An Evaluation of the Psychometric Properties of the Coping Flexibility Scale-Revised

Abstract

Coping flexibility is the ability to alter coping strategies based on situational demands. While it has been conceptualized in multiple ways, the dual-process theory defines coping flexibility as the ability to discontinue ineffective strategies and devise and implement alternative strategies (Kato 2012; 2020). In order to measure the dual-process theory, Kato (2020) developed the Coping Flexibility Scale-Revised (CFS-R), which has been validated only in Japan. As some researchers (e.g., Cheng et al., 2014; Kato, 2012) have suggested that individuals in Western countries do not cope as flexibly as individuals in Eastern countries, it is unclear whether the dual-process theory as measured by the CFS-R is appropriate for a Western population. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to start to examine the factor structure, reliability, and validity of the CFS-R in a sample of U.S. college students. This dissertation took a two-study approach. Study 1 (N = 1246) was a cross-sectional study that took place during the 2021-22 academic year. Study 2 (N = 441) was longitudinal study that took place during three time points during Spring 2023. In both studies, participants were recruited from Introductory Psychology courses, other psychology courses, a sample obtained from the university survey research and oversight committee, student groups, and academic advisors. Study 1 examined the CFS-R’s factor structure and associations with measures of depression, anxiety, and stress. Study 2 assessed the CFS-R’s longitudinal invariance, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and convergent, discriminant, ecological, and predictive validity. In addition, to evaluate whether individualism/collectivism impacted scores, the CFS-R’s relationship with self-construal was also investigated. Overall, there were mixed findings. Study 1 found a similar factor structure to Kato’s (2020), and Study 2 found configural, weak, and strong invariance of the CFS-R. Good internal consistency (McDonald’s omegas > .70) was also found; however, adequate test-retest reliability was found between Times 1 and 2, but not between Times 1 and 3 or 2 and 3. The CFS-R subscales demonstrated acceptable convergent validity with Goal Re-engagement (Goal Disengagement and Re-engagement Scale [GDRS]), Knowledge of Cognition (Metacognitive Awareness Inventory-19; [MAI-19]), and Regulation of Cognition (MAI-19; rs ranging from .18 to .51); however, CFS-R scores were negatively correlated with Goal Disengagement (GDRS; rs ranging from -.19 to -.01). The CFS-R also demonstrated mixed discriminant validity, with trivial-to-small positive correlations with the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI; rs ranging from .06 to .26) and small-to-moderate correlations with the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding-16 (BIDR-16; rs ranging from .25 to .42). Regarding predictive validity, CFS-R scores at Time 1 did not predict perceived stress or symptoms of anxiety or depression at Times 2 or 3; however, there were negative correlations with symptoms and stress within each time point (rs ranging from -.22 to -.54). In addition, Abandonment and Re-coping scores did not predict the likelihood of engaging in abandonment or re-coping behaviors, but Meta-coping scores did predict the likelihood of engaging in meta-coping. Finally, regarding self-construal, the longitudinal CFA did not demonstrate weak invariance, so only Time 1 data was used to examine the relationship between self-construal and coping flexibility. Higher Independent Self-construal significantly predicted greater coping flexibility, but Interdependent Self-construal did not significantly predict coping flexibility. These studies built upon Kato’s (2012, 2020) research, in which they suggested that coping flexibility may not be an applicable construct to Western populations. These findings indicate that the CFS-R has similar factor structure to Kato’s (2020), good internal consistency, but test-retest reliability and predictive validity could not be established. There were also mixed findings regarding convergent validity, and discriminant validity results suggested that responses may be impacted by socially desirable responding. In addition, ecological validity was not established, and contrary to the hypothesis, higher independent self-construal was related to coping flexibility in Time 1; however, these were exploratory aims. Additional research is needed to continue to establish the test-retest reliability and validity of the CFS-R in Western populations. Such research could aid clinicians in college counseling centers and other professionals in higher education settings in understanding how their students cope flexibly with stress across the semester.