This article was downloaded by: [Ohio State University Libraries]

On: 25 October 2013, At: 00:20

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Multivariate Behavioral
Research
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmbr20

The Ways of Coping Checklist:

Revision and Psychometric
Properties
Peter P. Vitaliano , Joan Russo , John E. Carr ,
Roland D. Maiuro & Joseph Becker
Published online: 10 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Peter P. Vitaliano , Joan Russo , John E. Carr , Roland D. Maiuro
& Joseph Becker (1985) The Ways of Coping Checklist: Revision and Psychometric
Properties, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 20:1, 3-26

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2001_1

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
 sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 00:20 25 October 2013
 Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1985, 20, 3-26

The Ways of Coping Checklist: Revision and

Psychometric Pr~pert~ies
Peter P. Vitaliano, Joan Russo, John E. Carr, Roland D. Maiui*o and
Joseph Becker
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington

This study examined the psychometric properties of the "original" seven factored scales
derived by Aldwin et al. from Folkrnan and Lazarus' Ways of Coping Checklist 1:WCCL)
versus a revised set of scales. Four psychometric properties were examined including the
reproducibility of the factor structure of the original scales, the internal consistency
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 00:20 25 October 2013

reliabilities and intercorrelations of the original and the revised scales, the construct
and concurrent validity of the scales, and their relationships to demographic factors.
These properties were studied on three distressed samples: 83 psychiatric outpatients, 62
spouses of patients with Alzheimer's disease, and 425 medical students. The revised
scales were consistently shown to be more reliable and to share substantially less
variance than the original scales across all samples. In terms of construct validity,
depression was positively related to the revised Wishful Thinking Scale and ne,gatively
related to the revised Problem-Focused Scale consistently across samples. Anx~etywas
also related to these scales, and in addition, it was positively related to the Seeks Social
Support Scale across samples. The Mixed Scale was the only original scale that was
consistently related to depression and anxiety across the three samples. Evidence for
concurrent validity was provided by the fact that medical students in group therapy had
significantly higher original and revised scale scores than students not participating in
such groups. Both sets of scales were shown to be generally free of demographic: biases.

The Ways of Coping Checklist (WCCL) is a relatively new mea-

sure of coping that was derived from Lazarus' transactional model of
stress (Aldwin, Folkman, Shaefer, Coyne & Lazarus, 1980; Folkinan &
Lazarus, 1980). In this model an event is considered stressful when a
person appraises it as potentially dangerous to hislher psychological
well-being (Lazarus, 1966). Such an appraisal may be influenced by a
person's beliefs or personality and generate cognitive expectancies
which affect both emotion and behavior.
Once a situation is perceived as potentially harmful, a ]person
decides how dangerous it is and what kind of coping strategy to use to
reduce the potential harm. Furthermore, Aldwin et al. (1980) have
noted ". . . coping is affected not only by the appraisal (and vice-versa),
but also by the results of coping efforts Cp. I)." Although, researchers
have paid considerable attention to r~elationshipsbetween (coping
strategies and psychological, physical, and social well-being (Andrea-
son & Morris, 1972; Antonowsky, 1979; Averill & Rosenn, 1972;
Carson, 1969; Cohen & Lazaras, 1979; Lipowski, 19701, problems in

This research was supported by three grants: Biomedical Research Support Grant
RR05432; Mental Health Grant 33779, National Institute of Mental Health; and, the
Graduate School Research Fund, University of Washington.
The authors would like to thank Dr. Susan Folkman for her advice on the original
manuscript.
JANUARY, 1985 3
 Vitaliano eta/.

the measurement of coping per se have not been as vigorously pursued.

The stress and coping paradigm on which the 68-item WCCL was
developed requires that the subject focus on a current serious stressor.
In its original form the WCCL contained two rationally derived scales:
problem-focused coping-the management of the source of stress and
emotion-focused coping-the regulation of stressful emotions. In a
more recent analysis of the 68 items, Aldwin et al. (1980) used a
principal components analysis with varimax rotation to empirically
elucidate coping strategies. In addition to a problem-focused coping
factor, six kinds of emotion-focusedcoping factors were derived. Thus,
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 00:20 25 October 2013

in its present form, the WCCL contains seven scales: Problem-focused

("made a plan of action and followed it"), Wishful Thinking ("wished
you could change the situation"), Growth ("changed or grew as a
person in a good way"), Minimize Threat ("making light of the
situation"), Seeks Social Support ("talked to others and accepted their
sympathy"), Blamed Self ("felt responsible for the problem"); the
Mixed Scale contains both avoidant strategies ("refused to believe it
had happened") and help-seeking strategies ("sought advice"). In
addition to the 68 coping items, the WCCL contains four items which
allow the subject to appraise his or her current serious stressor in
terms of four dimensions.
This research began as an attempt to examine the psychometric
properties of the WCCL on three different types of samples. However,
prior to the empirical examination of the WCCL, we encountered
several methodological problems. The original scales were developed
by factor analyzing 68 items on only 100 middleaged subjects drawn
from the general population; this raises questions regarding the
stability of the factors, as well as the clinical generalizability and
construct validity of the scales. In keeping with this concern, certain
scales contained items which appeared to lack face validity. The Mixed
Scale, in particular, was difficult to interpret because it contained both
avoidant and help-seeking strategies. In addition, the intercorrela-
tions between the scales (when corrected for attenuation) were in
many cases very high making it difficult to assess coping multidimen-
sionally. Finally, from a pragmatic perspective, subjects complained
that the checklist was too long. For these reasons, a revised version of
the WCCL was developed and compared with the original version in
terms of its psychometric properties.
Method
Subjects
Three groups participated in the study: (1) outpatients at the
Harborview Community Mental Health Center, Seattle, who had been
4 MULTIVARIATE BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH
 Vitaliano eta/.

referred to a specialized treatment program for anger and dyscontrol

problems ( n = 83)', (2) spouses of patients with senile dementia of the
Alzheimer's type (SDAT),who were being seen supportively ,at the
University Hospital, Seattle ( n = 62)2, and (3) students who were in
their first or second year a t the University of Washington Medical
School in 1980 ( n = 235) and 1982 (n = 19013.
Table 1
Demoqra~hlc and P s ~ c h o l o q ~ c aClh a r a c t e r x s t i c s o f Medlcal Studen&
m s s o f SDAT P a t i e n t s and P s v c h i a t r i e O u t p a t i e n t s

Sample

Characteristics Medical s t u d e n t s Spouses o f SDAT p a t i e n t s

Psychiatric outpa'tients
.............................................................................................
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 00:20 25 October 2013

Gender
Male ( % )
Female

Age
(years) 25.8

-
SD 3.1
Education
a 16 y e a r s 1 % ) 100
12 y e a r s 0
< 12 y e a r s 0
Marital s t a t u s
Married ( % ) 41
Not lnarried 59
Anxiety
M
-
SD
-
Depression

!
SD
-

Note. a ~ ~ ~ o- u9t p0a t i e n t T - s c o r e s . b ~ ~ "on-patient

~ - 9 ~ T-scores. 'BDI raw s c o r e s .
raw s c o r e s .

