Psychology 2014. Vol.5, No.2, 142-147 Published Online February 2014 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/psych) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2014.52022 OPEN ACCESS Psychometric Properties of the Measure of Adolescent Coping Strategies (MACS) Sigrun Sveinbjornsdottir1, Einar Baldvin Thorsteinsson2 1University of Akureyri, Akureyri, Iceland 2University of New England, Armidale, Australia Email: sigrunsv@unak.is, ethorste@une.edu.au Received December 18th, 2013; revised January 15th, 2014; accepted February 14th, 2014 Copyright © 2014 Sigrun Sveinbjornsdottir, Einar Baldvin Thorsteinsson. This is an open access article distri- buted under the Creative Co mmons Attribution License, which p ermits unrestricted use, dis tribution, and repro- duction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In accordance of the Creative Commons Attribution License all Copyrights © 2 014 are reserved for SCIRP and the own er of the intellectual property Si- grun Sveinbjornsdottir, Einar Baldvin Thorsteinsson. All Copyright © 2014 are guarded by law and by SCIRP as a guardian. This paper presents the collective results of three independent studies in two countries, Australia and Ice- land, aimed to develop a psychometrically sound adolescent coping scale, the Measure of Adolescent Coping Strategies (MACS). Study 1, relying on 3034 Australian and 6908 Icelandic adolescents, revealed five conceptually distinct first-order factors. Two second-order factors (dimensions) were derived: (a) adaptive coping encompassing stoicism/distraction, seeking social support, and self-care, and (b) mal- adaptive coping encompassing acting out and rumination. This factor structure was supported by multi- sample confirmatory factor analysis (MSCFA) across age, gender and national samples. Study 1 estab- lished evidence of discriminant validity. In Study 2, including 534 Australian adolescents, the factor structure was verified through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Studies 1 and 2 provided evidence of construct validity. Study 3, employing 118 Icelandic adolescents, established 16-week test-retest reliabil- ity and evidence of convergent validity. Therefore, the MACS is a short, reliable and valid scale to meas- ure adolescent coping, thus enabling clinicians, researchers and educators to improve their practice when conducting research and guiding adolescents in developing effective coping methods. Keywords: Adolescent; Coping; Cr oss -Cultural; Scale; Psychometrics Introduction How people cope with their daily hassles is believed to affect their health and well-being (Lazarus, 1993, 2000). The World Health Organization (WHO, 2003, 2006, 2007) has raised con- cerns for adolescents’ mental health and psychosocial devel- opment in particular, and identified poor coping skills as one of several risk factors for ill health in adulthood and even premature death. Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) theory of coping has inspired coping research through decades. The theory suggests that cop- ing is two-dimensional; problem-focused, aimed at changing the situation or managing the problem causing the stress and emotion-focused, adjusting or controlling the emotions related to the problem. However, there is still confusion surrounding the concept and measurement of adults’, adolescents’ and child- ren’s ways of coping (e.g., Compas, Connor-Smith, Saltzman, Thomsen, & Wadsworth, 2001; Schwarzer & Schwarzer, 1996; Steger, 2006). Reviews of coping scales reveal inconsistent factor structure across samples (for an exhaustive review of diverse coping measures, see Compas et al., 2001; Skinner, Edge, Altman, & Sherwood, 2003) and diverse psychometric shortcomings regarding adolescent coping scales (Sveinb- jornsdottir & Thorsteinsson, 2008). Some have argued that using factor analysis for determining lower-order factors (bot- tom-up) and deductive approaches for the determination of dimensions or higher-order factors (top-down; a priori decided categories) may be necessary for grasping the construct of cop- ing (Skinner et al., 2003). Others suggest further empirical re- search (Sveinbjornsdottir & Thorsteinsson, 2008). The primary aim of the present study is to provide an empir- ically derived coping scale for adolescents. Hence, through three studies independent of each other, the Measurement of Adolescent Coping Strategies (MACS) will be developed. The objectives are three: 1) identify a latent structure of adolescent coping through implementation of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on a large cross-cultural construction sample (Study 1) and a CFA on an independent sample (Study 2); 2) test for factorial invariance across age (Year 7 and Year 10), gender (female and male) and national samples (Australia and Iceland) (Study 1); and 3) test for evidence of discriminant validity (Study 1 and Study 2), convergent validity and test-retest reliability (Study 3). It was hypothesized that (a) EFA of the MACS items would reveal first—and second—order factors (i.e., dimensions), (b) the factor structure would remain invariant of adolescents’ age, gender and country, and (c) factors would have acceptable evi- dence of convergent and discriminant validity and test-retest reliability.
