An adaptation of the KidCOPE: the KidCOPE-parent (KidCOPE-P) – a parent-report measure of child coping strategies

Figures & data

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for KidCOPE-P for the complete sample and by sex.

		All children (n = 255–259)		Females (n = 117–119)		Males (n = 136–138)		Sex differences
Category	Item	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	t	df	p
Distraction	1. “Did they appear to try to forget?”	1.23	0.96	1.13	0.88	1.31	1.02	1.47	255	0.142
	2. “Did they do something, like watch TV or play, to forget?”	1.47	1.1	1.51	1.04	1.44	1.16	−0.54	252	0.59
Social withdrawal	3. “Did they appear to withdraw from others?”	0.88	0.87	0.79	0.75	0.93	0.94	1.29	253	0.197
	4. “Did they appear to keep quiet about the problem?”	1.15	1	1.09	0.95	1.19	1.04	0.77	251	0.44
Cognitive restructuring	5. “Did they appear to try to see the good side of things?”	2.45	0.89	2.56	0.85	2.37	0.91	−1.77	251	0.078
Problem-solving	6. “Did they appear to try to find solutions to make the most of the situation?”	2.31	0.86	2.43	0.83	2.21	0.87	−1.99	251	0.048*
	7. “Did they try to feel better by doing something or talking to someone about it?”	2.36	0.83	2.57	0.77	2.18	0.85	−3.77	252	<.001*
Emotional regulation	8. “Did they shout, scream, or get angry?”	1.53	1.11	1.39	1.09	1.65	1.11	1.86	252	0.064
	9. “Did they appear to try to calm themselves down?”	1.93	0.83	1.98	0.76	1.88	0.88	−0.96	253	0.339
Wishful thinking	10. “Did they appear or say they wished the problem had never happened?”	1.67	1.1	1.67	1.02	1.65	1.17	−0.09	251	0.93
	11. “Did they appear or say they wished they could make things different?”	1.6	1.01	1.58	0.94	1.61	1.07	0.27	252	0.789
Social support	12. “Did they try to feel better by connecting virtually or via smartphone with others, like family or friends?”	1.88	1.15	2.08	1.09	1.71	1.16	−2.67	253	0.008*
Resignation	13. “Did they do nothing because it appeared they felt the problem could not be sorted anyway?”	1.04	0.98	0.84	0.86	1.2	1.04	2.97	253	0.003*

Table 2. Correlations between KidCOPE-P items.

Scale	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
Item 1	–
Item 2	.63**	–
Item 3	.44**	.48**	–
Item 4	.35**	.42**	.57**	–
Item 5	−.20**	−.14*	−.19**	0.02	–
Item 6	−.25**	−.22**	−.21**	−.10	.54**	–
Item 7	−0.11	−.16*	−.58*	−.19**	.62**	.54**	–
Item 8	.32**	.26**	.35**	.29**	−.15*	−.31**	−.18**	–
Item 9	−0.08	−0.05	0.08	0.02	.23**	.33**	.32**	−0.09	–
Item 10	.24**	.26**	.33**	.16**	−0.02	0.05	0.1	.24**	.30**	–
Item 11	.16*	0.09	.23**	0.11	0.02	0.11	0.09	.14*	.22**	.67**	–
Item 12	0.09	0.06	0.01	0.04	.22**	.21**	.23**	−0.03	.15*	.12*	.27**	–
Item 13	.30**	.27**	.32**	.26**	−0.06	−.21**	−.16*	.27**	−0.07	.17**	.13*	−0.05	–

**p = .01 (two-tailed); *p = .05 (two-tailed).

Table 3. Pattern and structure matrix for PCA with Oblimin rotation of two factor of KidCOPE items.

	Pattern coefficients		Structure coefficients		Communalities
Item	1	2	1	2
3	.776		.776		.602
1	.724		.727		.535
2	.696		.698		.489
4	.595		.600		.354
8	.594		.593		.375
10	.579	.482	.557	.456	.542
13	.480		.484		.242
6	−.351	.705	−.382	.720	.642
7		.664		.674	.500
9		.613		.610	.375
5		.572		.583	.392
11	.448	.534	.424	.514	.465
12		.510		.506	.264