preview

Coping Strategies Paper

Decent Essays

The Coping Strategies Questionnaire–Revised (CSQ-R) (Riley & Robinson, 1997) is one such measure in need of validation in Veteran populations. The CSQ-R assesses an individual’s use of cognitive and behavioral pain coping strategies. This measure, and its original version (CSQ) (Rosenstiel & Keefe, 1983) are the most widely used measures of coping in the chronic pain literature (Piotrowski, 2007) and have been used to assess coping with a wide range of pain-related conditions including osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia, cancer pain, whiplash, phantom limb pain, sickle cell disease, and headache pain (Beckham, Keefe, Caldwell, & Roodman, 1991; Buenaver, Edwards, Smith, Gramling, & Haythornthwaite, 2008; Gil, Abrams, Phillips, …show more content…

In the original CSQ validation, Rosensteil and Keefe selected 48 items for inclusion in the scale, assessing 6 cognitive strategies (Diverting attention, Reinterpreting pain sensations, Coping self-statements, Ignoring pain sensations, Praying or hoping, and Catastrophizing) and 2 behavioral strategies (Increasing activity level, Increasing pain behavior). The original psychometric assessment—conducted on a relatively small sample (N = 61) of male and female patients with chronic low back pain—revealed relationships among the coping strategies that clustered into 3 factors: “Cognitive coping and suppression,” “Helplessness,” and “Diverting attention and praying.” However, a subsequent series of studies called into question the validity of the original factor structure (e.g., Keefe et al., 1987; Swartzman et al., 1994; Tuttle, Shutty, & DeGood, 1991). Among these was a study by Riley and Robinson (1997), the findings of which suggested that a 6-factor solution provided a better fit to the data. These authors consequently recommended the use of the CSQ-R, which includes 27 of the original 48 items organized in 6 subscales: Praying, Ignoring pain sensations, Distancing from pain, Catastrophizing, Coping self-statements, and Distractions. A subsequent study by Utne and colleagues (Utne, Miaskowski, Bjordal, Cooper, et al., 2009) comparing the 3 and 6-factor structures was unable to reproduce the 3-factor structure but found that the 6-factor solution fit the data well. However, the solutions generated by Utne and colleagues and by Riley and Robinson were limited by the fact that many item residuals were correlated without theoretical backing. Despite the acceptance and widespread clinical use of

Get Access