S. SVEINBJORNSDOTTIR, E. B. THORSTEINSSON OPEN ACCESS Method Samples Study 1 was conducted in Iceland and Australia. It was pop- ulation-based in Iceland, including Year 7 and Year 10 students in primary and lower secondary schools (co-educational public schools). A total of 157 Icelandic schools participated, com- prising 82% of the cohorts (7800 students). A total of 6908 students (89%) accepted participation, with 50% being female. In Victoria, Australia, 16 Catholic secondary schools (six sin- gle-sex girls’ schools, three single-sex boys’ schools, and seven co-educational schools) in inner and outer metropolitan Mel- bourne and rural areas participated (3782 students). A total of 3034 students (80.1%) accepted participation, with 60% being female. The mean age for Year 7 was 12.33 years (SD = 0.56) and 15.28 years (SD = 0.57) for Year 10 for the Australians; and 12.04 years (SD = 0.25) and 15.07 years (SD = 0.30) for the Icelanders. The Australian sample reflected a diverse ethnic background of the population with 89.9% of students, 57.3% of fathers, and 62.3% of mothers born in Australia. Others in the sample were from 82 countries and all continents. The Icelandic population-based sample reflected a homogeneous ethnic back- ground. Born in Iceland were 95.1% of students, 95.4% of fa- thers and 96.7% of mothers. Others in the sample were from 60 countries in North West Europe (students = 3.6%, fathers = 2.1%, mothers = 1.4%) and less than 1% from all remaining continents. Socio-economic background, as measured by par- ents’ e ducational level and their professions was similar in both countries and reflected the distribution of socio-economic status in each country. Study 2 was conducted in Australia. Participants were 534 students from five co-educational government schools and one independent single sex girls’ school in inner and outer metro- politan Melbourne. The mean age was 12.55 (SD = 0.58) for Year 7 and 15.36 (SD = 0.53) for Year 10, with 59% being female. Their ethnic background and socio-economic status was varied which is similar to the Australian participants in Study 1. In Study 3, two schools from one Icelandic town were ran- domly selected and 118 students, 46% females, with a mean age of 11.76 (SD = 0.43) for Year 7 and 14.86 (SD = 0.35) for Year 10, agreed to participate. Participants’ ethnic background was homogeneous, and their socio-economic status was com- parable with the Icelandic participants in Study 1. Measures Social support. The Social Support Questionnaire Short Form (SSQ6; Sarason, Sarason, Shearin, & Pierce, 1987) mea- sured perceived support satisfaction (SSQS) ranging from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 6 (very satisfied) and the perceived size of the available social support network (SSQN) ranging from 0 to 9. The SSQ6 was developed using samples of older adolescents and young adults. Psychometric properties for the SSQ short version are rated as similar to the full 27-item version. Test- retest reliability for the full 27-item version of SSQN and SSQS (four-week interval) is .83 and .90, respectively, and internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) is .94 and .97, respectively (Sarason, Levine, Basham, & Sarason, 1983). The SSQ6 has been used in studies of adolescents 14 and 16 years old (Du- mont & Provost, 1999) with reported internal consistency above .90 for both scale s, and in studies of children and y ounger adolescents from 11 to 12 years, with internal consistency of .91 for SSQN and .86 for SSQS (Johnson, Esposito- Smythers, Miranda, Rizzo, Justus, & Clum, 2010) and .73 for SSQN (Bal, Crombez, Van Oost, & Debourdeaudhuij, 2003). In Study 1, the internal consistency for SSQS was .90 and for SSQN .91. Self-Esteem. Rosenberg’s Global Self-Esteem Scale (RSE; Rosenberg, 1965) consisting of 10 items as adapted by Bach- man (1978) was employed. Students tick one of five boxes for each item (ranging from “almost always true” to “never true”). Six items are positively worded (e.g., “When I do a job, I do it well”), and four negatively (e.g., “I feel I can’t do anything right”). Items were scored from 1 to 5 with higher scores indi- cating higher self-esteem. Internal consistency