'Psychiatric outpatients were part of an ongoing study on the "Assessment and

Management of Anger Problems in Clinical and Offender Populations." Appror.imately
92% of the sample had independently documented histories of coping problems as
evidenced by incidents of assault or property damage. All subjects met DSM-I11 criteria
for adjustment reactions, impulse control, or personality disorder.
2Spouses of SDAT patients were part of a study of "Stress Vulnerability in
Alzheimer Patients' Families." Forty-five percent met current Research Diagnostic
Criteria for minor or intermittent depression and an additional 44% had met these
criteria during the most distressful phase of the spouse's illness. Those meeting current
diagnostic criteria had mean Beck Depression Inventory scores of 13.3 (SD= 6.2!);those
with past, but not currently diagnosable depressions had a mean BDI of 9.0 (SD = 4.9),
and those who never had been depressed had a mean BDI of 6.8 (SD= 2.9).
SMedical students were part of an ongoing study identifying "Students a t High Risk
for Distress in Medical School." Some indication of student distress can be infeirred by
comparing medical student anxiety scores on the Symptom Checklist-90 to the norms fo-r
non-patients and outpatients. While 90% of the students obtained anxietv scores above
the mean for non-patients, the mean T-score based on outpatient norms, was 44.84 (SD
= 8.97), indicating that a substantial number of medical students fell in the same range
as outpatients on anxiety.
JANUARY, 1985 5
 Vitaliano eta/.

Table 1indicates that the samples differ in gender, age, education-

al level, and marital status. The vast majority of the psychiatric
outpatients are male; the majority of the spouses of SDAT patients are
female. The spouses of SDAT patients are also older than the medical
students and psychiatric outpatients. The medical students all have
bachelor's degrees and more education than the psychiatric outpa-
tients and spouses of SDAT patients. Finally, the majority of the
psychiatric outpatients and medical students are not married; mar-
riage was a subject criterion in the SDAT study. Demographic differ-
ences in these samples make it possible to determine how generaliz-
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 00:20 25 October 2013

able psychometric relationships are both within and across the WCCL
scales.

Procedures

Following the paradigm used by Folkman and Lazarus (1980),

each participant was asked to respond to the WCCL with respect to a
current serious stressor. Within each sample, the current stressor was
grouped according to its source (i.e., context or person involved,
depending upon the sample). The source of stress varied as a function
of the sample; among the outpatients the current stressor was always a
person (at home or in work) who the patient regarded as the "cause" of
hislher angerlviolence; in the spouses of SDAT patients, 80% listed
stressful experiences that were related to their spouse's illness; all
medical students listed experiences that were related to medical
school.
Four psychometric properties of the WCCL were studied: (1)the
reproducibility of the factor structure of the originally derived scales
(Aldwin et al.), (2) the internal consistency reliabilities and intercorre-
lations of the original and revised scales, (3) the construct and
criterion-related validities of the scales, and (4)the relationships of the
scales to demographic factors.
Factor reproducibilitylscale revisions. In examining the psycho-
metric properties of the WCCL, a principal components analysis with
varimax rotation was performed f"irstto simultaneously examine the
reproducibility of the Aldwin et al. items' factor structure and to revise
the scales as appropriate. The revised scales were developed using a
combination of factor analytic and rational approaches. Because the
medical student sample was the largest ( n = 425), it was used for this
a~ialysis.The other two samples then were used to determine the
degree to which the resulting versus the original scales were internal-
ly consistent and intercorrelated.
6 MULTIVARIATE BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH
 Vitaliarlo et a/.

The principal components analysis resulted in six factors with hs

greater than 1. Before the factors could be interpreted, a decision had
to be made about the meaning of the loadings for each item. Using the
factor loading matrix, the highest loading for each item was recorded
and the items were ranked according to the magnitude of their highest
loading. The loadings ranged from a high of .81 to a low of .07, with the
mean and median being .35 and .39 respectively. Because one of our
objectives was to develop a measure with fewer items, a decisioln was
made to consider only those items having loadings of .35 or greater.
Using this criterion, the 46 items that remained were used to label the
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 00:20 25 October 2013

six factors.
As in the Aldwin et al. analysis, Factor 1 could be labeled
Problem-Focused coping. Eight of the original 15 problem-focused
items had their highest loading (all greater than .39) on this factor,
with a mean loading of .58 (h = 13.29, 40% of variance). This factor
also included four items from the original Wishfu.1 Thinking Scale
(Table 2) and three items from the Growth Scale, with respective!mean
loadings of .48 and .52.
Factor 2 was labeled Blamed Self (A = 5.03, 15.2% of variance)
because its three highest loadings came from the three items on the
original Blamed Self Scale (M loading = .70).Ten other items also had
their highest loadings on this factor: five from1 the Mixed Scale, three
from the Wishful Thinking Scale (both with M loadings of .39), aind two
from the Minimize Scale (M= .45). After examining these ten items, a
rational decision was made to combine them into a separate scale from
the Blamed Self Scale, which was labeled Avoidance (Table 2:).This
was done because of the manifest content of these ten items and
because their loadings were so much less than the items retaine~dfrom
the original Blamed Self Scale.
The third factor is similar to Aldwin et al.'s second factor-
Wishful Thinking (h = 2.72,8.2% of variance). Seven of the original 19
items on the Wishful Thinking Scale had their highest loading on this
factor (all with loadings greater than .39). The revised scale for
Wishful Thinking consisted of these seven items (M loading = 50)and
one item from the Mixed Scale (loading = .66).
Factor 4 (A = 2.06, 8.3% of variance) was labeled Seeks Social
Support because the two highest loadings resulted from two original
items on the Seeks Social Support Scale (M loading = .66). Three items
from the Mixed Scale (Table 2) also had their highest loading on this
factor (M loading = .40), as did one from Problem-Focused with a
loading of .37. This latter item also loaded .35 on the Problem-Focused
Scale.
JANUARY, 1985 7
 Vitaliano et a/.

Factors 5 and 6 together accounted for 6.2% of the variance. Factor

5 contained only four items with loadings greater than -35. These
items were from the original Minimize Scale and had a mean loading
of .45. Factor 6 contained two items with loadings above .35; however,
these items had equal or higher loadings on the Problem-Focused
Scale.
Table 2 summarizes the scales that resulted from the items that
loaded on Factors 1to 4. Although a scale for Minimize Threat could
have been developed from Factor 5, it was decided that this factor did
not add much to the explained variance (4%).
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 00:20 25 October 2013

Internal consistency reliabilities and intercorrelations of the scales.

