J Korean Acad Nurs.  2018 Jun;48(3):375-388. 10.4040/jkan.2018.48.3.375.

Reliability and Validity of the Korean Version of the Coping and Adaptation Processing Scale–Short-Form in Cancer Patients

• Song CE
• Kim HY
• So HS
• Kim HK

• KMID: 2429112
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2018.48.3.375

Abstract

PURPOSE
This study was conducted to assess the reliability and validity of the Korean version of the Coping and Adaptation Processing Scale-Short-Form in patients with cancer.
METHODS
The original scale was translated into Korean using Brislin's translation model. The Korean Short-Form and the Functional Assessment Cancer Therapy-General were administered to 164 Korean patients with cancer using convenience sampling method. The collected data were analyzed using SPSS 23.0 and AMOS 23.0. Construct validity, criterion validity, test-retest reliability, and internal consistency reliability of the Korean Coping and Adaptation Processing Scale-Short-Form were evaluated.
RESULTS
Exploratory factor analysis supported the construct validity with a four-factor solution that explained 60.6% of the total variance. Factor loadings of the 15 items on the four subscales ranged .52~.86. The four-subscale model was validated by confirmatory factor analysis (Normed χ2=1.38 (p=.013), GFI=.92, SRMR=.02, RMSEA=.05, TLI=.94, and CFI=.95), and criterion validity was demonstrated with the Functional Assessment Cancer Therapy-General. Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency of the total scale was .83 and ranged .68~.81 for all subscales, demonstrating sufficient test-retest reliability.
CONCLUSION
The Korean version showed satisfactory construct and criterion validity, as well as internal consistency and test-retest reliability.

Keyword

Adaptation; Psychological; Neoplasms; Reproducibility of Results

MeSH Terms

Humans
Methods
Reproducibility of Results*

Reference

References

1. Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Cognitive theories of stress and the issue of circularity. Appley MH, Trumbull R, editors. Dynamics of Stress: Physiological and Social Perspectives. New York: Plenum Press;1986. p. 63–80.

2. Aldwin CM. Stress, coping, and development: An integrative perspective. New York: Guilford Press;2007. p. 32–149.

3. Roy C. Research based on the Roy adaptation model: Last 25 years. Nursing Science Quarterly. 2011; 24(4):312–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894318411419218.

4. Holland KD, Holahan CK. The relation of social support and coping to positive adaptation to breast cancer. Psychology and Health. 2003; 18(1):15–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/0887044031000080656.

5. Dempster M, Howell D, McCorry NK. Illness perceptions and coping in physical health conditions: A meta-analysis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 2015; 79(6):506–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2015.10.006.

6. Roy C. The Roy adaptation model. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Pearson Education, Inc.;2009. p. 29–124.

7. Kim JH, Han JY, Shaw B, McTavish F, Gustafson D. The roles of social support and coping strategies in predicting breast cancer patients’ emotional well-being: Testing mediation and moderation models. Journal of Health Psychology. 2010; 15(4):543–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105309355338.

8. Vallurupalli M, Lauderdale K, Balboni MJ, Phelps AC, Block SD, Ng AK, et al. The role of spirituality and religious coping in the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer receiving palliative radiation therapy. The Journal of Supportive Oncology. 2012; 10(2):81–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suponc.2011.09.003.

9. Garcia C. Conceptualization and measurement of coping during adolescence: A review of the literature. Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 2010; 42(2):166–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2009.01327.x.

10. Alkrisat M, Dee V. The validation of the coping and adaptation processing scale based on the Roy adaptation model. Journal of Nursing Measurement. 2014; 22(3):368–380. https://doi.org/10.1891/1061-3749.22.3.368.

11. Roy C, Bakan G, Li Z, Nguyen TH. Coping measurement: Creating short form of Coping and Adaptation Processing Scale using item response theory and patients dealing with chronic and acute health conditions. Applied Nursing Research. 2016; 32:73–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2016.06.002.

12. Jalowiec A. Coping with illness: Synthesis and critique of the nursing coping literature from 1980-1990. Barnfather JS, Lyon BL, editors. Stress and Coping: State of the Science and Implications for Nursing Theory, Research and Practice. Indianapolis (IN): Center Nursing Press;1993. p. 65–83.

13. Luengo-Fernandez R, Leal J, Gray A, Sullivan R. Economic burden of cancer across the European Union: A population-based cost analysis. The Lancet Oncology. 2013; 14(12):1165–1174. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70442-X.

14. Hair JF Jr, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Pearson Prentice Hall;2010. p. 578–581.

15. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, Sarafian B, Linn E, Bonomi A, et al. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: Development and validation of the general measure. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 1993; 11(3):570–579. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1993.11.3.570.

16. Kim H, Yoo HJ, Kim YJ, Han OS, Lee KH, Lee JH, et al. Development and validation of Korean Functional Assessment Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G). Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2003; 22(1):215–229.

17. Khalili N, Farajzadegan Z, Mokarian F, Bahrami F. Coping strategies, quality of life and pain in women with breast cancer. Iranian Journal of Nursing and Midwifery Research. 2013; 18(2):105–111.

18. Brislin RW. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology. 1970; 1(3):185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301.

19. Brislin RW. The wording and translation of research instruments. Lonner WL, Berry JW, editors. Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research. Beverly Hills (CA): Sage;1986. p. 137–164.

20. Chayaput P. Development and psychometric evaluation of the Thai version of the coping and adaptation processing scale [dissertation]. Boston (NY): Boston College;2004. p. 1–200.

21. Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research. 1986; 35(6):382–385.

22. Kim GS. Analysis structural equation modeling. Seoul: Han-narae Publishing Co.;2010. p. 191–387.

23. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2007; 60(1):34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.

24. Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of life: The assessment, analysis and reporting of patient-reported outcomes. 3rd ed. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons;2016. p. 134–136.

25. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill;1994. p. 248–278.

26. Zhan L. Cognitive adaptation and self-consistency in hearing-impaired older persons: Testing Roy’s adaptation model. Nursing Science Quarterly. 2000; 13(2):158–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/08943180022107447.

27. Chayaput P, Roy C. Psychometric testing of the Thai ver- sion of the coping and adaptation processing scale-short form (TCAPS-SF). Thai Journal of Nursing Council. 2007; 22(3):29–39.

28. Gutiérrez López C, Veloza Gómez MDM, Moreno Fergusson ME, de Villalobos D, Mercedes M, López de Mesa C, et al. Validity and confidence level of the Spanish version instrument of Callista Roy Coping Adaptation Processing Scale. Aquichán. 2007; 7(1):54–63.

29. Park HA. Problems and issues in developing measurement scales in nursing. Journal of Nursing Query. 2005; 14(1):46–72.