is .93; test-retest reliability (two-week interval) of .85; and evidence of validity as indicated through correlations of the RSE with other meas- ures of self-esteem from .56 to .83 (Chiu, 1988; Hagborg, 1993). The intern al consistency was .82 in Study 1. Coping. The KIDCOPE is a 10-item adolescent coping checklist (Spirito, Stark, & Williams, 1988). The KIDCOPE items were selected from commonly mentioned strategies or factors in the adult coping literature and represent: problem solving, distraction, social support, social withdrawal, cognitive restructuring, self-criticism, blaming others, emotional regula- tion, wishful thinking, and resignation. For the purpose of Study 3, the item of emotional regulation was divided into two items, one positive and the other negative, and the modified KIDCOPE thus contained 11 items. Responses were rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 0 (I did not use) to 3 (I used almost all the time). Test-retest correlations are reported as moderate for a three-day interval (.55 to .75, M = .65), lower with a seven- day interval (.07 to .83, M = .50), and lowest with a 10-week interval (.17 to .43, M = .27), and validation studies indicate moderate correlations ranging from .33 to .77 for KIDCOPE items with the Coping Strategies Inventory (Spirito et al., 1988; Tobin, Holroyd, Reynolds, & Wigal, 1989). Internal consistency cannot be assessed for the modified KIDCOPE as it is a check- list and does not comprise factors. Procedure Permission for each of the three studies was gained from lo- cal and national authorities, and their policies for parental con- sent were followed. For Studies 1 and 3, permission was thus given via parents’ lack of objection (passive consent). For Stu- dy 2, parental written consent was received for participating students (active consent). Studies 1 and 2 were anonymous. Since test-retest purposes were incorporated in Study 3, confidentiality was ensured such that each participant had a unique code allocated. This code appeared on the questionnaire and in a separate key associating code with name. The key was kept separate (physically and by another person) from the questionnaires. After 16 weeks, the participants were again given questionnaires with their respec- tive codes by the research assistant who had the key. The key was then destroyed. Questionnaires were administered during school hours with an average of 25 students per administration. Standard written information was read to participants: participants were to think of a stressor and rate their responses to the MACS items based upon this stressor. In Study 3, students used the same stressor for both administrations.
S. SVEINBJORNSDOTTIR, E. B. THORSTEINSSON OPEN ACCESS The questionnaire package was developed in English and translated into Icelandic through a combination of back-trans- lation and committee approach (Brislin, Lonner, & Thorndike, 1973). Item Selection The original idea of developing an adolescent coping scale, on which the MACS is based, stemmed from late Dr Chris Madden’s interest in athletes coping with competitive stress (Madden, 1987; Madden, Kirkby, & McDonald, 1989; Madden, Summers, & Brown, 1990) and his clinical experience working with drug addicts (Madden, 1989). Originally, Madden ac- commodated Lazarus’ theory on emotion-focused versus prob- lem-focused coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and developed the Ways of Coping with Sport (WOCS; Madden et al., 1989), a 64-item scale that was adapted from the Ways of Coping Checklist (WOCC; Folkman & Lazarus, 1985) to suit com- petitive athletes. Under the direction of Dr Madden, a group at La Trobe University in Melbourne also developed an adoles- cent coping scale for general concerns, the Coping Question- naire for Adolescents (CQA; Angleton, 1994). The CQA in- cluded 34 items drawn from the coping literature and the WOCS. The wording of items was adapted for use with ado- lescents. The CQA also included an open-ended item asking about additional coping strategies. The CQA was administered to 261 Year 10 students in Melbourne (mean age 15.03 years, SD = 0.60, 54% males) with varied socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds (Angleton, 1994). The students identified their own stressor experienced during the last twelve months and completed the CQA according to that stressor. Their self-gen- erated coping strategies were classified and a total of 19 items were created on the basis of frequency. There were 53 pre-MACS items on which the final version of the MACS was based, including the 19 items generated from the adolescents and the 34 items of the CQA. Scale Development In Study 1, the following choices of EFA procedures were employed: (a) common factor