Certain researchers have argued that coping behavior is situation-
specific (Billings & Moos, 1981; Hartmann, Roper & Bradford, 1979;

Table 2
Revised Scales and Source of Items

Revised scale Original item source

Problem-Focused
Bargained or compromised to get something
posltive from the situation.
Concentrated on something good that could
come out of the whole thing.
Tried not to burn my bridges behind me,
but left things open somewhat.
Changed or grew as a person in a good way.
Made a plan of actlon and followed lt.
Accepted the next best thing to what I wanted.
Came out of the experience better than when I
went in.
Tried not to act too hastily or follow my
own hunch.
Changed something so things would turn out all
right.
Just took things one step at a time.
I know what had to be done, so I doubled my
efforts and tried harder to make things work.
Came up with a couple of different solutions
to the problem.
Accepted my strong feelings, but didn't let
them interfere with other things too much.
Changed something about myself so I could deal
wlth the s~tuationbetter.
Stood my ground and fought for what I wanted.
..............................................................................
Seeks Social Support
1. Talked to someone to find out about the situation.
2. Accepted sympathy and understanding from someone.
3. Got professional help and did what they recommended.
4. Talked to someone who could do something about
the problem.
5. Asked someone I respected for advice and followed it
6. Talked to someone about how I was feeling.
..............................................................................
Blamed Self
1. Blamed yourself
2. Criticized or lectured yourself.
3. Realized you brought the problem on yourself.

8 MULTIVARIATE BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH

 Wishful Thinking
1. Hoped a miracle would happen. W
2. Wished I was a stronqer
. person
. --
more optimistic W
and forceful.
3. Wished that I could change what had happened.
4. Wished I could chanqe the way that I felt.
5 . Daydreamed or imagined a better time or place than W
the one I was in.
6. Bad fantasies or wishes about how things might turn W
out.
7. Thought about fantastic or unreal things (like perfect M
revenge or finding a million dollars) that made me
feel better.
8. Wished the situation would go away or somehow be W
finished.
------,------------------------------------------------------------------.------
Avoidance
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 00:20 25 October 2013

1. Went on as if nothing had happened. Min

2. Felt bad that I couldn't avoid the problem. W
3. Kept my feelings to myself. W
4. Slept more than usual. M
5. Cot mad at the people or things that caused the problem. M
6. Tried to forget the whole thing. Min
7. Tried to make myself feel better by eating, drinking, M
smoking, taking medications. ,
8. Avoided being with people in general. M
9. Kept others from knowing how bad things were. W
10. Refused to believe it had happened, M

Note. Abbreviations for scales ace: I?, Problem-focused; W, Wishful Thinking;

G, Growth: M, Mixed: Min, Minimized: B, Blamed Self; S, Seeks Social
support .
Zuckerman, 1979) and, as such, within-subject consistency and inter-
item correlations (i.e,, coefficient alpha; Cronbach, 1951) of coping
behavior should not be high (Cone, 1977; McFall, 1977). In this study,
however, we believed it was appropriate to examine inter-item a,ssocia-
tions because both Aldwin et al. (1980) and we had already grouped
items into relatively homogeneous scales (based on principal compo-
nents) making the items within a scale quasi-equivalent. More impor-
tantly, the only way that one could ignore the assessment of coeiEcient
alpha would be to assume that every coping item was free of measure-
ment error, an untenable assumption.
Construct validity. Cronbach and Meehl (1955) have argued that
one form of evidence for the construct validity of a measure is the
successful prediction of associations between theoretically related
variables. As noted above, the "transactional model of stress" would
predict that coping strategies should be related to one's appraisal of
stressors and one's responses to strsssors (e.g., anxiety, depressilon). In
this sense, the construct validity of the original and revised scalles was
assessed by examining the relationships of coping to the source of the
stressor, appraisal, and distress.
Source of current serious stressor. Statistical analyses examining
the relationships of the source of current stressor to coping. were
JANUARY, 1985 9
 Vitaliano et a/.

performed within each sample. Among the psychiatric outpatients

there were three source categories: 54% of the subjects listed a person
within the family to be the source of their stress, 23% listed a person at
work, and 23% listed persons both in the family and a t work. Among
the spouses of SDAT patients there were also three general sources of
stress: 44% of the subjects listed an eventlexperience that was directly
attributed to their spouse (e.g., patient soils himself), 36% listed an
event not directly attributed to their spouse but which resulted from
the disease (e.g., filling out applications to secure medicaid for nursing
home fees); and, 20% listed problems unrelated to the patient's disease
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 00:20 25 October 2013

(e.g., break up of child's marriage). Five general sources of stress were

identified within the medical student samples, concerns about: endur-
ing long hourslclinical responsibilities (19%), mastering the pool of
medical knowledge (18%), limited time for personal interests (39%),
financial problems (9%), and the general medical school environment
(e.g., class ranking, faculty, competition) (15%).
Measurement of appraisal of the stressor and of the distress
response. In the three samples, appraisal was measured by the four
general appraisal items from the WCCL. These binary items read, "In
general, is the situation one: (1)that you could change (changeable) or
do something about?; (2) that must be accep6ed or gotten used to?; (3)
that you needed to know more about before you could act?; and, (4) in
which you had to hold yourself back from doing what you wanted to
do?'.
Two types of distress were studied-anxiety and depression. In the
three samples, anxiety was measured by the SCL-90 Anxiety Scale
(SCL-A) (Derogatis, 1977). The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)
(Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961) was used to assess
depression in the psychiatric outpatients and spouses of SDAT pa-
tients. In the latter group, the Hamilton Depression Scale (HBS)
(Hamilton, 1960) was also employed. In the medical student sample,
depression was measured by the SCL-90 Depression Scale (SCL-Dl.
Within each sample the subject was asked to report symptoms of
anxiety (or depression) in response to hislher major stressar. Such
procedural directions were an attempt to control for variability in
distress due to stressors unrelated to the identified stressor.
Statistical analyses of coping with appraisal, and coping with
appraisal and distress. Two sets of analyses were performed within
each sample. In the first set, Hotelling's T~ tests examined the
multivariate relationship between each appraisal item and the origi-
nal and revised scales. In this scheme subjects' responding yes or no (on
the appraisal item) served as the respective samples on which the five
10 MULTIVARIATE BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH
 coping scales could be compared. Such a procedure lowers the probabil-
ity of type I errors. When indicated, these global tests were follolwed by
univariate analyses in order to specify the relation between an
appraisal item and a coping scale. In the second set of analyses,
regression analyses were used to examine the degree to which apprais-
al and coping were predictive of anxiety and depression. BL wause
demographic variables had the potential for accounting for variance in
distress, independent of appraisal and coping, they were allowed to
enter the equations first. Demographics therefore were partialled out
of the relationships when they were associated significantly with
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 00:20 25 October 2013

