its construct.

The factorial structure of the CSQ-Revised was confirmed, and the satisfactory item-scale correlations enabled us to include all of the 27 items, as originally proposed (7). This model adequately fits the data obtained from our sample, which suggests that coping strategies can be thoroughly described as a process with six components. French researchers have also performed a CFA using the CSQ-Revised, and achieved satisfactory results consistent with our findings and those of Riley and Robinson (8,9).

Our internal consistency was satisfactory, thus confirming the extent to which the items assessed the same construct. Our estimates were higher than that of the developers of the CSQ-Revised (α=0.72 to 0.86) and the French adaptation (α=0.57 to 0.83) (7,9).

The CSQ-Revised also showed satisfactory test-retest reliability in the investigated population and context; however, this psychometric property was not tested in the original and other adapted versions of the CSQ-Revised and, thus, no comparisons are possible.

Consistent with the English findings (8), our estimates of construct validity highlighted the adaptive (ie, Distraction, Ignoring pain sensations, Distancing from pain and Coping self-statements) and maladaptive properties (Catastrophizing and Praying) of most of the subscales (4,7,25).

The correlations between the CSQ-Revised and the CPCI contributed further evidence of the adaptive and maladaptive strategies investigated by both measures. Our findings also suggest that the CSQ-Revised and CPCI have different constructs, thus highlighting their distinctive contribution to multidisciplinary pain programs and confirming the intent of the original developers of the CPCI to create a questionnaire that investigated previously ignored coping strategies (22). As observed in previous studies (26), exceptions were the correlations between CPCI-Task persistence and CSQ-Ignoring pain sensations, CSQ-Distancing from pain and CSQ-Coping self-statements; between CPCI-Relaxation and CSQ-Distraction and CSQ-Distancing from pain; and between CPCI-Coping self-statements and CSQ-Distraction and CSQ-Coping self-statements, which suggests that these constructs likely overlap in scale content and require further investigations.

There were several limitations to the present study. First, its cross-sectional design means that significant correlations should not be confused with causal effects. Second, the relationships between self-reported beliefs and objective measures of coping, such as behavioural observations or reports of cognitive coping during structured or standardized situations, were not considered because only self-administered measures were used. Third, additional studies of the properties of CSQ-Revised using modern test theory methods, such as Rasch measurement theory or item response theory, are recommended because only classical test theory psychometric properties were evaluated.

CONCLUSION

The Italian version of the CSQ-Revised confirmed the factor structure of the original English version and showed good psychometric properties. It can be recommended for use in chronic pain research and multidisciplinary pain assessments.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Kevin Smart for his help in preparing the English version of the manuscript.

APPENDIX 1

CSQ-R-I, Coping Strategies Questionnaire – Revised: Italian Version

Le persone sviluppano strategie per fronteggiare e gestire il dolore che sentono. Queste strategie includono dire cose a noi stessi quando si prova dolore o quando si svolgono le attività quotidiane. Di seguito è riportato un elenco di cose che le persone hanno raccontato di fare quando provano dolore. Per cortesia, per ogni attività descritta indichi utilizzando la scala sotto riportata in che misura si sente coinvolto/a quando prova dolore.

0123456
non loogni tantolo faccio
faccio mailo facciosempre

Strategie di coping

  • Distrarsi (1,2,3,4,5): …./30

  • Catastrofismo (17,18,19,20,21,22): …./36

  • Pendidikan pancasila ppt. Ignorare le sensazioni dolorose: (6,7,10,11,12): …./30

  • Prendere le distanze dal dolore (13,14,15,16): …./24

  • Strategie di auto-affermazione (8,9,26,27): …./24

  • Pregare (23,24,25): …/18

DomandePunteggi
1) Immagino cose che mi fanno piacere
2) Immagino persone con cui amo divertirmi
3) Ripenso a piacevoli esperienze trascorse
4) Faccio cose che mi gratificano come guardare la televisione o ascoltare la musica
5) Cerco di pensare a qualcosa di piacevole
6) Cerco di andare avanti come se niente fosse
7) Non presto attenzione al dolore
8) Dico a me stesso che il dolore non deve interferire con ciò che faccio
9) Anche se provo dolore cerco di andare avanti
10) Non penso al dolore
11) Ignoro il dolore
12) Fingo che il dolore non ci sia
13) Immagino che il dolore sia estraneo al mio corpo
14) Fingo che il dolore non mi appartenga
15) Cerco di estraniarmi dal dolore, come se appartenesse a qualcun altro
16) Cerco di pensare che il dolore non appartenga al mio corpo ma che sia qualcosa di estraneo
17) Ho la sensazione di non poter più sopportare il dolore
18) Ho la sensazione di non riuscire ad andare avanti
19) Sono preoccupato riguardo a quando finirà il dolore
20) Ho la sensazione che non valga la pena vivere
21) Il dolore è terribile e ho la sensazione che mi travolga
22) Il dolore è terribile e ho la sensazione che non migliorerà mai
23) Prego Dio che il dolore non duri a lungo
24) Supplico che il dolore finisca
25) Confido nella fede in Dio
26) Dico a me stesso che posso superare il dolore
27) Dico a me stesso di avere coraggio e di andare avanti nonostante il dolore

Footnotes

DISCLOSURES: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

IRB APPROVAL: The authors’ Institutional Review Board approved the study, which was conducted in accordance with ethical and humane principles of research.