analysis (e.g., principal axis fac- toring) (e.g., Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahn, 1999; Gorsuch, 1983; Widaman, 1993); (b) oblique rotation (e.g., Oblimin) (Child, 1990; Kline, 1994); and (c) parallel analysis (PA), Velicer’s minimum average partial (MAP) and scree plots. Final item selection from the pool of 53 based on: (a) a full range distribution of responses for each item on the four re- sponse scores; (b) each factor include a minimum of five items (Gorsuch, 1983); (c) each item load beyond .25 on one factor only (Fabrigar et al., 1999; Widaman, 1993); (d) each factor’s internal consistency being at least .70; (e) mean inter-item cor- relations (Mr,) for each factor being between .20 and .40 (Briggs & Cheek, 1986); (f) face validity; and (g) conceptually distinct factors. In Study 2, a CFA of the MACS final factor structure at first- and second-order level was tested using AMOS structural equa- tion modeling software (Byrne, 2010; Kline, 2011). Missing values were imputed using covariance-based statistics or the expectation-maximization (EM) method (normal distribution assumption). Structural equation model indices were selected to cover the main facets of model fit. The Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) was used as an absolute fix index; GFI ranges from 0 to 1, values above .95 indicating a good fit. Comparative Fit Index (CFI) was calculated. It ranges from 0 to 1 and values above .90 suggest a good fit. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and squared root mean residual (SRMR) were cal- culated. SRMR with a value of 0 represents a perfect fit be- tween the model and the population covariance matrix. RM- SEA values below .06 and SRMR values below.09 are gen- erally interpreted as favourable. Finally, the Tucker-Lewis coefficient (TLI) was reported, values close to 1.0 indicating good fit. A multi-sample CFA (MSCFA; Kline, 2011) was conducted for the second-order factor model using the data from Study 1. Factorial invariance was examined for gender (male, female), age (Year 7, Year 10), and country (Australia, Iceland). A crite- ria of .01 change in CFI (ΔCFI) from the configural model (unrestrained) to the measurement model (restrained) was used to determine if invariance should be rejected or not. In Studies 1 and 2, the SSQ6 (i.e., SSQS and SSQN) and the RSE as adapted by Bachman, O’ (1978) were employed to provide evidence of discriminant validity. It was hypothesized that correlations between MACS, SSQ6 and RSE would be low. Finally, in Study 3, the KIDCOPE (Spirito et al., 1988) was chosen to establish evidence of convergent validity of the MACS. Moderate correlations between a presumably psycho- metrically sound test and a poor(er) one is expected (Kline, 1986). It was hypothesized that the first-order factors of MACS would correlate moderately with the KIDCOPE. Results Factor Analysis: First Order Principal axis factoring (PAF) with Oblimin rotation was performed on the data from Study 1. The data was then divided into four sub-samples (Australia Year 7 and Year 10; Iceland Year 7 and Year 10) and factor analyses performed on all groups. Items with low loadings for all groups or loading sig- nificantly on more than one factor were deleted. Final factor structure was derived after stepwise reduction of items. Five first-order factors of coping were detected in Study 1 (N = 9942) based on 34 of the original 53 items. Thirty items loaded ≥.25 on one factor only. Four items loaded on two factors; these items were included in their higher loading factor. The number of factors was based on a Scree plot suggesting five factors, a parallel analysis suggesting six factors, and MAP test suggest- ing four factors. Comparable factor structures emerged for both age-groups in Iceland (Year 7 and 10) and for the older group in Australia (Year 10) (stoicism/distraction, acting out, rumina- tion, seeking social support, and self-care). For the fourth sub- sample (Australian Year 7), the 34 items comprised four factors with items from the stoicism/distraction and self-care factors combined into one factor. Table 1 provides information on in- ternal consistency, mean inter-item correlations in factors, and number of items per factor. A CFA, using data from Study 2, supported the factor structure with CFI = .95, TLI = .94, GFI = .96, RMSEA = .047 [90% CI .038, .057], and SRMR = .046. Factor Analysis: Second Order Second-order factor analysis (PAF, Oblimin rotation) re- vealed two dimensions of coping. One was adaptive (i.e., stoic- ism/distraction, self-care, and seeking social support) and the