distress.
Within the samples of psychiatric outpatients and spou.ses of
SDAT patients, anxiety (SCL-A) and depression (BDI) were predicted
simulltaneously, using multivariate regressions, and the resultt.,were
compared using the original versus the revised coping scales as
predictors. Multivariate regression differs from multiple regression in
that it involves the regression of multiple criteria on to milltiple
predictors. Such a global test not only accounts for the associations
between multiple criteria, but it also minimizes the number of tests
that need to be performed. Because the SCL-D was not available on the
first and second year medical classes in 1980 (n = 2351, multivariate
regressions (on both SCL-A and SCL-D) would have been restricted to
the 1982 samples. For this reason, multiple regressions were per-
formed separately on the SCL-A and the SCL-D. For the SCL-A,
models using the original versus the revised scales were developed on
the first and second year classes in 1980 ( n = 235) and cross-validated
on the first and second year classes in 1982 (n = 190). For the IICL-D
no cross-sample-validation was possible; however, models using the
original versus the revised coping scales were developed andLcom-
pared.
Concurrent validity. Criterion-related validity was assessed in the
1980 medical school sample by examining the degree to which the
original versus revised coping scales were related to membership in a
vertical support group (VSG), a form of group therapy establislied at
the medical school. Sixty-seven (29%) of tthe first and second1 year
students (1980) belonged to such groups. As will be shown below,
membership in a VSG reflects distress and/or illness behavior and, as
such, is a valid behavior criterion to relate to coping strategies. In
addition, both our pilot study and previous research (Cadden, IFlack,
Blakesee, & Charlton, 1969; Dashef, Epsey & Lazarus, 1974; Seguin,
1965) suggest that students participate in such groups in ortier to
reduce the distress they experience in medical school.
JANUARY, 1985 11
 Vitaiiano et a/.

Relationship of demographic factors to WCCL Scales. Since associ-

ations between a psychometric scale and demographic variables can
confound a scale's interpretation, we examined the degree to which the
coping scales were related to gender, age, education, and marital
status. When the number of subjects within a particular demographic
stratum was large enough (n > 101, MANOVAS were performed to
determine whether gender, marital status, and education were signifi-
cantly related to the coping scales. Student's t-tests were performed to
test the significance of the relationship of age with the coping scales.
Folkman and Lazarus (1980) have noted that in order to properly
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 00:20 25 October 2013

assess demographic differences in coping strategies, the source of the

stressful situation should be held constant. In this study both one's
current serious stressor and anxiety (SCL-A)were partialled out in the
tests of the relationships between demographic factors and coping
because distress is also part of the psychological feedback loop between
the person and the environment. As noted above, the demographic
makeup of the three samples made it difficult or impossible to study
marital status in the spouses of SDAT patients, gender in the outpa-
tient sample, and education in the medical school sample.

Results

Internal consistency reliabilities and intercorrelations of scales.

The relative merits of the revised versus original scales were
examined by comparing their internal consistency coefficients and
scale intercorrelations on the samples used in this study as shown in
Table 3. The medical school sample was used only for illustrative
purposes since it served to establish the revised scales and therefore
could not be used to compare the merits of these and the original
scales.
For the purpose of SDAT patients the coefficient alpha was greater
on the revised Problem-Focused Scale, unchanged on the revised
Wishful Thinking Scale, and much greater on the revised Seeks Social
Support Scale than on the respective original scales. Both the Blamed
Self Scale, which is identical to the original, and the newly created
Avoidance Scale yielded reliable alphas. For the psychiatric outpa-
tients the pattern was similar; the coefficient alpha was higher on the
revised Problem-Focused and Wishful Thinking Scales and substan-
tially higher on the revised Seeks Social Support Scale. The scales for
Blamed Self and Avoidance yielded respectable alphas. Within the
12 MULTIVARIATE BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH
 Table 3
-son of Reliabil~ties and Scale Intercorrelations
for Orisinal Versus Revised CoDinB SgaLS
.........................................................................................................
Medical students Spouses of SDAT patients Psychiatric olltpatients
coping scales
Orioinal Revised Original Revised Original Revised

Problem-Focused
Wishful Thinking

-
Seeks Social Support
Blamed Self
Avoidance
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 00:20 25 October 2013

p,wa

PrS
P.8
P,A
w.s
WrB
WvA
S.B
SrA
6.A

Note. a~bbreviationsfor scales are: P, Problem-Focused: W, Wishful Thinking; 8, Blamed Self; S, Seeks
Social Support; A, Avoidance. b ~ o r r e c t e dfor attenuation.

medical student sample the mean alpha (across the four coimmon
scales) was .81 on the original and .82 on the revised scales. Amoing the
spouses of SDAT patients and the psychiatric outpatients the mean
alphas were 9% higher than the means of the original scales (.83
versus .76).
Table 3 indicates that the revised scales had substantially less
overlap than the original scales. The percent of variance shared by any
two scales is obtained by squaring the correlation for that pair. When
the mean of these squared correlations was calculated across tlhe six
correlations (of the four common scales), a measure of the average
shared variance was obtained. Within the medical student sample the
shared variance was 29% on the original and 23% on the revised scales.
Among the spouses of SDAT patients there was a 40% drop in the
average shared variance of the revised scales versus the original scales
(i.e., from 20% to 12%);among the psychiatric outpatients there was a
33% drop (42% to 28%).

Overview of results for construct validity

Because of the large volume of analyses, an overview of the riesults
is provided which is followed by a detailed report of the multivariate
and univariate findings. Table 4 summarizes the results of the two sets
JANUARY, 1985 13
 Vitaliano et a/.

Table 4
Direction of Relationships of Coping Scales with Appraisal and Distress
....................................................................................................
coping scales ..............................................................................
Appraisal Distress
Could change Need to know more Hold self back Anxiety Depression
--____--_---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*---

Spouses of SDAT patients

Problem-Focused +a
Blamed Self +
Seeks Social Support-R + +
Problem-Focused-R -b I -
c

Wishful Thinking-R + +b,+c

....................................................................................................
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 00:20 25 October 2013

Psychiatric outpatients
Problem-FOCUS~~ +
Wishful Thinking +
Mixed +
Minimize Threat
Problem-Focused-R +
Wishful Thinking-R + +b

Avoidance + +
....................................................................................................
Medical students
Problem-Focused +
Blamed Self +
Wishful Thinking
Mixed
Minimize Threat
Seeks Social Support-R +
Problem-Focused-R
Avoidance
Wishful Thinking-R
....................................................................................................
Note. a~ndicatesdirection of relationship, b ~ i t hBDI. 'with HDR. With SCL-90.

of analyses with coping versus appraisal, and coping and appraisal

versus distress. Only significant relationships that occurred simulta-
neously in at least two samples are included in the table. For example,
because a significant relationship occurred between problem-focused
coping and changeable among the spouses of SDAT patients and
medical students, this relationship was included in the table. In
contrast, because a significant relationship between the Mixed Scale
and changeable only occurred in the medical student sample, it was not
included in the table. The criteria used to establish Table 4 follow the
belief that construct validity cannot be confirmed by a single predic-
tion on different occasions or by many predictions in a single study.
Instead, "construct validity ideally requires a pattern of consistent
14 MULTIVARIATE BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH
 Vitaliano et a/.

findings involving different researchers using different theoretical

constructs across a number of different studies (Carmines & Zeller,
1974, p. 24)."
If a matched pair is defined as the occurrence of the same
relationship in two samples, the original coping scales contain seven
matched pairs across the four appraisal items, while the revised coping
scales contain five matched pairs. For distress, the original scales
contain two matched pairs (i.e., the Mixed Scale predicts anxiety and
depression), while the revised scales contain four matched pairs and
one matched triplet: Wishful Thinking significantly predicts clepres-
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 00:20 25 October 2013

sion in all three samples.