REFERENCES

1. Reyes Gibby CC, Aday L, Cleeland C. Impact of pain on self-rated health in community-dwelling older adults. Pain. 2002;95:75–82. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Jensen MP, Turner JA, Romano JM. Changes in beliefs, catastrophizing and coping are associated with improvement in multidisciplinary pain treatment. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2001;69:655–62. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Rosenstiel AK, Keefe FJ. The use of coping strategies in chronic low back pain patients: Relationship to patient characteristics and current adjustment. Pain. 1983;17:33–44. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Swartzman LC, Gwadry FG, Shapiro AP, Teasell RW. The factor structure of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire. Pain. 1993;57:311–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Tuttle DH, Shutty MS, DeGood DE. Empirical dimensions of coping in chronic pain patients: A factorial analysis. Rehab Psychol. 1991;36:179–87.[Google Scholar]
6. Lawson K, Rossier K, Keefe FJ, Turner JA. Dimensions of pain-related cognitive coping: Cross-validation of the factor structure of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire. Pain. 1990;43:195–204. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Robinson ME, Riley JL, Myers CD, et al. The Coping Strategies Questionnaire: A large sample item level factor analysis. Clin J Pain. 1997;13:43–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. Riley J, Robinson ME. CSQ: Five factors or fiction? Clin J Pain. 1997;13:156–62. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Irachabal S, Koleck M, Rascle N, Bruchon-Schweitzer M. Pain coping strategies: French adaptation of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ-F) L’Encephale. 2008;34:37–43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Jensen IB, Linton SJ. Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ): Reliability of the Swedish version of the CSQ. Scand J Behav Ther. 1993;22:139–45.[Google Scholar]
11. Verra ML, Angst F, Lehmann S, Aeschlimann A. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the German version of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ-D) J Pain. 2006;7:327–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25:3186–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Terwee CB, Bot S, de Boer MR, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS, editors. Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury Park: Sage; 1993. pp. 136–62. [Google Scholar]
15. Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. 1999;6:1–55.[Google Scholar]
16. Huskinson EC. Measurement of pain. Lancet. 1974;2:1127–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Monticone M, Baiardi P, Nava T, Rocca B, Foti C. The Italian version of the Sickness Impact Profile-Roland Scale for chronic pain: Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, validity and sensitivity to change. Disab Rehabil. 2011;33:1299–305. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. Fava GA. Assessing depressive symptoms across cultures: Italian validation of the CES-D self-rating scale. J Clin Psychol. 1983;39:249–51. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Monticone M, Ferrante S, Giorgi I, Galandra C, Rocca B, Foti C. Development of the Italian version of the 42-item Chronic Pain Coping Inventory, CPCI-I: Cross-cultural adaptation, factor analysis, reliability and validity. Qual Life Research. 2013;22:1459–65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Jensen MP, Strom SE, Turner JA, Romano JM. Validity of the Sickness Impact Profile Roland as a measure of dysfunction in chronic pain patients. Pain. 1992;50:157–62. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Radloff LS, Locke BZ. The Community Mental Health Assessment Survey and the CES-D scale. In: Weissman M, Myers J, Ross C, editors. Community Surveys. Piscataway: Rutgers University Press; 1977. pp. 177–189. [Google Scholar]
22. Romano JM, Jensen MP, Turner JA. The Chronic Pain Coping Inventory-42: Reliability and validity. Pain. 2003;104:65–73. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Jensen MP, Turner JA, Romano JM, Strom SE. The Chronic Pain Coping Inventory: Development and preliminary validation. Pain. 1995;60:203–16. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DJ. A Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011. Measurement in Medicine. [Google Scholar]
25. Tan G, Jensen MP, Robinson-Whelen S, Thornby JI, Monga TN. Coping with chronic pain: A comparison of two measures. Pain. 2001;90:127–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Hadjistavropoulos HD, MacLeod FK, Asmundson GJ. Validation of the Chronic Pain Coping Inventory. Pain. 1999;80:471–81. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Articles from Pain Research & Management are provided here courtesy of Hindawi Limited
Coments are closed
Accenture Associate Software Engineer PinoyexchangePocket Tanks Deluxe 500 Weapons Free Download
Scroll to top