S. SVEINBJORNSDOTTIR, E. B. THORSTEINSSON OPEN ACCESS Table 1. The five coping factors of the MACS, coefficient Alpha and mean inter-item correlation (Mr) for each factor for study 1, N = 9942. Factor Alpha Mr Numbe r of i t ems Stoicism/distraction .73 .25 8 Acting out .75 .34 6 Rumination .70 .28 6 Seeking soc i al support .81 .37 7 Self-care .70 .25 7 other maladaptive (i.e., rumination and acting out; see Table 2). A CFA for this model, including first- and second-order factors using data from Study 2 was supported, CFI = .94, TLI = .92, GFI = .95, RMSEA = .054 [90% CI .045, .064], and SRMR = .063. Factor Invariance MSCFA was used to investigate factorial invariance in Study 1for country, gender, and year at school. It was supported for all three demographic factors examined; ΔCFI < .01 (see Table 3). Convergent Validity Evidence of convergent validity was assessed in Study 3 by examining the correlations between the first-order factors of the MACS and the items of the modified KIDCOPE. As hypothe- sized, there were moderate correlations between the 11 items of the modified KIDCOPE and the corresponding five first-order factors of MACS, with r ranging from .25 to .68 and with a mean around .46. Discriminant Validity In Studies 1 and 2, evidence of discriminant validity was as- sessed for the five first-order coping factors of the MACS based on correlations with SSQN, SSQS, and RSE. Low correlations were expected and found between SSQN and all factors of MACS , ranging from r = −.05 to r = .11 i n Study 1 an d Study 2. The correlations between SSQS and the factors of MACS were also low, ranging from r = .02 to r = .17. The correlation between RSE and the factors of MACS was somewhat higher but within expected range, ranging from r = −.27 to r = .12. Reliability A test-retest reliability of .50 was expected for a 16-week in- terval, given the age and plausible development of participants during the period. Study 3 found test-retest reliability for a 16-week interval as follows: seeking social support r = .74; self-care r = .68; acting out r = .59; rumination r = .74; and stoicism/distraction r = .53; all with p < .001. Discussion The primary aim of the present studies was achieved, that is to establish through empirical research a psychometrically- derived measure of adolescent coping strategies, the MACS. All three hypothesis were supported: (a) EFA of the MACS items revealed first- and second-order factors (i.e. dimensions), Table 2. Pattern matrix for two seco nd-order factors using principal axis facto r- ing with oblimin rotation for study 1, N = 9942. Factor Adaptive coping Maladaptive coping Stoicism/distraction .78 −.09 Self-care .65 −.03 Seeking soc i al support .61 .17 Rumination .15 .78 Acting out −.04 .33 Note: The cut-off limit for first-order factor loadings on second-order factors is .25. (b) the factor structure remained invariant of adolescents’ age, gender and country, and (c) evidence of convergent and discri- minant validity, and test-retest r eliability was acceptable. The five first-order factors of the MACS, comprising six to eight items each, were conceptually distinct and labeled in rela- tion to the main content of the strategies included. All factors included both cognitive and behavioral strategies, and either problem-solving or avoidant strategies. The first factor, stoicism/distraction, captures the way indi- viduals manage stressful events or situations without trying to solve the problem or directly change the situation for the better. The adolescents are aware of the stressful situation but try not to let it affect them, such as distracting themselves by watching TV or through play. These are possibly the only positive coping strategies if situations are uncontrollable (e.g., awaiting sur- gery). The second factor, acting out, refers to destructive behavior towards other people or things, and towards oneself, including aggressive behavior, use of alcohol and drugs, and yelling ra- ther than discussing. This coping factor was the least employed by both females and males. Similar to stoicism/distraction, acting out does not aim at solving a stressful situation. However, it includes antisocial and self-destructive behavior which may seem helpful in the short term but are likely to turn maladaptive in the long run. Antisocial behavior at the age of 11 may in- crease the risk of such behavior later (White, Moffitt, Earls, Robins, & Silva, 1990) and the same applies for substance use (Thorlindsson & Vilhjalmsson, 1991). The third factor, rumination, includes negative feelings and thoughts towards oneself, dwelling on the problem, and wishful thinking, and does not solve the stressful situation. This coping factor was the only one where gender differences were noted, females employing it more than males. That supports previous literature on rumination (e.g., Nolen-Hoeksema, Wisco, & Lyu- bomirsky, 