Univariate and multivariate analyses of construct validity

Current serious stressor versus coping. Within the samples of
psychiatric outpatients and the spouses of SDAT patients, one-way
ANOVAS were performed to examine the relationship of the soilrce of
stress (the grouping variable) with each of the original and revised
scales (the criterion variable). Because of the large number of univar-
iate tests a rejection level of -01 was used. None of the original or
revised scales was significantly digerent across the sources of stress
among outpatients or spouses of SDAT patients. Because the medical
student samples were large, MANOVAS were performed ern the
original and the revised scales. None of the original or revised scales
was significant across the source of stress.
Appraisal versus coping. Within each sample, Hotelling's T~
analyses were performed to examine the multivariate relationship
between each appraisal item and the original and the revised {scales.
Among the spouses of SDAT patients, the test of changeable was
significant for the original coping scales, F (7,571 = 2.55, p < .02, and
for the revised scales, F (5,59) = 3.02, p < .05. No differences in the
original or revised scales were observed across the appraisal climen-
sions of accepted, know more, or hold yourself back. Table 5 contains
the results of the follow-up univariate analyses only for the apjrraisal
dimensions which yielded a significant T2.
Among the psychiatric outpatients no differences in coping; were
observed on the appraisal dimensions: changeable and accepted. The T2
test for know more, however, was significantly different on the
original scales, F (7,761 = 5.18, p < .001, and on the revised scales, F
(5,771 = 6.06, p < .001. On the appraisal item hold yourself back, the
original coping scales were globally significant, F (7,75) = 2.92, p <
.01, as were the revised scales, F (5,761 = 3.03, p < .05. The results of
JANUARY, 1985 15
 Vitaliano et a/.

the follow-up univariate analyses are presented in Table 5.

The T2 analyses on the medical students were performed with
gender as a covariate because, as will be shown below, in these samples
gender was related to coping. On the appraisal dimensions of: change-
able, the T2test of the original scales was significant,F (7,396) = 2.09,
p < .05, and on the revised scales it also was significant, F (5,399) =
11.56,p < .001; on accepted, the test was significant for the original
coping scales, F (7,394) = 3.24, p < .005, but not for the revised scales;
on the appraisal dimension, know more, the T ' test was significant on
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 00:20 25 October 2013

Table 5
Follow-up Unlvariate Analyses of Appraisal Versus Coping Scales

Appraisal
Coping scales ........................................................................
Could change Must accept Need to know more Hold self back
..............................................................................................
Spouses of SDAT patientsa

Problem-Focused 6.56"
Blamed Self 10.34***
Seeks Social Support-R 4.62*

Psychiatric outpatients

Problem-Focused
Wishful Thinking
Mixed
Minimize Threat
seeks Social Support
Blamed Self
Problem-Focused-R
Wishful Thinking-R
Seeks Social Support-R
Avoidance

Medical students

Problem-Focused
Wishful Thinking
Mixed
Growth
Minimize Threat
Blamed Self
Problem-Focused-R
Wishful Thinking-R
Seeks Social Support-R
Avoidance

Note. a~egreesof freedom for all tests are: 1.63 for spouses of SDAT patients; 1,82 for
psychiatric outpatients; and, 1,402 for medical students.
*p < .05. .*p < .01. ***p < .005.

16 MULTIVARIATE BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH

 the original scales, F (7,397) = 3.48, p < .001, and on the revised
scales, F (5,400) = 3.31, p < .01; on the dimension, hold yourseljf back,
the T2 test of the original scales was significant, F (7,395) = 3.58, p <
.001, and it was also significant on the revised scales, F (5,998) =
10.83,p < ,001.
Appraisal and coping versus distress. For the spouses of SDAT
patients, the multivariate regression revealed that appraisal aind the
original coping scales were significant predictors of distress, F (22,94)
= 2.29,~ < .005, accounting for 58% of the variance in SCL-A anid BDI.
The multivariate regression of appraisal and the revised coping scales
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 00:20 25 October 2013

was also significant, F (18,98) = 3.43, p < .001, accounting for 62% of
the variance in the set of distress measures. These two significant
multivariate regressions allowed us to perform multiple regressions to
determine which specific scales were responsible for the significant
global relationships. The results of these analyses are presented in
Table 6 for the prediction of anxiety and depression.
Because both the SCL-A and the BDI are based on structured self-
reports, an attempt was made to examine the degree to which the
original and the revised scales were predictive of less structured
ratings of distress (i.e., Hamilton Depression scores). The results of
these analyses are presented in Table 6 .
For the psychiatric outpatients, the multivariate regression was
significant, F (22,84) = 3.18, p < ,001, with the appraisal and original
coping scales accounting for 70% of the variance in the set of distress
measures (SCL-A and BDI). Appraisal and the revised coping scales
were also significantly related to the set of distress measures, F (18,88)
= 2.69,p < .005, accounting for 57% of the variance in SCL-A and BDI.
The results of the multiple regressions predicting anxiety and depres-
sion are presented in Table 6.
Table 6 also contains the results of the multiple regressions of the
coping scales predicting first anxiety, and then depression within the
medical school samples. The models for anxiety, using the original and
revised scales, were developed on the 1980 samples (n = 235) and then
cross-validated on the 1982 samples ( n = 190). The 1980 model based
on the original coping scales was cross-validated by forcing the
significant variables in the order that they appeared in the 1980
model. The same variables as in the 1980 model (Table 6) were
signifficant, accounting for a total of 29% of the variance in SCL-A on
the 1982 samples. When the same coefficients(as in the original 1980
model) were used to cross-validate the model, the 3 was .22. The model
based on the revised scales was cross~validatedon the 1982 sample by
entering in the same variables as in the 1980 model (Table 6). The
JANUARY, 1985 17
 Vitaliano et a/.

same variables as in the 1980 model were significant, accounting for

23% of the variance in SCL-A on the 1982 samples. When the
coefficients from the 1980 model were used on the 1982 sample, the 3
was .20. For depression no cross validation was possible; however, the
1982 regression models of the coping variables that significantly
predicted depression are presented in Table 6.

