The Brief COPE is a 28-item multidimensional measure of strategies used for coping or regulating cognitions in response to stressors. This abbreviated inventory (based on the complete 60-item COPE Inventory) is comprised of items that assess the frequency with which a person uses different coping strategies (e.g., “I've been turning to work or other activities to take my mind off things,” “I've been making fun of the situation,” “I’ve been criticizing myself”) rated on a scale from 1, I haven't been doing this at all, to 4, I've been doing this a lot. There are 14 two-item subscales within the Brief COPE, and each is analyzed separately: (1) self-distraction, (2) active coping, (3) denial, (4) substance use, (5) use of emotional support, (6) use of instrumental support, (7) behavioral disengagement, (8) venting, (9) positive reframing, (10) planning, (11) humor, (12) acceptance, (13) religion, and (14) self-blame.
The Brief COPE is a self-report assay of cognitive regulation, which identifies the use of coping strategies in response to stress (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989). By assessing a broad range of different styles of coping, researchers can better understand effectiveness of such coping strategies. For example, utilizing active coping strategies leads to adaptive outcomes of reduced depression and better quality of life (Holmes & Stevenson, 1990), while relying on avoidance strategies of denial and behavioral disengagement is associated with higher levels of anxiety and depression (Pozzi et al., 2015). Therefore, modifying preferred coping strategies is an important target for clinical intervention and might prove to be a mechanism for behavior change.
[+] PMCID, PUBMED ID, or CITATION
Text Citation: Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F., Weintraub, J.K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: a theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267–83.
Text Citation: Holmes, J., Stevenson, C. (1990). Differential effects of avoidant and attentional coping strategies on adaptation to chronic and recent-onset pain. Health Psychology, 9, 577–584.
Text Citation: Pozzi, G., Frustaci, A., Tedeschi, D., Solaroli, S., Grandinetti, P., Di Nicola, M., Janiri, L. (2015). Coping strategies in a sample of anxiety patients: factorial analysis and associations with psychopathology. Brain Behavior, 5, 8, e00351.
This measure has not been measured yet.
This measure has not been influenced yet.
This measure has not been validated yet.
The Science of Behavior Change (SOBC) program seeks to promote basic research on the initiation, personalization and maintenance of behavior change. By integrating work across disciplines, this effort will lead to an improved understanding of the underlying principles of behavior change. The SOBC program aims to implement a mechanisms-focused, experimental medicine approach to behavior change research and to develop the tools required to implement such an approach. The experimental medicine approach involves: identifying an intervention target, developing measures to permit verification of the target, engaging the target through experimentation or intervention, and testing the degree to which target engagement produces the desired behavior change.
Within the SOBC Measures Repository, researchers have access to measures of mechanistic targets that have been (or are in the processing of being) validated by SOBC Research Network Members and other experts in the field. The SOBC Validation Process includes three important stages of evaluation for each proposed measure: Identification, Measurement, and Influence.
The first stage of validation requires a measure to be Identified within the field; there must be theoretical support for the specific measure of the proposed mechanistic target or potential mechanism of behavior change. This evidence may include references for the proposed measure, or theoretical support for the construct that the proposed measure is intended to assess. The second stage of validation requires demonstration that the level and change in level of the chosen mechanistic target can be Measured with the proposed measure (assay). For example, if the proposed measure is a questionnaire, the score on the measure should indicate the activity of the target process, and it must have strong psychometric properties. The third stage of validation requires demonstration that the measure can be Influenced; there must be evidence that the measured target is malleable and responsive to manipulation. Evidence relating to each stage includes at least one peer-reviewed publication or original data presentation (if no peer-reviewed research is available to support the claim) and is evaluated by SOBC Research Network Members and experts in the field.
Once a measure has gone through these three stages, it will then either be Validated or Not validated according to SOBC Research Network standards. If a measure is Validated, then change in the measured target was reliably associated with Behavior Change. If a measure is Not validated, then change in the measured target was not reliably associated with Behavior Change. Why would we share measures that are not validated? The SOBC Research Network values open, rigorous, and transparent research. Our goal is to make meaningful progress and develop replicable and effective interventions in behavior change science. Therefore, the SOBC sees value in providing other researchers in the field with information regarding measures that work and measures that fall short for specific targets. Further, a measure that is not validated for one target in one population may be validated in another target or population.
Want to learn more? For any questions regarding the SOBC Validation Process or Measures Repository, please email firstname.lastname@example.org.
Has the mechanism been identified as a potential target for behavior change? This section summarizes theoretical support for the mechanism.
Have the psychometric properties of this measure been assessed? This section includes information such as content validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability.
Has a study manipulation led to change in the mechanism? This section addresses evidence that this measure is modifiable by experimental manipulation or clinical intervention.
Has a change in this mechanism been associated with behavior change? This section addresses empirical evidence that causing change in the measure reliably produces subsequent behavior change.