2008). The fourth coping factor, seeking social support, deals with the stressful situation. It refers to active problem-focused strate- gies, mainly cognitive, such as talking to other people, seeking advice and getting ideas, or just sharing the problem with someone to ease the burden. This is the most common way of coping for both females and males; it aims to strengthen the individual as well as to solve a stressful situation. The fifth and last factor, self-care, includes physical and psychological care. The adolescents exercise, sleep and eat well, pray and look after themselves. The stressful situation is not solved or the problem directly addressed. Adolescents seek to strengthen their body and spirit to help them withstand difficul- ties (e.g., upcoming exams, parental illness).
S. SVEINBJORNSDOTTIR, E. B. THORSTEINSSON OPEN ACCESS Table 3. Multi-sample confirmatory factor analysis examining factorial invariance for different demographics in study 1 second-order factor model. Factorial invariance CFI TLI GFI RMSEA 90% CI SRMR Comparing males vs. females .929 .907 .957 .045 .043, .046 <.05 Configura l model (unres t rained) .929 .907 .957 .045 .043, .046 <.05 Measurement model (restrained) .923 .909 .953 .043 . 043, .045 <.06 ΔCFI .006 Comparing Year 7 vs. Ye ar 10 Unrestrained .925 .902 .955 .046 .045, .048 <.05 Restrain ed .921 .907 .951 .045 .044, .046 <.06 ΔCFI .004 Comparing Australia vs. Icel and Unrestrained .924 .901 .954 .046 .045, .048 <.06 Restrain ed .920 .906 .951 .045 .044, .046 <.07 ΔCFI .004 Note: CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Coefficient; GFI = Goodness-of-Fit Index; RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SRMR = Squared R oo t Mea n R es idual; ΔCFI = Change in CFI from unconstr a ined to constrained. A second-order factor analysis clearly suggests that adoles- cent coping is two-dimensional. One dimension includes the first-order factors seeking social support, self-care and stoic- ism/distraction; and the other, rumination and acting out. Given the content of the two second-order factors, and the possible consequences each implies for adolescents, the former may be recognized as adaptive and the latter maladaptive. Therefore, it is suggested that in relation to health and well-being, the two second-order factors refer to: (a) adaptive coping as an indica- tion of protection; and (b) maladaptive coping as an indication of risk. The two empirically derived second-order factors of the MACS (adaptive versus maladaptive coping) both comprise behaviorally—and cognitively-based strategies that are either active or inactive. Adaptive coping includes both problem—and emotion-focused coping (i.e., aiming at changing the situation/ managing the problem; and adjusting or controlling the emo- tions related to the problem) and it also includes either ap- proaching the problem or avoiding it. In contrast, maladaptive coping is emotion-focused and not problem-focused: the prob- lem is avoided and not approached. The present study is limited in its reliance on factor analysis which always has a subjective component to it (e.g., final deci- sion on the number of factors to extract). The MACS was de- veloped through participation from two economically advanced populations and its validity for alternative cultures is unknown. Furthermore, it is for future research to examine the validity of the interpretations of the MACS’s coping strategies as buffers to the effects of stressors on adolescents’ psychological well- being and physical health. Such research is taking place and three projects have already been published utilizing the MACS. First, a project in Botswana found that seeking social support and distraction reduced the impact of negative life events on psychological health (Thorsteinsson, Sveinbjornsdottir, Dintsi, & Rooke, 2013). Second, an Australian project found that 66% of the variation in depression was explained by a mediation model where rumination, acting out and social support acted as partial mediators of the perceived stress—depression relation- ship (Thorsteinsson, Ryan, & Sveinbjornsdottir, 2013). Third, an Australian longitudinal study suggests that self care and rumination may affect change in compulsive Internet use and depression, respectively (Thorsteinsson & Davey, 2014). Conclusion Researchers and practitioners (e.g., psychologists and educa- tors) should find the MACS a reliable and valid measure of adolescent coping that is applicable across different cultures. The MACS enables researchers and practitioners to improve their practice when conducting research and guiding adoles- cents in developing effective coping methods. Acknowledgemen ts We would like to acknowledge the late Dr Chris C. Mad- den’s valuable contribution to the early development of the MACS. We also thank Ms Alison Angleton for her contribution to the item selection of MACS. This research was supported by a grant from The Icelandic Centre for Research (RANNIS). REFERENCES Angleton, A. (1994). Specific and transitional stress, self-efficacy, and coping of students in three different stages of adolescent development. Melbourne: La Trobe University. Bachman, J. G., O’Malley, P. M., & Johnston, J. (1978). Self-esteem and attainment: An analysis of change and stability. In J. G. Bach- man, P. M. O’Malley, & J. Johnston (Eds.), Youth in transition. Adolescence to adulthood—Change and stabil ity in the lives of young men (pp. 93-120). Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Re- search, The University of Michigan. Bal, S., Cro mbez, G., Van Oost, P., & Deb ourdeaudh uij, I. (2003 ). The role of social support in well being and coping with self reported stressful events in adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 1377- 1395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.06.002 Beshart, M. A. (2010). Psychometric properties of short form self- regulation inventory in a sample of Iranian population. Research in Clinical Psychology and Counseling, 1, 53-70. Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (19 86). The role of factor analysis in the
S. SVEINBJORNSDOTTIR, E. B. THORSTEINSSON OPEN ACCESS development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Perso- nality, 54, 106-148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb00391.x Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R. M. (1973). Cross-cul- tural research methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Byrne, B. M. (2 010). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: Basic concpets, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York: Rout- ledge. Child, D. (1990). The essentials of factor analysis (2nd ed.). London: Cassell Educational Ltd. Chiu, L. H. (1988). Measures of self-esteem for school-age children. Journal of Counseling and Development, 66, 298-301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1988.tb00874.x Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H., Thomsen, A. H., & Wadsworth, M. E. (2001). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: Problems, progress, an d po ten tial in th eory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 87-127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.87 Dumont, M., & Provost, M. A. (1999). Resilience in adolescents: Pro- tective role of social support, coping strategies, self esteem, and so- cial activities on experience of stress and depression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 343-363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1021637011732 Fabrigar, L., Wegener, D., MacCallum, R., & Strahn, E. (1999). Eva- luating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological re- search. Psychological Methods, 4, 272-299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272 Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it ch an ges it must be a process: Study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college exa mi- nation. Journal of Personal ity and Social Psychology, 48, 150-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.1.150 Gorsuch, R. (1983). Factor a nalysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hagborg, W. J. (1993). The Rosenberg self-esteem scale and Harter’s self-perception for adolescents: A concurrent validity study. Psy- chology in the Schools, 30, 132-136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(199304)30:2<132::AID-PITS23 10300205>3.0.CO;2-Z Johnson, J. E., Esposito-Smythers, C., Miranda Jr., R., Rizzo, C. J., Justus, A. N., & Clum, G. (2010). Gender, social support, and de- pression in criminal justice—Involved adolescents. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55, 1096-1109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0306624X10382637 Kline, P. (1986). A handbook of test construction: Introduction to psy- chometric design. London: Methuen. Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. London: Routledge. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Coping theory and research: Past, present, and future. Psychosomatic Medicine, 55, 234-247. Lazarus, R. S. (2000). Toward better research on stress and coping. American Psychologist, 55, 665-673. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.6.665 Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer Publishing Company. Madden, C. C. (1987). Coping with competitive sport. Master of Sci- ence Thesis, Melbourne: University of Melbourne. Madden, C. C. (1989). Anxiety, depression, and coping in alcohol and drug-dependent persons undergoing rehabilitation. In R. Godding, D. Rankin, & G. Whelan (Eds.), Proceedings of the autumn school of studies on alcohol and drugs (pp. 97-101). Melbourne: Department of Community Medicine, St. Vincent’s Hospital. Madden, C. C., Kirkby, R. J., & McDonald, D. (1989). Coping styles of co mpetitive middle distance runners. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 20, 287-296. Madden, C. C., Summers, J. J., & Brown, D. F. (1990). The influence of perceived stress on coping with competitive basketball. Interna- tional Journal of Sport Psyc hology, 21, 21-35. Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Re- thinking rumination. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 400- 424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00088.x Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Sarason, I. G., Levin e, H. M., Bas ham, R. B ., & Saras on, B. R. (1 983). Assessing social support: The social support questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 127-139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.127 Sarason, I. G. , Sa ra son , B. R., Sh eari n, E. N., & Pie rce, G. R. (19 87 ). A brief measure of social sup port: Practical and th eoretical i mplications. Journal of Social and Personal R elationships, 4, 497-510. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407587044007 Schwarzer, R., & Schwarzer, C. (1996). A critical survey of coping instruments. In M. Zeidner, & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping: Theory, research, applications (pp. 107-132). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Skinner, E. A., Edge, K., Altman, J., & Sherwood, H. (2003). Searching for the structure of coping: A review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 216-269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.2.216 Spirito, A., Stark, L. J ., & Williams, C. (19 88). Development of a brief coping checklist for use with pediatric populations. Journal of Pe- diatric Psychology, 13, 555-574. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/13.4.555 Steger, M. F. (2006). An illustration of issues in factor extraction and identification of dimensionality in psychological assessment data. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86, 263-272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8603_03 Sveinbjornsdottir, S., & Thorsteinsson, E. B. (2008). Adolescent coping scales: A critical psycho metric review. Scandinavian Journal of Psy- chology, 49, 533-548. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2008.00669.x Thorlindsson, T., & Vilhjalmsson, R. (1991). Factors related to ciga- rette smoking and alcohol use among adolescents. Adolescence, 26, 399-418. Thorsteinsson, E. B., & Davey, L. (2014). Adolescents’ compulsive Internet use and depression: A longitudinal study. Open Journal of Depression, 3, 13-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojd.2014.31005 Thorsteinsson, E. B., Ryan, S., & Sveinbjornsdottir, S. (2013). The me- diating effects of social support and coping on the stress-depression relationship in rural and urban ado lescents. Open Journal of Depres- sion, 2, 1-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojd.2013.21001 Thorsteinsson, E. B., Sveinbjornsdottir, S., Dintsi, M., & Rooke, S. E. (2013). Negative life events, d istress, and coping among adolescents in Botswana. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 13, 75-86. Tobin, D. L., Holroyd, K. A., Reynolds, R. V., & Wigal, J. K. (1989). The hierarchical factor structure of the coping strategies inventory. Cognitive Ther apy and Researc h, 13, 343-361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01173478 White, J. L., Mo ffitt, T. E., Earls , F., Robi ns, L., & Silva, P. A . (1990). How early can we tell? Predictors of childho od conduct disorder and adolescent delinquency. Criminology, 28, 507-533. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1990.tb01337.x WHO (2003). Strategic directions for improving the health and devel- opment of children and adolescents. http://www.who.int/child-adolescent-health/New_Publications/Overv iew/CAH_Strategy/CAH_strategy_EN.pdf WHO (2006). Prevention and care of illness. http://www.who.int/child-adolescent-health/PREVENTION/Adolesc ents.htm WHO (2007). Adolescents, social support and help-seeking behaviour: An international literature review and programme consultation with recommendations for action. http://www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/documents/97892415 95711/en/index.html Widaman, K. F. (199 3). Common factor analysis v ersus principal com- ponent analysis: Differential bias in representing model parameters? Multivariate Behavioural Research, 28, 263-311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2803_1
|