Results for concurrent validity

Because gender was shown to relate to coping in the medical
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 00:20 25 October 2013

student samples, it was controlled for in the MANOVAS that exam-

ined the relationships between coping and membership in a vertical
support group. After gender was partialled out of the relationship
between coping and VSG, F (7,216) = 6.71, p < .001, the original
coping scales were still significantly related to VSG, F (7,216) = 4.19, p
< .001. The same result occurred for the revised scales: gender was
significant, F (5,219) = 4.61, p < ,001, as were the coping scales

Table 6
Follow-up U n i v a r l a ~ eA n a l y s e s o f A p p r a i s a l and Coping Versus Distress
-.-----------------------------------------------------.----
Anxiety Depression
Sample ---------------.-------------.---------------.----------.-.------------.--..--.-..------.-+-.--------.-----

Scale F df R2 Scale P df 1'

--------------.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-------------.--------

Spouses o f W i s h f u l m i n k ing-Ra 4.46' 1.60 .07 S e e k s ~ c x i a ls u p p o r t d 7.06.' 1.60 .11

SDAT p a t i e n t s
Problem-Focused-R 5.90. 2.53 .O8
S e e k s S o c i a l Support-R 6.74' 3.58 .09 Wishful Thinking-nd 10.13.'* 1.60 .14
Problem-Fmused-R 19.36'** 2.53 .21

Wishful Thinking-R~ 16.61"' 3 . 5 ~ ~ .19

Problem-Pocured-R 4.33' 4.57 .04

Wishful Thinkinge 5.27, 3 . 5 ~ ~ .07

-------------.-------*---------.--------------------------*-----------------------------.--------..----------------------

PsychiaLrio nixed 6.37. 2,59b .08 alxed 8.05** 1-59 .I1

outpatients
Seeks % c i a 1 support 13.96**' 3.58 .15
~ i n i m i z e~ h r e a t 12.73." 4.57 .11 Wi6hfu1 Thinking-R 16.75*.' 2,59 .20

wishful minking-R 11.66"' 2,5gb .14

Medical Blamd s e l f 61.69'** 5,224' .17 nlxedg 35.18". 1.152 .19

srudenrs
nixed 13.86**' 6,223 .04 Problem-Focused 16.93"' 2,151 .08

Problem-Focused 28.98.a. 7.222 .07 W l r h f u l Thinking 5.87". 3,150 .03

Minimize m r e a t 4.051 8,221 .01
Wishful m r n k i n g 8.70... 9,220 .02 W l s h f u l 'hinklng-R9 40.17*** 1.152 .21
Pioblem-Focused-R 11.20'.' 2,151 .O6

Avoldame 62.48". 5.224' .I7 ~voidanoe 7.13'. 3,150 .03

Blamed S e l f 22.94'.* 6,223 .06
Problem-POCu8ed-R 14.74'** 7,222 .04
S e e k s S o c i a l Support-R 9.41". 8.221 .02

Note. a ~ e v i s e ds c a l e . b ~ f t e c~ e e dt o know m ~ r ee n t e r e d e q u a t i o n . C ~ f t e mari-1

i s t a t u s , age, c o u l d change, and h o l d

s e l f b a d entered equation. d~sin

BOI.
g Usinq HDR. f ~ f t e rage and c o u l d c h a n g e entered e q u a t i o n . g ~ i t h
SCL-90.
"p < .05. '*p < .01. *.*p < .005.

MULTIVARIATE BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH

 Vitaliano et a/.

analyzed as a set, F (5,219) = 3.51, p < -001. The original scales that
were significant were: Mixed, F (1,222) = 1 1 . 9 4 , ~< .001; Seeks Social
Support, F (1,222) = 5.42, p < .05; and Blamed Self, F (1,222) = (3.24,p
< .005. The revised scales that were significant were: Seeks Social
Support, F (1,222) = 9.17, p < .005; Wishful Thinking, F (1,2122) =
4.15, p < -05; and Blamed Self, F (1,222) = 8.24, p < .005.
Inspection of the significant coping means across the two groups
revealed that members of VSG's had higher scores than non-group
members on: the Mixed Scale (M = 15.59, SD = 2.29 vs. M = 5.45, SD
= 2.35), Blamed Self (M = 5.15, SD = 2.43 vs. M = 3.97, SD = 2.53),
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 00:20 25 October 2013

and Seeks Social Support (M = 6.29, SD = 2.29 vs. M = 5.45, SD =

2.35). Members of VSG's had higher scores on two revised sca.les in
addition to Blamed Self, these were: Seeks Solcia1 Support (M =: 9.72,
SD = 3.87 vs. M = 7.79, SD = 3.68), and Wishfiul Thinking (M= 13.93,
SD = 6.39 vs. M = 11.90, SD = 5.87).
Demographic relationships with the coping scales
As noted in the procedures section, source of current severe
stressor and SCL-A were partialled out of the analyses which exam-
ined the relationship of coping to demographic factors. The source of
stress was not a significant correlate of the original or revised scales in
the three samples. SCL-A was a significant correlate of the revised
scales in the three samples; however, on the original scales, SCL-Awas
only a significant varisble in the medical school and outplatient
samples.
Gender. Among the spouses of SDAT patients, no significant
associations occurred for gender with either the original scales, F
(7,53) = 1.33, or the revised scales, F (5,55) = .38. Among the mledical
students, the T2 test of gender with the original scales was significant,
F (7,401) = 11.86,p < .001. Univarite F-tests (all with 1,407 degrees of
freedom) revealed that the significant original scales were: Problem-
Focused, F = 6 . 6 7 , ~< .01; Wishful Thinking, F = 3 . 9 2 , ~< .05; ldixed,

-
F = 3 6 . 7 3 , ~< .001; Growth, F = 1 1 . 1 5 , <
~ .001; Seeks Social Support,
F = 61.64, p < .001; and Blamed Self, F 4.50, p < .05. In every case,
females had higher coping means than males had. On the revised
scales the test of gender was also significant, F (5,404) = 9.23, p <
.001; univariate F tests (all with 1,407 degrees of freedom) revealed
that the significant revised coping scales were: Problem-Focused, F =
7.24, p < .01; Wishful Thinking, F = 6.36, p < .01; Seeks Social
Support, F = 40.58, p < ,001; Avoidance, F = 4.79, p < .05; and Blamed
Self, F = 4.60, p < .05. Females had significantly higher scores than
males on these scales.
JANUARY, 1985 19
 Age. Within the samples of psychiatric outpatients and SDAT
patients, no significant partial correlations were observed between age
and the original or the revised scales (with SCL-A and source of stress
partialled out). However, among the medical students, age was signifi-
cantly related to the original Problem-Focused Scale ( r = .12, p < .01)
the original and revised Wishful Thinking Scales (r = . l l , p < .01) and
(r = .16, p < .001) respectively, and the original and revised Seeks
Social Support Scales (r = .13, p < .005) and (r = .17, p < .001)
respectively. When corrected for attenuation, the correlation between
age and the revised Seeks Social Support Scale became .23. Even this
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 00:20 25 October 2013

(the highest of the significant relationships) represented a very small

percent of shared variance with age (5%),indicating that the signifi-
cant associations of coping with age are the result of large samples and
not of strong associations.
Education. Among the spouses of SDAT patients, neither the
original set of coping scales, F (14,104) = 1.02, nor the revised set of
scales, F (10,108) = 1.36, were significantly related to education.
Among the psychiatric outpatients, the original set of scales, F
(14,921 = 3 8 , and the revised set of scales, F (10,961 = .44, were not
related significantly to education.
Marital Status. Among the psychiatric outpatients, neither the
original set of scales, F (7,46) = -57,nor the revised set of coping scales,
F (5,481 = .40, was related significantly to marital status.
Among the medical students, the original set of scales, F (7,388) =
1.65, and the revised set of scales, F (5,391) = .89, were not related
significantly to marital status.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric

properties of the original and the revised WCCL scales. Specifically,
the factor structure, internal consistency reliability, shared interscale
variance, construct and concurrent validity, and demographic bias of
the WCCL were studied. In an attempt to determine the generalizabili-
ty of the factor structure of the WCCL, these properties were assessed
on three different samples and the reliability and validity of the
revised scales were demonstrated consistently across the samples.
The present results indicate that the original scales have respect-
able reliability coefficients, but that our revised scales have alphas
that are higher; more importantly, these scales share substantially
20 MULTIVARIATE BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH
 Vitaliano eta/.

less variance. Because the WCCL items were rationally derived from a
theory that views coping as a multidimensional rather than unidiimen-
sional process (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980; Lazarus & Launier, 19\78),it
is important that the WCCL scales "approximtmte" independent diimen-
sions.
In the transactional model of stress, coping is defined in terms of
what a person does or thinks, and not in terms of adaptation and
distress (Vaillant, 1977). As such, one is better able to obtaJn an
unconfounded assessment of the relationship between coping and
distress (cf, Cohen & Lazarus, 1979) and thereby evaluate construct
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 00:20 25 October 2013

validity. In this study, construct validity was assessed using the

guideline that associations between theoretical constructs be relolicat-
ed across at least two different samples.
Overall, there were ten replicated relationships of the rievised
scales with appraisal and distress. These relationships would. have
been anticipated theoretically from the transactional model of stress
(Lazarus & Launier, 1978) and empirically from the results of' Folk-
man and Lazarus (1980). The latter researchers found that when
subjects appraised situations as changeable and when they th~ought
they needed to know more the subjects did significantly more problem-
focused than emotion-focused coping. In contrast, appraisals of clccept-
ance and holding oneself back yielded significantly more emlotion-
focused than problem-focused coping. It is appealing that the appraisal
of changeable was related to the revised Seeks Social Support Scale;
this scale contains problem-solving strategies through social contacts
(Table 2). It also is appealing that the revised Problem-focused Scale
was related to the appraisal-know more.
The relative associations of the coping scales with anxiety and
depression provide the strongest evidence of the construct validity of
the revised versus the original scales. Using the original scales, Coyne
et al. (1981) found a significant positive correlation between the
Wishful Thinking Scale and depression. In the current study the
original Wishful Thinking Scale was not shown to be a significant
predictor of depression in more than one sample. The revised Wishful
Thinking Scale was replicated as a predictor of depression in three
samples that measured depression in different ways and this; scale
accounted far sizable amounts af variance in depression (14%-21%).
A significant negative association was found in this study between
the revised Problem-Focused Scale and depression in both medical
students and the spouses of SDAT patients. Within the latter sample,
the same pattern occurred for the prediction of both the BDI and the
HDS (which had a .62 correlation, p < .OOX). That is, among the
JANUARY, 1985 21
 Vitaliano et a/.

spouses of SDAT patients, both structured and unstructured measures

of depression had significant negative correlations with the revised
Problem-Focused Scale and significant positive correlations with the
revised Wishful Thinking Scale. Citing the learned helplessness model
of Abrahamson et al. (19781, Coyne et al. (1981) predicted that
problem-focused coping should be related negatively to depression.
Using the original Problem-Focused Scale, Coyne et al.'s study and the
current study, did not find this to be true.
Because of the moderate-to-high correlations of depression with
anxiety in the spouses of SDAT patients (r = .62), psychiatric outpa-
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 00:20 25 October 2013

tients (r = .61), and medical students (r = .SO), it is not surprising that

the revised scales should be related to anxiety and depression in a
similar way (Table 4). The relationships between the revised coping
scales (Wishful Thinking and Problem-Focused) and anxiety were,
however, not nearly as strong as those with depression. In addition,
one revised scale, Seeks Social Support, was replicated as a significant
predictor of anxiety, but not of depression. This result is appealing
given the classic work of Schacter (1959) who demonstrated that
subjects who are anxious are significantly more likely to seek affili-
ations than subjects who are less anxious. Schacter cancluded that
misery likes company. More recently, Janis (1983)discussed the role of
social supports in relation to anxiety provoking situations (i.e., career
decisions, marital difficulties, health problems, and other personal
dilemmas).
Nine of the relationships between the original coping scales and
appraisal and distress were replicated. Some of these relationships are
consistent with the results of Folkman and Lazarus (1980). For
example, the original Problem-Focused Scale was significantly related
to the appraisals of change and know more in two samples. Hawever,
know more was also significantly related to such original emotian-
focused scales as Minimize Threat and Wishful Thinking1 accepbnce
was not related to any original or revised emotion-focused scales.
The Mixed Scale accounted for four of the nine replicated relation-
ships that involve the original coping scales with appraisal and
distress. This scale is the only original scale that significantly predict-
ed anxiety and depression in more than one sample. A1thoa;gh Coyne et
al. (1981) also found the Mixed Scale to ba significantly related to
depression, this result is difficult to interpret because the scale
contains both avoidant and help-seeking strategies. A oase in poipt
involves the replicated relationship between the Mixed Scale and the
appraisal hold self back. Although the results of Falkman land Lazarus
(1980) lead one to expect that hold self back should be related to
22 MULTIVARIATE BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH
 emotion-focused coping (i.e., Avoidance and Wishful Thinking), it is
not clear from the Mixed Scale which strategy (avoidant or help-
seeking strategies) is related to this type of appraisal. In contrast, the
replicated association between hold self back and the revised 14void-
ance Scale indicates that a t least avoidance is related to such an
appraisal.
The strongest evidence for the concurrent validity of the scales is
provided by the finding that VSG members have significantly higher
scores than non-VSG members on the original and revised Seeks Social
Support Scales. Vertical Support Group members also have signifi-
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 00:20 25 October 2013

cantly higher Mixed scores than non-WSG members, however, this

finding is difficultto interpret. Finally, although the two groups do not
differ on the original Wishful Thinking Scale, VSG members do have
significantly higher scores on the revised Wishful Thinking Scale. This
can be partially attributed to the fact that VSG members are signifi-
cantly more distressed than non-members (on the SCL-A, F (1,217) =
12.47, p < .001), and that anxiety, while related to the revised Mlishful
Thinking Scale, was not related to the original scale. Because VSG
members are more distressed than non-VSG members, they may be
engaging in more cognitive distortions (i.a, Wishful Thinking) for
defensive purposes.
It is encouraging that both the original and the revised lcoping
scales were not related to demographic factors in the spouses of SDAT
patients and the psychiatric outpatients. Among medical students, the
relationships of the coping scales to marital status and age were either
nonexistent or minimal. However, gender was significantly related to
the original and the revised coping scales in the medical situdent
samples (even after the adjustment of SCL-A). This result is consistent
with the findings of Folkman and Lazarus (1980), in which females
had significantly higher scores than males on both the problem- and
emotion-focused coping scales. Billings and Moos (1981) also found
that females were more likely to use avoidant strategies than ]males.
The current results could be attributed to the fact that covarian~cedid
not completely equate females and males on anxiety. An increasing
body of literature has reported that females in medical school report
more problems of role conflict (Adsett, 1968; Notman & Nadlelson,
1973; Roeske & Lake, 19771, drop out a t higher rates than males and
have more difficulty in finding satisfying social relationships (Edwards
& Zimet, 1976; Goldstein, 19751, and are mare likely to seek psychiat-
ric counseling (Adsett, 1968).
In examining the current study's findings one should note that our
primary goal was to assess the psychometric properties of the original
JANUARY, 1985 23
 Vitaliano et a/.

Table 7
Means and Standard Deviations of Revised Scales and Appraisal Items
............................................................................................
Medical students Spouses of SDAT patients Psychiatric outpatients
coping scales ........................................................................
-M so !! -SD -M
............................................................................................ EL?

Problem-Focused 24.70 8.37 20.71 9.51 23.07 9.75

Wishful Thinking 12.72 5.92 9.36 5.89 13.54 6.67
Seeks Social Support 8.87 3.69 8.65 4.80 8.62 4.93
Blamed Self 4.35 2.48 2.07 2.44 4.09 2.89
Avoidance 12.82 5.37 8.53 5.23 14.66 6.69
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 00:20 25 October 2013

Appraisal items Percent responding 'yes'

Could change or do some- 48 45 71
thing abbut the problem
Accept or get used to 69
the problem
Need to know more before 52
I can act
Had to hold myself back 51

versus the revised WCCL scales, and not to consider the substantive
implications of the relationships between coping with appraisal and
distress. Given this goal, no attempt was made to compare coping
across the three samples. These comparisons would have required
detailed substantive considerations; because of the major demographic
and psychosocial differences in the three samples, such comparisons
would be uninterpretable. The means and standard deviations for the
scales are presented in Table 7 for descriptive purposes.
Considering the above results, the WCCL holds promise as a
measure of a wide range of coping strategies. When used on three
samples of subjects who are different from the samples used to
establish the WCCL, the revised scales had respectable internal
consistency reliabilities, and construct and criterion-related validity.
In addition, these scales were generally unconfounded by demographic
differences across the three samples. For these reasons, the revised
WCCL should be a valuable measure of coping in response to environ-
mental stressors.

References

Abrahamson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E., & Teasdale, J. P. (1978). Learned helplessness in

humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-74.
Adsett, C. A. Psychological health of medical students in relation to the medical
education process. (1968). Journal of Medical Education, 43, 728-734.
Aldwin, C., Folkman, S., Shaefer, C., Coyne, J., & Lazarus, R. (1980, September). Ways
of Coping Checklist: A process measure. Paper presented at the annual American
Psychological Association Meetings, Montreal, Canada.

24 MULTIVARIATE BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH

 Andreasen, N . J., & Norris, A. S. (1972). Long-term adjustment and adaptation mecha-
nisms in severelv burned adults. Journal ofNervous and Mental Disease, 154,352-
362.
Antonovsky, A. (1979). Health, stress, and coping. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Averill, J. R., & Rosen, M. (1972). Vigilant and nonvigilant coping strategies and
psychophysiological stress reactions during the anticipation of electrical shock.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 128-141.
Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J. & Erbaugh, J. (1961).An inventory for
measuring depression. Archrves of General Psychiatry, 4, 561-571.
Billings, A. G., & Moos, R. H. (1981).The role of coping responses and social resources in
attenuating the stress of life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, 139-157.
Cadden, J . J., Flack, F., Blakesee, S., & Charlton, R. (1969). Growth of medical students
through group process. American Journal of Psychiatry, 126, 862-868.
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1974). On establishing the empirical dimensioiiality of
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 00:20 25 October 2013

theoretical terms: An analytic example. Political Methodology, 1, 75-96.

Carson, R. I. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
Cohen, R., & Lazarus, R. S. (1979). Coping with stresses of illness. In G. C. Stone, F.
Cohen, and N . F. Adler (Eds.),Health psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cone, J. D. (1977). The relevance of reliability and validity for behavior assessment.
Behavioral Therapy, 8, 411-426.
Coyne, J. C., Aldwin, C., & Lazarus, R. S. (1981). Depression and coping in stressful
episodes. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 439-447.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficieiitalpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychome-
triku, 16, 543-548.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. (1955).Construct validity i n psychological tests. Ps.ycholog-
ical Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
Dashef, S. S., Epsey, W . M., & Lazarus, J. A. (1974).Time limited sensitivity groups for
medical students. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161,287-292.
Derogatis, L. R. (1977). The SCL-90-R administration, scoring and procedures Mranual I.
Baltimore: Clinical Psychometric Research Unit, Johns Hopkins University.
Edwards, M . T., & Zimet, C. N . (1975). Problems and concerns among medical students.
Journal of Medical Education, 51, 619-625.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980).An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community
sample. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 219-239.
Goldstein, M. Z. (19751. Preventive mental health effortsfor women medical students.
Journal of Medical Education, 50, 289-291.
Hamilton, M. (1960). A rating scale for depression. Neurology, Neurosurgery, and
Psychiatry, 23, 56-62.
Hartmann, D. P., Roper, B. L., & Bradford, D. C. (1979). Some relationships 'between
behavioral and traditional assessment. Journal ofBehaviora1 Assessment, 1, 3-21.
Janis, I. L. (1983). The role of social support in adherence to stressful decisions.
American Psychologist, 38, 143-160.
Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: LlcGraw-
Hill.
Lazarus, R. S., & Launier, R. (1978).Stress-related transactions between the person and
environment, In L. A. Pervin & M. Lewis (Eds.), Perspective in interactional
psychology. New York: Plenum.
Lipowski, 2. J. (1970). Physical illness, the individual and the coping processes.
Psychiatry in Medicine, 1, 92-102.
McFall, R. M. (1977). Analogue methods i n behavioral assessment: Issues and pr.ospects.
In J. D. Cone & R. P. Hawkins (Eds.),Behavioral Assessment. New York: IBrunnel
Mazel.
Notman, M . T., & Nadelson, C. C. (1973). Medicine: A career conflict for women.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 130, 1123-1127.
Roeske, N. A., & Lake, K. (1977). Role models for women medical students. Journal of
Medical Education, 52, 459-466.
Schact,er, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation.Stanford, California: Stanford Univer-
sity Press.
Seguin, C. A. (1965). Groups i n medical education. Jouraal of Medical Educai'ion, 40,
281-285.

JANUARY, 1985 25
 Vitaliano et a/.

Vaillant, G . (1977)Adaptation to Life. Boston: Little, Brown.

Zuckerman, M. (1979).Traits, states and uncertainty. Journal ofBehnviora1Assessment,
1, 43-54.
Downloaded by [Ohio State University Libraries] at 00:20 25 October 2013

MULTIVARIATE BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH